This was my third Clinton Global Initiative, so I have had the opportunity to watch this event evolve.

First, the idea of government/business/NGO partnerships was a new, experimental concept.  In 2006 I wrote,

Now from my admittedly limited, outsider perspective, last I knew the various innovative ideas of venture/entrepreneurial philanthropy and public/private were supposedly still in formative, developing stages – yet here it’s almost as if these had been an operational strategy for decades, all the kinks worked out, “of course this is how it’s done”

The second year, 2007, I saw that this was very rapidly becoming a norm - people accepted the idea and considered it the way things operate.  I wrote,

So last year was proof-of-concept.  And this year we can see that it worked.  All of that energy was applied, people met their commitments.  So this year is the beginning of implementation rollout.  We're seeing a scaling up, and many new commitments are being made.

In fact, for all of 2006's success, 2007's level of commitments was much, much greater.  And by 2008 the concept and process seemed almost routine.  So much was the same, in fact, that at one point I saw someone that I had not seen since the year before.  She was standing in nearly the same place as when I had last seen her, and I had the sensation that a few hours had passed.  I said that everything was so similar to the previous year that the only thing that had changed was all the women were dressed different.  (Not the men.)

This is not meant in a derogatory way, I mean that the conference proceeded like clockwork.  But at the same time, there was a difference in the energy level.  It seemed to many that it was another conference, not the new, experimental innovative event.  And probably because of the grinding primary season with his wife running for President, Bill Clinton did not have the same spark as prior years.   Also, along the lines of routinization of the conference, with the passage of time the process has also become familiar.  Writing about my early impressions, in 2006,

Except for all the security the conference is very much like any business gathering you might attend. The panels so far are very much the same, following the same format, and the panelists sitting on a stage in chairs, but not behind tables, and saying the same kinds of things you hear in panels anywhere else. And to me this is actually a surprise. Of course I didn’t know in advance what to expect of a panel of four heads of state on the stage, introduced by a former President, but it turns out that they’re just people sitting up there.

And now the idea of seeing world leaders on a panel is more routinized.  This level of transparency - world leaders on a panel answering questions rather than issuing proclamations - has been a very good thing for the world.

This is a conference about getting things done.  This was a new concept when this conference began, and the conference pioneered many techniques.  This year, according to CGI, there were 250 new commitments unveiled, valued at $8 billion to improve 158 million lives.  From a press release:

·       25 million children will have access to new or improved school feeding programs.

·       16 million children will participate in deworming programs.

·       The emission of 44 million metric tons of CO2 will be avoided.

·       Enough clean energy will be created to power the equivalent of 7 million homes in the United States.

·       75 million people will have first-time access to health care or access to improved health care.

·       $375 million will be raised to develop new vaccines and conduct medical research.

·       Over 1 billion liters of safe drinking water will be distributed.

·       50 million people will have access to mobile financial services.

·       More than $400 million will be raised for investment and credit for small and medium sized enterprises in the developing world.

This represents considerable accomplishment.

Now, to some criticisms.  There has always been a certain amount of cynicism about the business commitments here.  In 2006 I wrote that I overheard,"This is more about publicity for the people involved, things that could be done in a press release."  And this year I heard even more, with accusations of "greenwashing."  (For example, Coca Cola's commitment that all of their water releases will "support aquatic life" by 2010 begs the question, what they have been releasing into the environment for decades and at what cost to the rest of us?)

Last year I wrote about the number of people asking, Shouldn't Governments Be Doing This?  And in fact,

President Clinton was aware of these concerns and addressed them at the closing session.

He said that there is no question that these are problems that require a public response – a government response.  For example, it was governments that set up the regulatory processes that kept capitalism from destroying itself.  Only governments can raise the kind of funding that will really address the major challenges.  "Government have to do more because there's more money there."  And many of these problems are so big that we need governments working together. 

(An aside -- Last year: "it was governments that set up the regulatory processes that kept capitalism from destroying itself."  This year: Yeah, well maybe not so much.)

And this year I asked, in Why Do You Give?

... attracting philanthropic partnerships to support an organization's efforts  ... recognizes that governments are starved of resources but it does not address the root causes of this problem.  Shouldn't philanthropy help get to the deeper roots of core problems, like governments being starved of resources even while a very few who control those businesses become ever wealthier? 

To what extent is the Clinton Global Initiative made necessary by the failings of our governmental institutions to address the needs of the people they are supposed to serve?  I write this in the shadow of the world financal crisis -- how much more urgent will this question be next year?

Last year at CGI I met Dr. Sakena Yacoobi of the Afghan Institute of Learning.  This year I was able to spend a few minutes with her and want to say a few words about her organization.

The Afghan Institute of Learning is managed by women, providing health and education services to Afghan women and children.  From their brochure:

"We believe that educated people, especially educated women and girls, are the key to a peaceful and prosperous future for Afghanistan.  With that in mind, we work to improve the education and health of women and children, to empower them with training and to foster self-reliance."

Please take a moment to visit their website and get to know what the organization is accomplishing for the Afghan people.

This morning's plenary was titled, The Global Impact of Rural Innovation.  Participants were Jacques Aigrain of Swiss Re, Wangari Muta Maathai of Kenya's Green Belt Movement, Elsie Meeks of First Nations Oweesta Corporation, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, Mohammad Yunus of Grameen Bank and moderated by Steve Gunderson of the Council on Foundations.

The discussion was about how to address the poverty, education, economic development and other vital challenges in areas of rural poverty.  All of the people involved have done a great deal to help bring assistance to people.  But there was a point in the discussion where I started to react in a very negative way to what they were saying.  I'm hoping I can stimulate some discussion here of the things that are bothering me.

My trouble began when Muhammed Yunnis was talking about how his micro lending ideas mean that philanthropy can "invest" in ways that bring a greater "return" than traditional models of giving.  He says that a dollar, given as a business, can become perpetual and circulate forever.  The dollar comes back and can be given again.  He said that you can see see philanthropy that way. he doesn't expect a profit from his philanthropic investment but using a business model it can be extended.

Somewhere in there Wangari Muta Maathi was talking about bringing investment dollars to Kenya, and it occurred to me that she has adopted the language of investment bankers.  But of course she needs to do that for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: it's where the money is. 

Introducing the language of business into philanthropic culture might be necessary -- because business is where the money is.  So attracting philanthropic partnerships to support an organization's efforts requires adapting to the culture and therefore the language of the money.  It recognizes that governments are starved of resources but it does not address the root causes of this problem.  Shouldn't philanthropy help get to the deeper roots of core problems, like governments being starved of resources even while a very few who control those businesses become ever wealthier? 

At some point in this discussion Rick Warren used the old line about giving someone a fish he (or she) eats for a day but he adds do not just teach someone how to fish but teach how to sell a fish.  Then you start to create a market economy.  Through local churches his organization teaches people how to set up a market economy.  He said that just giving to the poor makes them dependent.

I started thinking about this.  It kind of sounds like he thinks of people as some kind of animal, like squirrels.  You start giving a squirrel food and it might become dependent.  But people?  Don't people have brains and ambition and independence and the power to decide to better themselves?  Doesn't this view deny the power of the human spirit?  And doesn't it place philanthropy in some kind of parental role instead of a partnering role?

So then I realized what was bothering me about what Yunus was saying.  His promise of a perpetual dollar, where you can "invest" a philanthropic dollar and it will just give again and again and again, seems to me to create an unrealistic expectation about giving.  I fear that using this kind of language for the idea of giving could make philanthropists dependent.

All of this it begs the question: why do you give?  Is giving an "investment" for which one should expect a "return?" Or is that something else?  Of course you want your work to be effective, so metrics and follow-up are important.  But "invest" and "return?"  Do those words reflect giving that comes from a love and respect for fellow humanity and the hope to alleviate suffering?  Does the language of business change the meaning and value to the giver of the gift?  I wonder if seeing people as economic units in a market diminishes their humanity?

Leave a comment.

OK, by popular demand I will post photos of John McCain addressing CGI.  And a bonus, Barack Obama via satellite.

Here is John McCain:

Here is another:

Here is Barack Obama:

And a bonus photo:

Continuing a Social Edge Clinton Global Initiative blog annual tradition is this year's Celebrity Education Commitment Press Conference photo:

Seated is Drew Barrymore (I apologize that I was unable to catch the names of the others) helping announce a $450 milliom "mega-commitment" for international school feeding and school-based deworming programs.

This is a serious subject with serious money and will help up to 10 million children in 19 countries in the first year.

(By the way, you almost got John McCain for this year's photo.)

I have been asking around, trying to get a sense of how the Wall Street financial crisis is affecting the funding of non-profits/NGOs attending this conference.

What I am hearing is that the economic crisis -- or at least fear of it -- is affecting funding and in some cases significantly.  But here's the hitch: Almost every conversation I have had except one was about how the funders are afraid that the economy is getting worse and that is why they are cutting back.  Only once was I told that the an organization's primary funder had cut back because of necessity from actual financial difficulties.  So it appears that fear that the economy is turning down is causing many funders to cut back.  (Perhaps this is to preserve capital? -- please discuss this in the comments.)

Of course, actual economic stress hits people at the lower end of the ladder or in poorer and less developed regions much harder than it hits the rest of the population.  These are the people and organizations that the funding institutions and individuals are committed to serve.  And it is the nature of philanthropy that even in the worst of downturns the funders will not suffer to the degree that to poorest will.

Since an economic downturn brings with it a much greater need on the part of the recipients of the world's philanthropy, shouldn't fears that this is coming trigger a greater committment of assistance rather than cutbacks?  A metaphor might be helping purchase plywood and tape to cover store windows before a hurricane hits.

Discuss.

It occurs to me that this may be my third CGI, but it alo might be your first.  So maybe I should back up and start with some basics about what is going on here.

After leaving office Bill Clinton started the Clinton Foundation, engaging in global philanthropy.  He would go to global leadership conferences like Davos.  While these are great events that get leaders together to talk about the state of the world, they are talk conferences not DO conferences.  So Clinton decided to start a conference based on actually making things happen.

The way the Clinton Global Initiative is structured is designed to bring together world leaders, business leaders, leaders of NGOs and philanthropists in an environment that encourages action.  The conference is held in New York at the same time as the UN General assembly, which means many world leaders are in town.  Clinton uses his prestige to get many of those leaders to come to the conference, which is then a draw to attract major business leaders and philanthropists.  These people pay a significant sum to attend and spend three days in the presence of Bill Clinton and ... each other.

The conference theme is commitment.  On top of the significant fee everyone who attends is asked to make a commitment for the following year, and to get it done.  If they do not make good on their commitment they are not invited back which in this crowd can be a big deal.  Status is very much in use as a motivator in the "getting things done" structure of this effort.

The conference consists of plenary sessions and working group sessions.  The plenaries are in the main ballroom, with significant speakers.  Then the conference breaks up into four workgroup sessions on the topics the conference is covering.

I'm looking at the four screens right now and see Madeline albright on a panel in a Poverty Alleviation workgoup session.  On the next screen is General Wesley Clark on a panel in an Energy and Climate Change workgroup.  Gene Sperling is addressing the Education workgroup andI think thast is the President of Mexico on a panel in the Global Health workgroup.  The rest of the panelists in each group is of a similar stature in their field.

These workgroups have panel sessions to start them, discussing the problems tbhat the particular workshop addresses.  (Example: Climate is currently discussing Renewables Revolution.)  Then the workgroup breaks out to smaller groups around table that brainstorm solutions to the problems discussed.  At the end of the session there are reports on what the tables came up with and more panel.

At any time during the conference attendees are expected to go to a "Commitment Table" and make their commitment.    An example of a commitment from a past year is one person pledged the year and a million dollars do inoculate all the children in a province of Honduras against Hepatitis B.  This means the infrastructure for this will be in place - clinics, personel, supplies, etc. so the children can also be inoculated against other diseases.  And the project is scalable, expanding into neighboring provinces in following years.

At the first session of the conference President Clinton brings a few significant commitment makers up to the stage for recognition, to kick things off and set the tone.  Then periodically during the conference he brings others to the stage to hilite and explain their commitments.  This keeps people thinking aobut the commitments they will make and reinforces the action nature of the conference.

In addition to this atmosphere of problem-solving this is a tremendous networking opportunity, with NGO leaders meeting up and partnering with potential donors and govvernment leaders.

And finally, NGOs, governments and businesses partnering was a relatively unexplored concept back when CGI started.  CGI helped push that model along, provided proof of concept, scaled it up and has since established this as an effective way to get things done.

I am in the main ballroom.  John McCain just spoke.  It was moving and I have decided to suspend my blogging until the financial crisis has been solved.

...

OK, seriously, there is a panel starting with Tom Brokaw, T. Boone Pickens, Gavin Newsom, Shimon Peres and a woman whose name I missed and will get later.  Barack Obama will address the event after the panel.  I will write a summary of everything after this.

Bill Clinton and Bill Gates are having a conversation about their philanthropy.  Clinton is asking an interesting question.  In finding ways to fight AIDS we are met with failure after failure.  SO this shows the need to be willing to fund failure.  It is hard to find the answers to this problem, and you have to try and try, and always fail until you find the keys - which we have not yet found after all this time.

Gates thinks telling success stories helps keep the energy going.  Telling a balanced story, sharing successes, talking about the failures, it has always been tough.  Congress just a few months ago made a commitment to keep increasing the funds - we'll see if that hapens with the new financial problem...  It is tricky, but the trajectory is good.

What do you think?  So many problems are very hard to solve.  How do you keep the effort going?

From John McCain (I'll have sourcing soon):

"Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me."

Tomorrow John McCain addresses CGI at 9am at the beginning of the morning plenary session.  Barack Obama addresses the convention at the end of the session.  This will be an interesting day.

This is my third CGI.  While I was able to comprehensively cover the opening plenary, I took notes during the event and typed the post into the computer afterwards while four of the working sessions and a press conference with Lance Armstrong were occuring.  (I am now in the press room, with four large screens, one to cover each of the working sessions, and earphones that I can switch to hear any one of them.) So I had to miss those.  I think my role here has to be to cover what I can and give a sense of the meaning of the overall event.  I'll try to stick to that plan while here.

First impression, there is no sense at all that there is a financial crisis occurring on Wall Street.  None.  I have not seen or felt this anywhere in New York since I arrived.  People I have talked to in NY seem to feel like this is something that we are being presented with by the television more than something that is occurring in their lives.  I'm hearing more about the bailout plan than about anyone being affected by a crisis.  If anything, the audience reaction when Bono was talking about this crisis seemed to me to agree with this.  But take that with a grain of salt please, I can't know what the people in the room were thinking.

Next impression, there is a lot more press here than last year - so much that it is difficult to get a seat in the press room.  Last year there were maybe a third of the numbers of press here.  I don't know what the significance of this is.  Angelina and Brad aren't even here this year.

Next impression: in the short aount of time I have spent walking around where the members are I am not getting a strong sense of member ego this year.  Last year there were a lot of Important People and others reacting to the presence of Important People.  This year the same people seem like regular people.  I'm not hearing comments of, "there goes so-and-so."  Is that a sign of maturity of the event?  I don't think it is just me.  What am I getting at?  I don't kow.  I am going to write about the evolution of CGI in another post.

President Clinton opened the Wednesday morning opening plenary session, talking about current events (and the massive traffic jam in Manhattan because of street closures for the UN General Assembly).  Regarding the effect of the Wall Street situation: "The financial crisis is not a reason to walk away from our committments, instead it is a compelling reason to meet them."

He talked aobut how much the CGI has accomplished ($30 billion in committments, how many people helped, I'll see if I can find a press announcement with the numbers) and introduced the morning plenary speakers.

Then he hilighted some commitments, like Areva and Duke Energy CEOs commitment to avoid 4 million tons of CO2 emmissions by 2014 and create green-collar jobs by building new wood biomass power plants.

Lance Armstrong talked about an $8 million, 5-year commitment to cancer survivors and to raise cancer awareness. He will also start racing bicycles again in "a campaign to spread the word, raise awareness and hopefully save lives."

Mayor Bloomberg talked about how he managed to get a smoking ban in public places, bars, restaraunts, etc., in New York City.  Initially it was proposed tho cost revenue, but they did it anyway.

Then the panel came out:  Queen Rania of Jordan, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, Bono of U2, Neville Isdell of Coca Cola and Al Gore.  I'm sorry that I am sitting way at the side and cannot get pictures for you.

(President Karzai of Afghanistan walked by...)

Queen Rania talked about her effort to build public/private partnerships to help Jordan's schools.  The responsibility to educate their children cuts through the sectors and now they have forty-five companies, ifteen NGOs all working on schools along with their government. So far they have imrproved four hundred schools, about half o fthe goal.  Everyone being involved brings everyone a stake and ownership of the process.

President Johnson-Sirleaf spoke of the transformation of Liberia since the civil strife she was elected to end.  They have been attracting investment, private capital and organizing resources for partnerships.  They have been building hotels and paying off the national debt.

Isdell of Coca Cloa talked about investing in Africa and opportunities in emerging countries.  He said that all of Coca Cola's wastewater will go back in a form that supports aquatic life by 2010.  (I will post some comments on this later.)

Bono started by mentioning the huge Wall Street bailout proposal.  "I assume these people know what they're doing."  This drew laughter from the audience.  He said they can find $700 billion for a bailout on less than a week's notice but in all this time the entire world has not been able to find the money to fight poverty and AIDs.  While we are fighting bankruptcy here, "there is also a moral bankruptcy".  The crow applauds.

Bono also talked about the world's current low opinion of America, but that we all have a lot at stake in the idea of America.

Bill Clinton introduced Al Gore, saying that if Gore has been president all the extra money that was floating around after the stock crash looking for investments would have gone into green invetment instead of creating a housing bubble.

Al Gore talked about how this economic crisis came about from a sudden collapse of an assumption.  Everyone assumed that the housing prices would keep going up, that the subprime loans were OK, etc. and then suddenly things becan to unravel.  Now people are saying that we should have and could have prevented this.

Now the world is stting on several trillion dollars of subprime carbon assets.  The wold is losing ground.  This is also heading for a sudden collapse.

Stop burning coal.  Coal and oil companies have spent $500 million just this year to convince people there is such a thing as "clean coal."  But clean coal does not exist.  There are not even any demonstration plants -- not even any blueprints.

We need a new global energy infrastructure based on fuel that is free: wind and solar.

Stop saying "don't worry about it" like Wall Street did.

The wealth and power of the oil and coal lobby is overwhelming free debate.

We should tax what we burn not what we earn - replace the payroll tax (Social Security) with a carbon tax.

Companies funding the global warming deniers who are trying to convince people that global warming is a hoax are guilty of a form of stock fraud and state attorneys general should be looking into this. (Because obviously the current Justice Department won't.)

Gore called for young people concerned aut global warming to engage in a campaign of civil disobedience to prevent the consrtruction of any new coal power plants.

Finally we had a surprise appearance by George H.W. Bush, talking about a joint effort with Bill Clinton to raise funds to help people along the Gulf Coast hit by hurricanes.

This is Wednesday morning, about eight.  (Five my time.)  I am at a press briefing in the press room at the 2008 Clinton Global Initiative.  (Notice: I will hereby use CGI from now on.)  This is just a logistics briefing, questions about schedules, etc.  This is my third year so I'm writing this instead.

Yesterday I made my way to the CGI site to get my press credentials and then from the lobby wrote a post about the day.  The blogging software seems to have ate the post and that is too bad because it was brilliant.  Just brilliant.  Possibly the best thing I have ever written.  (I hope the post doesn't show up now.)  I'll see what I can remember.

Yesterday I started by taking a subway down to Wall Street and the NYSE building, hoping a few crumbs of the $700,000,000,000 bailout request might fall off a truck or something.  Actually I was looking for people jumping off of buildings, or maybe riots in the streets.  But things seemed calm -- too calm -- suspiciously calm -- and I found a nearby Starbucks to sit and get some work done.  Then I made my way up to the Sheraton where they are holding the CGI.

At the Sheraton they had the CGI Exchange which was an Expo of organizations showing what they do.  Instead of trade show booths they each had table space.  The CGI "members" were walking around learning about the organizations.  Lots of the faces were familiar.  If the faces weren't familiar many of the badge names were.  Michael Douglas doesn't look the same as in the movies.  Madeline Albright walked by...

So at 10am the opening plenary begins, titled: A Call To Action.

"The opening plenary session will engage a divderse group of world leaders in an actio-oriented discussion of the major challenges that CGI is focusing on this year: education, energy & climate change, global health, and poverty alleviation. This session will explore the transformative capacity of business, government and NGOs to collaboratively develop and implement sustainable solutions."

Special Remarks Participants: Lance Armstrong, Bill Clinton, Her Majesty Rania Al-Abdullah, Bono, Al Gore, E. Neville Isdell, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

More later...

The following are among those who have confirmed their attendance at the 2008 CGI Annual Meeting: Queen Rania Al-Abdullah (Jordan), Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Prime Minister Gordon Brown (UK), President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa (Mexico), President Leonel Fernández (Dominican Republic), President Armando Guebuza (Mozambique), President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (Liberia), President Paul Kagame (Rwanda), President Hamid Karzai (Afghanistan), President Shimon Peres (Israel), Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (Australia), President Jalal Talabani (Iraq), former Prime Minister Tony Blair (UK), former President Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), former Vice President Al Gore (United States), Senator John McCain (Arizona), Senator Barack Obama (Illinois), Mayor Bill White (Houston), former Senator Bill Frist (Tennessee), Jacques Aigrain (Swiss Re), Muhammad Ali (Athletes for Hope), Bradbury Anderson (Best Buy), Lance Armstrong (Lance Armstrong Foundation), Craig Barrett (Intel), Maria Bartiromo (CNBC), Bono (ONE), Tom Brokaw (NBC News), Lester Brown (Earth Policy Institute), John Chambers (Cisco), Peter Chernin (News Corporation), Former Army General Wesley Clark (UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations; Emergya Wind Technologies, BV), Ian Davis (McKinsey & Company), Paul Farmer (Partners in Health), Bob Geldof, David Gergen (Harvard University), Neville Isdell (The Coca-Cola Company), Wyclef Jean (Yéle Haiti), Ashley Judd, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Riverkeeper Alliance; NRDC), Anne Lauvergeon (Areva), Wangari Maathai (Green Belt Movement, Kenya), Amre Moussa (League of Arab States), Dikembe Mutombo (Dikembe Mutombo Foundation), R.K. Pachauri (TERI), T. Boone Pickens (BP Capital), Victor Pinchuk (The Victor Pinchuk Foundation), Carl Pope (Sierra Club), Judith Rodin (Rockefeller Foundation), Robert Rubin (Citi), Joseph Saunders (Visa Inc), Josette Sheeran (World Food Programme), Dominique Strauss-Kahn (IMF), Barbara Streisand (The Streisand Foundation), Myron Ullman (J.C. Penny's), Ann Veneman (UNICEF), and Muhammad Yunus (Grameen Bank).