CC BY
16
A Tale of Two Institutions. New Figures, New Opportunities
M. Larionova, M. Rakhmangulov
Marina Larionova - Dr. of Political Science, Head of the International Organisations Research Institute, University -Higher School of Economics; Head of International Programmes, National Training Foundation; E-mail: mlarionova@hse. ru, larionova@ntf.ru
Mark Rakhmangulov - Deputy Director of the G8 Research Centre of the International Organisations Research Institute of the University - Higher School of Economics; E-mail: MRakhmangulov@hse.ru
Key words: G8, G20, international development assistance, cooperation, labor division, multilateral international institutions, commitments, compliance performance, growth
The paper analyses efforts made by the G8 and G20 in the sphere of international development assistance. The assessment of the G8 and G20 agendas on development, the capabilities of two institutions to respond to and address the changes occurring in global agenda for development is implemented on the basis of the commitments made and compliance performance. The commitments database covers the G8 pledges made during the period of 1975-2009, and the G20 commitments on development made since its first summit in 2008. The paper examines the capacities for cooperation of two institutions and possible division of labor between them. Given the forthcoming chairmanship of Russia in the G8 summitry in 2014, the recommendations presented aim to define priorities for the agenda and facilitate the promotion of Russia's national interests in international development assistance at the G8 forum.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us"
Charles Dickens. A Tale of Two Cities
We live in a time of choices. Our individual and collective choices may define our future: it can be the worst of times, the age of foolishness, unbelief and darkness or the age of wisdom, belief and light. Developed and emerging economies, and institutions that unite them are responsible for the modern history. The old and the new institutions, the "new old institutions". An old institution, G7/ G8, has been one of the vital elements of global governance since the mid-1970-s. Up to 2008 the G8 took central place in the international relations system influencing economic, social and political processes through the decisions made at the summits and mechanisms chosen to implement them. Since the economic and food crises the architecture of global governance has been changing more rapidly than ever before. The G20 Finance Ministers founded in 1999 by the G8 was reestablished at the level of heads of states in 2008. For the first time G20 leaders met at the Washington summit in November 2008, the London summit in April 2009 essentially broadened the G20 agenda. The Pittsburgh summit in September 2009 became the turning point of the G20 institutionalization process declaring the G20 as the premier forum for its members' economic cooperation [1]. At the Toron-
to summit in 2010 the G20 started elaboration of its own development agenda, establishing a Working Group on Development. Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth and Multi-Year Action Plan on Development were adopted at the Seoul Summit in November 2010.
The G8 is often criticized for being out-of-date, ineffective and illegitimate in numerous discussions on global governance reform, and the G20 is viewed as its authoritative successor. Indeed, the G8 collective commitments and actions do not live up to the expectations of the world community. In the last decade G8 has been facing both criticism and increasing demand from nongovernmental organizations, mass media and partner-countries. The list of these demands is equivalent to the scale of the problems [2].
So what is the result of G8 work in the sphere of development by 2010? What has the G8 done to improve the world? How effective were the collective efforts of G8 members for development assistance?
To respond to these questions in a weighted way, a few aspects should be analyzed. First, what is the place of assistance to developing countries in the G8 agenda. Second, how the G8 development agenda has been changing with global socio-economic shifts and is the G8 capable to address new challenges, still retaining commitment to the unsettled issues. Third, how effectively the G8 can assist developing countries in their integration into global processes and mechanisms of global governance as only integration can ensure their social development and economic growth. Fourth, the litmus test of effectiveness is how the
G8 complies with the commitments made. Finally, can the G8 disappear without an adverse affect for development, transferring the responsibility to another institution, for example, the G20.
To answer the aforementioned questions analysis of all G7/G8 summit documents and the commitments made at the summits has been carried out. The set of G7/G8 development commitments1 from 1975 to 2010 was included into the study [3]. The results of monitoring G7/G8 compliance with the commitments made at the summits in 1996-2009 were used to inform the study of the G8 compliance performance.2
Measures aimed at integrating developing countries in global social-economic processes and international governance mechanisms were included into the data set alongside with the decisions on international development assistance.
Development assistance issues have been part of the G7/G8 agenda since the institution establishment. The first collective development assistance commitment was made by the G6 heads of states and governments in the Declaration of Rambouillet "early practical action is needed to assist the developing countries. Accordingly, we will play our part, through the IMF and other appropriate international fora, in making urgent improvements in international arrangements for the stabilization of the export earnings of developing countries and in measures to assist them in financing their deficits. In this context, priority should be given to the poorest developing countries" [4]. 35 years passed, development assistance problems are still on the table and their importance is growing, multilateral institutions' and donor countries' attention towards development assistance and integration of developing and the least developed countries into international trade, financial and economic processes is increasing. In the ever more complicated architecture of international organizations, donors and partner countries the G7, then the G8 and in the last years the G20 are getting more and more important. One evidence of that is the share of G7/G8 accumulated development assistance commitments in all G7/G8 commitments of 31.27 percent: 1097 out of 3508 (Table 1).
1 According to the methodology of the University of Toronto G8 Research Group "Commitment is a distinct, specific, identifiable, measurable, collectively agreed, future-oriented and publicly expressed statements of intent, promise or undertaking by leaders that they will take future action to meet or adjust to an identified target".
2 Monitoring has been carried out by the University of Toronto G8 Research Group since 1996. URL: http://www. g8.utoronto.ca/evaluations/index.html (date of access: 12.12.2010).
Although development assistance issues were consistently part of the agenda at the summits, it was in 1998 when the share of development commitments in all commitments exceeded 30 percent. The average number of development commitments from 1975 to 2010 is 31. Before
2000 (a year when the Millennium Development Goals were adopted) and a substantial increase of G8 decisions on development assistance which followed, the highest share of development commitments was registered during the presidencies of the UK (1977, 1984, 1998), Germany (1985, 1999) and Canada (1981, 1995) (Fig. 1).
The challenges of international cooperation for development first defined in the Programme for international economic cooperation "United Nations Development Decade" adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 1715 (XVI) on 19 December 1961, are not still met. Each decade, summing up what has been achieved and what has not, UN member-states amend their goals.
During the second, third and fourth UN development decades, the average share of development commitments in all the G7 commitments was less than 20 percent. In the late 1990-s G8 development agenda substantially expanded. The G8 addresses the challenges of the new century, responds on the UN Millennium declaration, focusing more attention on development issues. From
2001 to 2010 the average share of development commitments doubled as compared to the previous period (Table 3).
At the two summits in Genoa and Kananaskis following the UN Millennium declaration adoption the share of development commitments in all G8 commitments peaked, reaching 59 percent during the Italian presidency. About 70 percent of all decisions made at the Canadian summit (the largest number of development commitments in the G7/ G8 history - 131) were directed towards help to African countries. The commitments include a wide range of issues and priorities. The G8 Africa Action Plan [5] defines priority directions of the New global partnership and includes promotion of peace, disarmament and security, strengthening governance, fostering economic growth and sustainable development through trade and investment, promoting education for all, improving health, especially maternal and child health, and confronting HIV/AIDS. Many commitments also concern increasing agricultural productivity, and debt relief as a condition for development.
In the following period, except 2003, marked by the G8 member countries division over the war in Iraq and decrease after the high level of intensity of development priority in 2001-2002, the number
Table 1. Number G8 commitments by sector
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Health 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Integration 2 1 3 2 1 0 3 0 4 4 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 3 3 3 10
Food security and agriculture 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Economic growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1
Good governance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
ODA 0 0 3 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Partnership for development 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1
Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
Peace and security 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Environment protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
Trade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Energy 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Humanitarian aid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Gender equality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Development commitments 2 2 6 3 7 4 9 4 8 7 7 6 4 5 4 13 5 5 6 4 17
All commitments 14 7 29 35 34 55 40 23 38 31 24 39 53 27 61 78 53 41 29 53 78
Share of development commitments, % 14.29 28.57 20.69 8.571 20.59 7.273 22.5 17.39 21.05 22.58 29.17 15.38 7.547 18.52 6.557 16.67 9.434 12.2 20.69 7.547 21.79
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Health 0 0 3 0 3 1 21 5 1 12 39 38 25 18 12 178
Integration 13 10 7 3 3 5 19 2 21 7 2 2 1 2 0 146
Food security and agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 13 34 3 1 1 27 15 2 121
Economic growth 1 4 3 1 4 4 13 0 35 6 1 10 6 2 0 106
Good governance 0 1 2 1 1 9 19 2 4 18 7 22 3 13 3 106
ODA 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 1 0 7 0 3 5 6 1 62
Partnership for development 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 11 11 19 2 60
Education 0 0 1 0 1 4 9 0 11 4 10 5 9 2 0 56
Debt relief 4 0 2 4 9 3 6 2 4 4 1 0 1 1 0 52
Peace and security 0 1 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 11 3 14 3 8 4 55
Environment protection 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 12 10 9 1 50
Trade 1 0 0 1 0 1 14 3 2 2 3 8 5 1 2 43
Energy 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 14 3 1 8 0 40
Humanitarian aid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 2 2 14
Gender equality 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 7
Development commitments 24 19 22 15 28 34 131 29 113 94 84 132 108 107 29 1097
All commitments 128 145 73 46 105 58 187 206 253 212 317 329 280 254 73 3508
Share of development commitments, % 18.75 13.1 30.14 32.61 26.67 58.62 70.05 14.08 44.66 44.34 26.50 40.12 38.57 42.13 39.73 31.27
Table 2. Share of G8 commitments by sector in all development commitments, %
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Health 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Integration 100 50 50 66.67 14.29 0 33.33 0 50 57.14 14.29 16.67 0 20 25 21.43 0 60 50 75 76.47 54.17
Food security and agriculture 0 0 0 0 28.57 0 11.11 0 0 0 85.71 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Economic growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.11 25 25 28.57 0 33.33 25 0 25 14.29 0 20 16.67 25 5.88 4.17
Good governance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.67 0 0 0
ODA 0 0 50 33.33 28.57 75 33.33 50 12.5 14.29 0 50 25 20 0 0 0 20 16.67 0 0 8.33
Partnership for development 0 0 0 0 0 25 11.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.38 20 0 0 0 5.88 8.33
Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 0 0 0 50 20 50 38.46 0 0 0 0 0 16.67
Peace and security 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.14 0 0 0 0 5.88 0
Environment protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 7.69 80 0 0 0 0 0
Trade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.17
Energy 0 50 0 0 28.57 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.17
Humanitarian aid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.38 0 0 0 0 5.88 0
Gender equality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Share. all years Share in 2008-10
Health 0 14 0 10.71 2.94 15.33 17.24 1 12 45.35 27.74 22.94 17 41.38 16.23 22.54
Integration 53 32 20 10.71 14.71 14 6.9 18 7 2.33 1.46 0.92 2 0 13.31 1.23
Food security and agriculture 0 0 0 0 2.941 10 44.83 30 3 1.16 0.73 24.77 14 6.9 11.03 18.03
Economic growth 21 14 7 14.29 11.76 9 0 31 6 1.16 7.3 5.5 2 0 9.66 3.28
Good governance 5.3 9 7 3.57 26.47 14 6.9 4 18 8.14 16.06 2.75 12 10.34 9.66 7.79
ODA 11 9 20 14.29 2.94 1 3.45 0 7 0.00 2.19 4.59 6 3.45 5.65 4.92
Partnership for development 5.3 5 0 3.57 2.94 1 0 1 1 1.16 8.03 10.09 17 6.9 5.47 13.11
Education 0 5 0 3.57 11.76 7 0 10 4 11.63 3.65 8.26 2 0 5.1 4.51
Debt relief 0 9 27 32.14 8.82 4 6.9 4 4 1.16 0 0.92 1 0 4.74 0.82
Peace and security 5.3 5 0 3.57 0 11 0 1 17 5.81 13.87 3.67 9 13.79 5.01 6.15
Environment protection 0 0 13 0 11.76 0 0 0 6 0.00 8.76 9.17 8 3.45 4.56 8.2
Trade 0 0 7 0 2.94 10.22 10.34 2 2 3.49 5.84 4.59 1 6.9 3.92 3.28
Energy 0 0 0 3.57 0 0 3.45 0 7 16.28 2.19 0.92 7 0 3.65 3.69
Humanitarian aid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2.33 0.73 0 2 6.9 1.28 1.64
Gender equality 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.46 0.92 1 0 0.64 0.82
-»- All commitments —Development commitments —Share % (right scale)
Fig. 1. G8 commitments on development assistance
Table 3. G8 development commitments by periods
Periods Average number of development commitments Average share of development commitments in all commitments, %
All G8 summits (1975-2010) 30 24.70
Second UN Development Decade (1971-1980) 4 16.66
Third UN Development Decade (19811990) 7 17.74
Fourth UN Development Decade (1991-2000) 15 19.29
Before MDG (1975-2000) 9 18.09
After MDG (2001-2010) 92 41.88
of decisions on cooperation for development is high. Even in 2006 during the presidency of Russia which was still in the process of forming its development assistance strategy, the share of commitments was 27 percent with the majority related to three Russia's priorities, namely, health (45 percent), energy (16 percent) and education (12 percent) (Table 2).
The number of development commitments made at the 2010 Muskoka summit was the lowest in the last seven years, but given the laconic documents adopted at the summit and the overall low number commitments, the share of develop-
ment commitments was close to the average for the decade (39.73 percent).
Thus, dynamics of development issues in the G8 agenda has been increasing in the last decade.
In the G8 documents from 1998 to 2010 development is leading by number and share of symbols (Fig. 2) with 27.75 percent of all symbols in G8 documents is devoted to the priority. Other priorities are well behind with political issues accounting for 17.07 percent, Security (11.25 percent), Economy (10.47 percent) and Finance (8.46 percent).
Development Political Issues Security Economy Finance
Environment/Climate Change Energy Trade
Science, IT, Education, Innovations Corruption Other
Crisis Management
2.81 2.68 2.61
¡2.29
10.76
11.25
10.47
¡.46
7.07 6.79
17.07
10
15
20
27.75
25
30
Fig. 2. G8 priorities in 1998 - 2010, average share of symbols, %
Analysis of commitments shows that over the course of the G8 cycle the number of issues related to development has been increasing, their content has been changing, decisions are being amended and their essence redefined. Substantive changes are observed within the development sphere. For the purpose of analysis of development commitments 15 spheres were singled out:
- Education;
- Health;
- Gender equality;
- Environment protection;
- Partnership for development;
- Energy;
- Official development assistance (ODA);
- Food security and agriculture;
- Peace and security;
- Humanitarian aid;
- Economic growth;
- Trade;
- Good governance;
- Debt relief;
- Integration.
Dynamics of collective commitments formation differs by spheres. Emergence of new priorities on the agenda is due to the G8 building-up efforts in response to new challenges or search for new instruments of development assistance. Increase of health and education commitments share in the last decade is related to recognition that a substantial shift is needed in these key goals with the Millennium Declaration adoption. In the late 1990-s the goals of resource mobilization for ensuring education for all, reducing maternal and child mortality, fight with infectious diseases were set as priorities in the OECD strategy "Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development
Co-operation" [6]. The strategy was adopted at the OECD member-states ministers meeting and by a G7 summit. The document laid down the foundation of "a new global partnership with developing countries and for strengthening cooperation for achieving results". The number of G7 commitments in the sphere of education for development considerably increased.
The share of the G8 commitments on health is the highest (more than 16 percent). The majority of these commitments have been made from 2000 to 2010. Substantial contribution to the health decisions agreement was made by the UK (1998) and Japan (2000), which pioneered this area of cooperation in the G8. In the subsequent years except 2001, 2003 and 2004 health has been a permanent priority. In 2006 during the Russian G8 presidency its share was 45 percent of all summit commitments. In the subsequent period a substantial increase of health-related issues presence is observed as compared to the period of the establishment of cooperation on health. It is confirmed by dynamics of references to the issue in the summit documents from 1998 to 2009 (Table 4).
Table 4. Health priority, number of mentions
Health
LO
o 0) o
(B cn
39
0> O
(Ü o
£ 0 < eg
23
o eg
O 05
145
0> O
e9
12
On the gender equality issues interconnection with the Millennium Development Goals is prominent. There were no commitments on this sphere
5
^^ Numher i i Average number » Share (right scale) - Average share (right scale)
Fig. 3. G8 commitments on education
42 j 40-38 36 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 __ 16--14-l 12-10-8 6 4 2 0
T 50 -- 45
/ 40
35
30 -- 25 20 15 10 I 5 0
LOCDr-^OOOiOT-CgcO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CgcO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CgcO-^tLnCDr^OOaiO r^r^r^r^r-^ooooooooooooooooooooaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiooooooooooT-
T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-rgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgCg
Number
Average number
Share (right scale) - Average share (right scale)
Fig. 4.
G8 commitments on health
in the G8 documents before 2002. The Africa Action Plan includes commitments on promotion of gender equality in education, access to new agriculture technologies, land rights and credits. Reproductive health, protection from violence and access to education have become permanent priorities from 2007 to 2009.
Issues of assistance to developing countries in overcoming climate change consequences entered the agenda in 1988. Since the beginning of 1980-s international community attention to environmental problems has been increasing. In 1988
UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 43/53, calling for protection of global climate for present and future generations [7]. In the same year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created. In 1990 IPCC published the First Assessment Report which emphasised the reality of climate change threat. The second world conference on climate in 1990 basing on this report called for signing of an international treaty in this sphere. Work on the convention started within the Intergovernmental negotiating committee under UN General Assembly decision (Resolution
4 -T
3 --
2 --
1 -
t 2.5
2
1.5
1
-- 0.5
J1J1JJ1J1JJ1J1ilJ1JilJ1JilJ1JJJ1J1JJ1J1Jl
LOCDr-^OOOiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiO
05 05 05 05 05OTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOT05050505050505050505000000000 T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-Cgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg
Number
Average number
Share (right scale) - Average share (right scale)
0
0
Fig. 5. G8 commitments on gender equality
45/212). The committee convened for the first time in February 1991 and in May 1992 it approved a draft Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In June 1992 the Convention was open for signing and entered into force in March 1994. In December 1997 after two years of negotiations (1995-1997) the third UNFCCC conference adopted the Kyoto protocol to the Convention, which set legally binding provisions on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Dynamics of G7/G8 commitments on environment protection assistance can be explained by these historic events. The first such commitment made in 1988 reflected the need for assessment of environmental impact of the programmes carried out by the international organizations in developing countries. OECD Recommendations of 1985, 1986 and 1989 are also devoted to these issues [8].
In 1991 G8 members committed to support existing mechanisms which help developing countries attract financial resources for implementing commitments connected with new conventions on environment protection. The next peak is observed in 2001. The commitments made by the leaders at the Genoa summit were aimed at capacity building for environment protection, new technologies transfer, renewable energy sources development and partnership for sustainable development.
Major contributions to G8 collective commitments formation in the sphere were made by the Presidencies of the UK (2005), Germany (2007), Japan (2008) and Italy (2009). However, the G8 decisions could not influence the developing coun-
tries' negotiating positions at the conferences on climate change in Copehagen and Cancun. New global agreement which should replace the Kyoto protocol hasn't been achieved.
Signs of a failure became apparent at the G8 Hokkaido summit in 2008. The goal to achieve together with all Parties to the UNFCCC "at least 50 percent reduction of global gas emissions by 2050" [9] formulated in the G8 declaration was certainly a step forward in negotiations on collective actions and goals. However, despite the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities of developed and developing countries, reflecting respective capabilities, proposed by the Japanese Presidency major emerging economies' leaders just reiterated the main principles and emphasized the differences between the developed and developing countries responsibilities and called for nationally appropriate mitigation and adaptation plans. The meeting outcomes showed how divergent the positions of these groups of states were and how difficult it would be to reach consensus in the extended format.
Decisions on partnership for development are also connected with the UN Millennium Declaration adoption, which reiterates the principle of collective responsibility for human dignity, justice and equality at global level. It can not be said that the G8 had not aimed to create partnerships between developed and developing countries and international institutions for development before 2000. In 1980 and 1981 the G8 appealed to oil-exporting countries to participate in the partnership for de-
13 -p 12-11 -109 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 2
1 -F 0
Jl
k
Jflfl-
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
LOCDr-^OOOiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiO
r-^r^r^r^r-^ooooooooooooooooooooaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiooooooooooT-
T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-rgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgCg
^^ Number
] Average number
-Share (right scale)
Average share (right scale)
Fig. 6. G8 commitments on environment protection
20 T
1918171615141312 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-=l 0
30
25
20
15
10
5
i-NtO^lOIOSfflOlOi-WtO^lOffl
9999999990000000 9999999990000000
i-'-i-'-'-'-i-i-'-NNOINWWOI
Number
] Average number
-Share (right scale)
-Average share (right scale)
Fig. 7. G8 commitments on partnership for development
velopment through financing international mechanisms of the World Bank. In Houston (1990) and London (1991) the leaders reiterated the need to increase development assistance effectiveness and reform UN bodies.
The commitments made in 2002 are connected with the Monterrey consensus on development financing, adopted in March 2002. A steady increase of partnership for development commit-
ments number is observed after the adoption of the 2005 World Summit Outcome on 16 September 2005 and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in March 2005.
G8 agenda includes several old traditional commitments which have been on the table since its creation. Energy is among such priorities. At the summits in San Juan (1976) and Tokyo (1979) G7 leaders for the first time made commitments
0
15 -p 14-131211 -109 -8 -7 -6 -5 4 3 2 1 0
5
60
50
40
30
20
10
N
h.
M
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
^^^^000000000000000000000505050505050505 05050505050505050505050505050505050505050505
8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 9900000000001 9900000000000
"-1-WMWNOIMSIOIMOIM
! Number
: Average number
-Share (right scale)
-Average share (right scale)
Fig. 8. G8 commitments on energy
0
^^ Number i-1 Average number —»—Share (right scale) -Average share (right scale)
Fig. 9. G8 commitments on ODA
on assistance to development and effective use of energy resources in developing countries. These commitments were reiterated in Paris in 1982 and for transition economies in 1996 in Lyon. The summits in Gleneagles (2005) and St. Petersburg (2006) broadened the scope of energy commitments, including fight against energy poverty, provision of modern technologies for energy generation, energy sources diversification, energy effectiveness enhancement, energy security.
Commitments on official development assistance (ODA) have been on the G7 agenda since 1977, their number has been growing, except for 1985, when the summit was devoted to economic recovery after crisis, coping with inflation and employment promotion. That year G7 leaders, not rejecting past commitments on cooperation for development, didn't make new decisions on ODA and in the Bonn Economic Declaration called upon the Soviet Union and other communist countries to
take up their share of responsibilities for assisting to African countries in overcoming famine and agricultural programs development [10]. The next decline is observed from 1987 to 1996 - during a decade following the Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty Organization collapse. In this period the G7 and especially EU member-states' efforts were devoted to social-economic development and structural reforms promotion in the Central and Eastern Europe countries. In the new millennium cooperation on ODA has been strengthening again. The most important contribution to ODA collective commitments was made by the G8 in the UK presidency in 2005. G20 contribution to the ODA commitments was also significant during UK presidency in 2009. The G8 role on ODA has been increasing consistently from 2007 to 2009. It is important that since 2005 commitments include concrete volumes, terms and mechanisms of assistance.
Rural areas and agriculture development is one of the priorities of the new millennium. In 2004 overcoming famine in Africa, raising agricultural productivity in food insecure countries and promoting rural development and trade facilitation were the US Presidency priorities [11].
In 2008 and 2009 during the food crisis commitments on global food security strengthening accounted for 25 percent u 14 percent of all development commitments respectively. The decisions include measures to stimulate sustainable growth of agricultural production through increased investment in agriculture; cooperation with the governments and regional organizations for strengthening national agriculture systems and increasing effectiveness of food aid; trade negotiations promotion for the Doha round successful and balanced completion, establishing the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security (GPAFS).
Peace and security are the cornerstone of development. Counting by number of commitments for the whole period peace and security promotion ranked ninth in the list of priorities. The average number of peace and security commitments for the whole period (1.5) is much lower than the average for all development commitments (31). At the same time importance of peace and security is emphasized within other priorities, such as economic growth [9], health,3 water and sanitation.4
3 "[We commit to] Helping to enhance the capacity of Africa to address the challenges that HIV/AIDS poses to peace and security in Africa". G8 Africa Action Plan [16].
4 "We also acknowledge that ensuring adequate water supplies for human, industrial and environmental uses
while minimizing the impacts of extreme hydrological variability are critical to protecting human health, promoting
The G8 recognizes peace and security as a basis for development in its documents.
Peace and security commitments appeared on the G8 agenda in 1990-s (only one commitment at each summit). Assistance to the African states in establishing their own specialized mechanisms for conflict mediation was a priority in 1997 [12] and 1998.
In 2000 at the Okinawa summit the G8 committed to help African countries to overcome armed conflicts, including those linked with the illicit trade in diamonds [13]. Thus G8 promoted transformation of the Kimberley process initially launched by the Government of South Africa into international mechanism which unites 75 countries.5
The highest share of good governance commitments was registered in 2001. Post-conflict stabilization and restoration was discussed in connection with good governance and debt relief [14]. It can be explained by importance of good governance promotion for effective restoration. At the same time discussion of peace and security issues in Genoa has not led to concrete commitments [15].
Thus, before 2002 development assistance in the sphere of peace and security was not among the key G8 priorities.
The G8 Africa Action Plan adopted at the Kananaskis summit in 2002 [16] devotes a section to peace and security which includes commitments on strengthening African countries and regional organizations capacity to prevent and resolve violent conflicts on the continent, regulate the activities of arms brokers and traffickers, eliminate the flow of illicit weapons to and within Africa, remove antipersonnel mines and in other related spheres.
Peace and security commitments made at the Gleneagles summit in 2005 are specified in the Statement on Africa [18] which as the similar statement of 2002 devotes a special section to Peace and Stability, and in the statements on Iraq [19] and Sudan [20]. The largest share of this type of commitments in all development commitments was registered in 2005 (17 percent).
At the St. Petersburg Summit in 2006 the G8 adopted the Declaration on Cooperation and Future Action on Stablization and Reconstruction [21], which includes three commitments on peace and security related to development assistance.
The highest number of commitments on peace and security (14) was made at Heiligendamm summit
sustainable economic growth, and ensuring peace and security". Development and Africa [17].
5 The Official Website of the Kimberley Process. URL: http://www.kimberleyprocess.com (date of access: 07.05.2010).
36-,-34-32302826 24 22 20 1816141210 8 6 4
2 -F 0
j 90 80 -- 70 60 -- 50 40 30 20 10 0
M
5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-Cgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg
^^ Number
] Average number
-Share (right scale)
Average share (right scale)
Fig. 10. G8 commitments on food security and agriculture
16 j 1412108 -6 4 2 0
iy y n n n y y Hfl n n n n n n n
LO 05
18 16 14 12 10 8 6
4 2 0
aiOT-cgco-^tLncDr^ooaiOT-cgco-^tLncDr^ooaiOT-cgco-^tLncDr^ooaio
^00000000000000000000050505050505050505050000000000-*-05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05<^<^<^<^<^<^<^<^OT<^00000000000
i Number i-1 Average number —»—Share (right scale)
Fig. 11. G8 commitments on peace and security
-Average share (right scale)
in 2007, although by share it was slightly lower than at the Gleneagles summit (13.9 percent). Strengthening civilian security systems in developing countries was an important priority of the 2010 Muskoka summit. Thus the average level of peace and security commitments share was registered (14 percent).
Since 2001 correlation between the number of peace and security commitments and good governance commitments has been observed. In 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2009 peaks were registered for both priorities. The correlation can be explained by the close interconnection of these two spheres
and by the need to combine peace-building actions with measures to create and restore effective governance institutions.
The G8 has been showing the ability to assist developing countries in urgent situations independently and in partnership with international organizations since 2005. At the Gleneagles summit G8 leaders committed to reform humanitarian assistance system, help countries affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004, and support UN work on humanitarian aid and reconstruction. In 2006 the commitments to cooperation in
the sphere of humanitarian assistance were reiterated. In 2010 the G8 supported Haiti after the earthquake and committed to improve the timeliness, effectiveness and coordination of the international response to such disasters including through the United Nations Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction and a special meeting of G8 experts.
Commitments on assistance to economic growth in developing countries appeared in the G7 documents in 1981 when the third Development
Decade started. In the subsequent period before the beginning of the New Millennium, their dynamics has been fading. An increase started in 2002 after adoption of the Millennium Development Goals. The number of this type of commitments peaked in 2004. It can be asserted that the G8 efforts to promote economic growth have been not been sufficient. It might be supposed that if the tendency were different progress in development would be more significant.
7 -r
6--
5 --
4 --
3--
2 --
1 --
-r 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
limjim jiji jiji jimiijiji
hti jijijim
LOCDr-^OOOiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiO T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-rgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg
Number
] Average number
-Share (right scale)
Average share (right scale)
Fig. 12. G8 commitments on humanitarian aid
0
LOCDr-^OOOiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CNCO-^tLnCDr^OOaiO T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-rgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg
^^ Number i-1 Average number —»—Share (right scale) -Average share (right scale)
Fig. 13. G8 commitments on economic growth
In the sphere of trade assistance to the developing countries and their inclusion in the global trade flows no commitments had been made before 1996. The first decision was formulated at the Lyon summit in 1996 after the World Trade Organization was established on 1 January 1995 on basis of Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations agreements (1986-1994). Later in 1999 the leaders reiterated their commitment to trade capacity building in developing countries and trade liberalization for economic growth. In 2001 when the WTO member states started negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda the G8 made more specific commitments on providing assistance on technical standards, customs systems, legislation needed for WTO membership and to support the work of the Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance. A substantial increase of trade-related development commitments has started since 2002 (14 in 2002), which reflects the MDGs adoption and the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations beginning. In the following period commitments of this type have been present in the summit documents, with a substantial number of commitments made in 2007 and 2008. Inverse relation between economic growth and trade commitments in 2002 and 2004 is evident and can be explained by substitution of one sphere by the other due to the priorities of the period and presidency. In 2002 10 percent of all development commitments were made in the sphere of trade, 9 percent in the sphere of economic growth. In 2004 31 percent of all development commitments were made in the sphere of economic growth, 18 percent in the sphere of integration, and 2 percent in the trade sphere.
Cooperation on good governance priority has been intensively developing in the last decade. In 2001 the G8 made 9 commitments, in 2002 - 19, 2005 - 18, 2007 - 22, 2009 - 13. It is worth mentioning that the share of good governance commitments in all commitments for the whole period is 9.66 percent and ranks fifth, which is connected with the role the quality of governance plays in the enhancement of development assistance effectiveness. Good governance is a vital condition of development. Attention that the leaders pay to the good governance promotion conforms to the provisions of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and Accra Agenda for Action (2008).
Commitments on debt relief entered the G7 agenda in the 1980-s and were aimed at debt restructuring, changes in terms and conditions of debt service. In 1989 at the Paris summit the G8 adopted the Strengthened Debt Strategy for the Heavily Indebted Countries. In 1996 in connec-
tion with the IMF and International Development Association initiative on voluntary debt relief for heavily indebted countries the G8 leaders agreed with a debt present value reduction of up to two thirds. Since 1998 the commitments on debt relief have been invariably included into the G8 agenda. In 1999 at the Koln summit G8 committed to debt reduction of up to 90 percent for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) and up to 67 percent for other developing countries. In 2000 the leaders reiterated commitments on debt relief of up to 100 percent. In 2002 at the Kananaskis summit the debt relief commitments were supplemented with the G8 leaders' decision of funding G8 share of the shortfall in the enhanced HIPC initiative, recognizing that this shortfall would amount up to USD1 billion. This decision was aimed to contribute to release of funds for social and economic development of these countries. G8 members reiterated the commitments on 100 percent debt relief at the 2005 Gleneagles summit.
The commitments on integration of developing countries into international economic and trade processes constitute a major share of all development commitments (13.37 percent). In the 1980-s (1983 and 1984) these commitments include decisions on markets opening and increasing public and private direct investments in developing countries. In 1995 and 1996 - decisions aimed at enhancing effectiveness of multilateral institutions for development. At the 1996 Lyon summit the G8 agreed to establish a new partnership for development which provides for resources allocation for development assistance in the least developed countries, including through IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF), as well as potential improvement of these countries' access to the G8 markets. In 2002 the leaders made new commitments aimed at support of the African countries initiatives on investment climate improvement, investments attraction, sustainable regional financial markets and financial structures development, receiving sovereign credit ratings, access to private capital market for investment projects. The largest number of commitments on developing countries integration into international processes was made in 2004 during the U.S. presidency. They are mostly related to two U.S. Presidency initiatives: the G8 Action Plan on Applying the Power of Entrepreneurship to the Eradication of Poverty and Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa.
Negative correlation between G8 commitments on integration and ODA is observed, the trend indicates that the G8 members instead of
15 j 14131211 -109 -8 -7 -6 -5 4 3 2
1 -Fl 0
12
10
8
4
2
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 77778888888888999999999900000000001 99999999999999999999999900000000000
^^ Number
] Average number
-Share (right scale)
-Average share (right scale)
Fig. 14. G8 commitments on trade assistance
24 T 2220-18161412108 6 4 2 -0 I
k
t 30
-- 25
20
15
10
5
LOCDr-^OOOiOT-CgcO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CgcO-^tLnCDr^OOaiOT-CgcO-^tLnCDr^OOaiO r^r^r^r^r'^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOa>a>a>a>a>a>a>a>a>a>OOOOOOOOOOT-
T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T-rgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg
Number
] Average number
- Share (right scale)
-Average share (right scale)
Fig. 15. G8 commitments on good governance
combining these two instruments prefer one or the other, decreasing effectiveness of collective efforts on development assistance.
According to the monitoring of G7/G8 compliance with summits' commitments6 which has been
6 G8 compliance study is a methodology of monitoring and assessing the G8 member states compliance performance with summit commitments. Individual scores are assigned on a scale where +1 indicates full compliance with the stated commitment; 0 is awarded for partial compliance or a work in progress; and -1 is reserved for those countries that fail to comply or take action that is directly opposite to the stated goal of the commitment. See Analyti-
carried out since 1996 the average level of compliance with development commitments (+0.44) is below the average for all commitments (+0.48) (Fig. 19). However, substantial differences on countries, years and commitments certainly exist. Performance of the UK and the EU as a collective member is traditionally high. Scores of Italy, Japan and Russia are considerably lower. The level of compliance with the Kananaskis development commitments was one of the lowest though the
cal and Compliance Studies. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto. ca/evaluations/index.html (date of access: 15.05.2010).
6
0
0
yawn Number i-1 Average number —»—Share (right scale) -Average share (right scale)
Fig. 16. G8 commitments on debt relief
vz/m Number i-1 Average number —»—Share (right scale) -Average share (right scale)
Fig. 17. G8 commitments on integration
number of development commitments made at this summit was record high. A high level of compliance was registered for commitments made in Sea Island (2004), St. Petersburg (2006), Köln (1999) and Toyako (2008). On average since 1996 the level of compliance with development commitments is slightly below the average for all commitments.
It should be noted that the compliance performance monitoring period is one year. According to the retrospective compliance analysis [22], compliance level increase is observed if the period of monitoring is extended. It is safe to assume that as the majority of development commitments are long-term, the level of compliance would be higher if monitored over a longer period. Even the existing data confirms that
100 -
90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 10 0
56 77 99
78 77 99
01 88 99
34 88 99
67 88 99
901 899 999
23 99 99
45 99 99
78 99 99
01 00 00 22
34 00 00 22
67 00 00 22
- Integration
-ODA
90 01 00 22
Fig. 18. G8 commitments on integration and ODA, %
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
-Compliance with development commitments Compliance with development commitments average
Compliance with all commitments Compliance with all commitments average
Fig. 19. G8 compliance with development commitments
without G8 contribution the situation in the development assistance sphere would have been worse as 1097 development commitments accounted for 31 percent of all G8 decisions and the level of compliance with them is just slightly lower than the level of compliance with all commitments.
It is possible that the transfer of some economy and finance issues of the agenda to G20 and a strengthened system of accountability would enhance G8 delivery on development assistance.
G20 Finance Ministers forum established in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 1999 at the
G8 initiative for coordination of finance and economy issues was reestablished at the level of the heads of states in 2008 - ten years after its creation in the new severe financial and economic crisis accompanied by a food crisis.
The majority of summits' documents are devoted to reforming and ensuring resilience of the world financial system and the measures to ensure economic growth. However, development assistance issues are also present on the G20 agenda (Fig. 20).
Finance iéS^^éSèiéSggéSggéSèiéSggéSg^^ 69 45
Economy
17.16
Development mmm 7 12
Trade ^ 2.70
Energy 2 1.28
Environment/Climate Change 3 0.98
Corruption i 0.85
Uncategorized 10.38
Crisis Management 0.09
Political Issues 0
Security 0
Science, IT, Education, Innovations 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig. 20. G20 priorities in 2008 - 2010, average share of symbols, %
As at the beginning of the G7 history in the crisis the G20 concentrated on integration of developing countries into global economic processes and global governance institutions and also on economic growth (Table 5). Decisions on overcoming the food crisis and increasing productivity of agriculture sector in developing countries were made at the London and Pittsburgh summits. Under the chairmanship of the UK Prime-Minister Gordon Brown G20 leaders made important decisions, reiterating their commitment to ODA provisions. Pittsburgh summit documents include commitments on development assistance in the spheres of good governance and energy. Assistance on trade and building partnerships for development were at the top of the Toronto summit agenda. The Seoul summit was mostly concentrated on integration as it confirmed the IMF reform for the benefit of developing countries and economic growth.
During the crisis G8 leaders retained their commitment to development assistance. 244 commitments were made at the 2008 and 2009 summits (40.2 percent of all commitments). The share of G8 commitments on integration and economic growth in developing countries is lower then the G20 share (Table 6). Simultaneously in the period of G8/G20 coexistence (2008-2009) the G8 has been leading on many development issue areas except trade and energy. The most significant gaps are observed on health, food security and agriculture, environment protection, peace and security.
It might be assumed that in the future the issues of integration would be more effectively dealt with by the G20 given its broader membership. Other development issues can be also included
in the G20 agenda responding to new demands. But ODA, MDGs, environment protection, peace and security promotion would stay within the G8, which unites traditional donors with an established history and experience of cooperation for development of other countries.
So far comparative data on compliance is not sufficient to affirm with certainty that the G8 would be more effective institution in the sphere of development assistance. But available data confirms G8 members' higher level of compliance with commitments than the G20. The average level of G8 members' compliance performance with development commitments made in the three G20 summits was 0.59, while non-G8 G20 average was negative (-0.33) and the average compliance of all G20 members was a mere 0.08 (Table 7).
This gap in the levels of compliance is certainly connected with the fact that G8 members have more resources for commitments implementation, an established history and culture of compliance, and implement decisions within both G8 and G20. The low level of non-G8 members' compliance can be explained by the fact that some of non-G8 members of the G20 face poverty reduction problems and challenges of socio-economic development aggravated by the crisis. Their development assistance as a share of GNI to the least developed and developing countries is relatively low and is provided unsystematically mostly in the form of humanitarian assistance with the aim to respond to emergences. Measures to meet the MDGs are taken by non-G8 countries at the national level to solve such problems as poverty and unemployment, improvement of health systems, fighting climate change. Undoubtedly, some of the
Table 5. Number and share of G20 commitments by sector in all development commitments
Washington London Pittsburgh Toronto Seoul Total
No. Share, % No. Share, % No. Share, % No. Share, % No. Share, % No. Share, %
Integration 7 87.5 2 16.67 9 33.33 1 7.14 6 14.29 25 24.27
Economic growth 1 12.5 7 58.33 7 25.93 1 7.14 13 30.95 29 28.16
Food security and agriculture 0 0 1 8.33 4 14.81 2 14.29 2 4.76 9 8.74
Energy 0 0 0 0 5 18.52 0 0 0 0.00 5 4.85
ODA 0 0 2 16.67 0 0 1 7.14 2 4.76 5 4.85
Good governance 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 0 0 1 2.38 2 1.94
Partnership for development 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 4 28.57 9 21.43 14 13.59
Debt relief 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.14 0 0.00 1 0.97
Trade 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 28.57 9 21.43 13 12.62
All development commitments 8 100 12 100 27 100 14 100 42 100 103 100
All commitments 95 88 128 61 153 525
Share of development commitments, % 8.42 13.64 21.09 22.95 27.45 19.62
Table 6. Share of commitments by sector in all development commitments, %
G8, all years G8, 2008-2010 G20, 2008-2010
Health 16.23 22.54 0
Food security and agriculture 11.03 18.03 8.74
Partnership for development 5.47 13.11 13.59
Environment protection 4.56 8.2 0
Good governance 9.43 7.34 1.94
Peace and security 5.01 6.15 0
Education 5.1 4.51 0
ODA 5.65 4.92 4.85
Energy 3.65 3.69 4.85
Economic growth 9.66 3.28 28.16
Trade 3.92 3.28 12.62
Integration 13.31 1.23 24.27
Gender equality 0.64 0.82 0
Debt relief 4.74 0.82 0.97
Humanitarian aid 1.28 1.64 0
Number of all development commitments 1097 244 47
Share of development commitments in all commitments 31.09 40.2 19.62
Table 7. G20 members compliance with development commitments
G20 new donor countries, such as China, India, South Africa and Brazil, make substantial contribution to international development, which is increasing. However, the actions they are undertaking are not reported in accordance with the OECD DAC requirements, and / or projected as compliance with commitments undertaken within the international institutions. This may be one of the reasons their compliance performance is assessed so low. Nevertheless, the evidence highlights the G8 leadership role on development, and this is the policy area where its leadership is likely to remain crucial for international development at least until 2015.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Let's sum up the answers to the questions put forward in connection with the G8 criticism.
What is the place of development assistance in the G8 agenda?
Development assistance has been the G8 members' permanent priority, commitments in this sphere account for 30 percent of all commitments despite the fact that the summit had been considered to be the economic one for the long time.
How has the G8 development agenda been changing with global socio-economic shifts and is the G8 capable of addressing new challenges, while retaining commitment to the unsettled issues?
The G8 has demonstrated its capacity to address new challenges, while traditional priorities are being partly displaced by new commitments. Nevertheless, the G8 retains its commitment, reiterating old pledges, though the content of many issues changes, their essence and nature being amended in accordance with new demands and achieved results. Dynamics of references to the problems is increasing considerably in the last decade after Millennium Development Goals adoption.
How effectively can the G8 assist developing countries in their integration into global processes and mechanisms of global governance to ensure their social and economic development?
The G8 is coping with this issue less effectively. Though commitments on integration of developing countries into international economic and trade processes constitute a major share of all development commitments. The G8 members are failing in use of commitments on integration and ODA as two reinforcing instruments, preferring one or the other, decreasing effectiveness of efforts on development. It is evident that the G20 has greater capacity to promote the integration processes.
Litmus test of effectiveness - does the G8 comply with the commitments made?
Yes, the level of G8 compliance with commitments on development assistance is quite high (+0.44), close to the average level of compliance with commitments in all spheres.
Can the G8 disappear without adverse affect to this global issue, transferring the responsibility to another institution, for example, G20?
Not yet for several reasons:
1. The emergence of development issues on the G20 summits' agenda doesn't reduce G8 responsibility for development assistance. Especially, given the G8 higher effectiveness on compliance with development assistance commitments than the G20.
2. Development issues require interaction within a broader forum than the G8. The G20 expanded its agenda in 2008-2009, including development assistance, environment protection, en-
London Pittsburgh Toronto Average
Canada 0.5 0.5 1 0.67
France 1 0 1 0.67
Germany 1 0.5 1 0.83
Italy 0 - 0.5 0 - 0.17
Japan 0.5 0.5 1 0.67
Russia 0.5 0 0 0.17
United Kingdom 1 1 1 1
United States 0.5 0.5 1 0.67
European Union 1 0.5 1 0.83
G8 average 0.67 0.33 0.78 0.59
Argentina - 1 - 1 0 - 0.67
Australia 0.5 0.5 0 0.33
Brazil 0.5 - 1 0 - 0.17
China - 0.5 0 0 - 0.17
India - 0.5 - 1 0 - 0.5
Indonesia - 0.5 - 1 - 1 - 0.83
Mexico 0 0 - 1 - 0.33
Republic of Korea - 0.5 0 0 - 0.17
Saudi Arabia 0 0 - 1 - 0.33
South Africa - 0.5 0.5 - 1 - 0.33
Turkey - 0.5 - 1 0 - 0.5
Non-G8 G20 - 0.27 - 0.36 - 0.36 - 0.33
average
G20 average 0.15 - 0.05 0.15 0.08
ergy and at the same time reduced the share of economy and finance on the agenda. At the Pittsburgh summit the G20 leaders designated the G20 to be the premier forum for their international economic cooperation. G8/G20 coexistence should be based on the principle of comparative advantage. The G20 can more effectively tackle integration of developing countries in global economic and trade processes. But the G8 should maintain leadership in global public goods creation. Division of labor on development assistance can work through G20 contribution to economic growth, with eventually enhancing input to aid from the emerging donors, whereas the G8 need to continue meet the responsibilities for both the economic growth and official development assistance, retaining leadership in building global public good.
3. Comprehensive and coordinated approach to G8 accountability can become a vital element of enhancing its legitimacy, reasserting confidence in the institution, regaining its leadership capacity in the global governance system, especially in the development assistance sphere.
At the 2008 Hokkaido Summit the G8 recognized the importance of demonstrating that the institution is committed to reporting transparently and consistently on the implementation of its commitments. At the 2009 Aquila Summit G8 leaders tasked a special working group to report on the implementation of development and development-related commitments with a focus on results. The Muskoka Accountability Report: Assessing action and results against development-related commitments was presented at the Muskoka summit in 2010. G8 leaders emphasized the importance of regular reports and agreed to focus the accountability reporting in 2011 on health and food security.
New mechanism of self-accountability could become an important mechanism for enhancing G8 effectiveness on development assistance but only on the condition that the monitoring is comprehensive and methodological robustness and data comparability and credibility are ensured.
4. Given the long-term nature of the majority of commitments it is important, firstly, to strengthen the G8 agenda continuity, resisting each chairman's temptation to form innovative agenda. The degree of innovations should be equal to the current period needs. Secondly, inbuilt catalysts of commitments (deadlines and reporting, working and expert groups) will be very important for ensuring delivery.
5. The G8 should and can retain a considerable degree of flexibility, a capacity to respond immediately to emergency problems, crises, natural
disasters, provide humanitarian aid, and maintain peace and security.
6. Given that not all of the G20 members are developed economies with established democratic forms of governance the G8 retain the leadership in promoting democratic values and good governance, sharing with non-G8 G20 members the responsibility for partnership for development.
7. Collaboration on the new priorities of development assistance such as education, health and environment protection will be carried out by G8 in a most effective way, as the other G20 members' will continue to face the challenge of solving these issues in their own countries.
8. Although the G20 leaders declared it as the premier forum for its members' economic cooperation the G8 should keep this priority on the agenda and the "sensitivity" to the financial and economic issues and simultaneously increasing attention to economic growth promotion in developing countries.
9. Ability of the two institutions for division of labor and coordination is especially important for their effectiveness. Regulated variable geometry of cooperation will create additional opportunities for forging decisions and their implementation and also for cooperation with multilateral international and regional institutions.
Recommendations to Russia
1. According to the monitoring results Russia's contribution to the G8 development agenda is below the average level of G8 compliance with development commitments. Upward trend after 2005 pushed by the Russian 2006 G8 presidency, has not been stable. Additional measures to secure and strengthen this tendency are needed.
2. Substantial increase of health, energy and education priorities presence on the G8 agenda after 2006 shows that the G8 can be an effective instrument for taking Russian priorities to the global level. Thus, this instrument should be used in the future during next G8 presidencies as well as in the G20 future agenda.
3. Usual approach to development agenda preparation in the G8 is the following: the chair agrees priorities with the colleagues and defines the amount of financial resources allocated by the chair and invites the other members to participate. Then other donors can be called upon. If so far it is difficult for Russia to lead in terms of volumes of aid it can certainly lead on effectiveness. Russia's main programs are being developed and can be based on the fundamental principles of effectiveness. G8 mechanisms can be constructively used
for reaching agreement on division of labor in partner-countries.
4. Given the fundamental importance of overcoming energy poverty and energy effectiveness enhancement elaboration of these issues on the Russian 2014 G8 Presidency agenda should be started now.
5. Russia should certainly increase its influence on MDGs attainment on health by increasing its contribution to international instruments of cooperation on infectious diseases, as well as proposing innovative initiatives, innovative financing mechanisms and systemic cooperation within the existing mechanisms. Health should be one of the
2014 priorities as a continuation of 2006 agenda, assessing the MDGs achievement on the eve of
2015 and new shaping new initiatives for a new development decade.
6. Education as well as health should be a priority of next Russian G8 Presidency. It will show Russia's development policy consistency, adherence to the Millennium Development Goals, and importance of education as a basis for human resources development, responsibility for global public good creation. It might be supposed that the second Russian G8 Presidency will be built in consistency and continuity with the 2006 agenda and the following presidencies.
7. If the emerging pattern of G8/G20 summitry (a G8 summit in summer and a G20 in autumn) remains and Russia will be hosting a G20 summit in 2013 and a G8 one in 2014, it will enhance opportunities for coordination and decision making between the two institutions on the development agenda.
Year Sequences/ series1 Main series issues and summit achievements Number of documents Number of commitments Summit grade Average compliance2 score
G7 first
sequence
First series Reviving Growth
1975 Rambouillet Monetary Reform 1 14 A- 0.57
1976 San Juan, Puerto Rico Nothing significant 1 7 D 0.08
1977 London I Trade, growth, nuclear power 1 29 B- 0.08
1978 Bonn I Second Series Growth, energy, trade Holding Down Inflation 2 35 A 0.36
1979 Tokyo I Energy 2 34 B+ 0.82
1980 Venice I Afghanistan, energy 5 55 C+ 0.08
1981 Ottawa (Montebello) G7second sequence Trade ministers' quadrilateral 3 40 C 0.27
1982 Versailles Third Series East-West trade, surveillance The Rise of Politics 3 23 C 0.84
1983 Williamsburg Euromissiles 2 38 B - 0.10
1984 London II Debt 5 31 C- 0.49
1985 Bonn II Nothing significant 2 24 E 0.01
1986 Tokyo II Terrorism, surveillance, G7 finance ministers 4 39 B+ 0..58
1987 Venice II Nothing significant 7 53 D 0.93
1988 Toronto G7 third sequence Fourth Series Debt relief for poor countries The End of the Cold War 3 27 C- - 0.48
1989 Paris (Arch) Helping Central Europe, environment, debt 11 61 B+ 0.07
1990 Houston Trade - no net advance 4 78 D - 0.14
1991 London III Helping USSR 5 53 B- 0.00
1992 Munich Nothing significant 4 41 D 0.64
1993 Tokyo III Fifth Series Trade Institutions for Globalisation 3 29 C+ 0.75
Annex 1. Sum up on the 1975-2010 G8 summits
Year Sequences/ series1 Main series issues and summit achievements Number of documents Number of commitments Summit grade Average compliance2 score
1994 Naples Russia into political debate 2 53 C 1.00
1995 Halifax G7 fourth sequence Institutional review, IMF and UN reform 4 78 B+ 1.00
1996 Lyon Debt, development 5 (1 report) 128 B 0.36
1997 Denver Sixth series Russian participation, Africa Globalization and Development 4 (2 reports) 145 C- 0.13
1998 Birmingham (first G8 summit3) New format, crime 7 73 B+ 0.45
1999 Koln (Cologne) Debt, Kosovo, finance 5 46 B+ 0.39
2000 Okinawa Outreach, information technology 10 105 B 0.78
2001 Genoa Seventh series Infectious diseases, Africa Fighting Terrorism and its Causes 8 58 B 0.53
2002 Kananaskis, Alberta G7 fifth sequence Africa, cleaning up WMD Start of the G8 cycle and first sequence 8 187 B+ 0.33
2003 Evian Outreach, reconciliation 15 206 C+ 0.51
2004 Sea Island, Georgia Middle East 15 253 C+ 0.54
2005 Gleneagles, Scotland Climate change dialogue, Africa 15 212 **A- 0.65
2006 Saint-Petersburg Energy security, health, education 15 317 ***B 0.45
2007 Heiligendamm Shaping globalization, promoting innovation, climate change and energy efficiency, development and responsibility in Africa 13 (4 reports) 330 ****A 0.51
2008 Hokkaido Climate change and sustainable energy dialogue, Africa 6 (13 reports) 280 ****A 0.48
2009 L'Aquila International institution reform, development for Africa and the emerging countries, countering terrorism and climate change 10 (9 reports) 254 ***B 0.53
2010 Muskoka Muskoka Accountability Report, maternal and child health initiative, division of labor with G20 Start of the G8 second sequence 2 (2 reports) 73
2011 France
2012 USA
2013 UK
2014 Russia
1 A summit sequence refers to a run of seven (eight) summits; a summit series is a group of summits focused on a particular set of issues. The summit cycle denotes all the summits from Rambouillet to the present day. Bayne Nicholas, Staying Together: The G8 Summit Confronts the 21st century. Ashgate Publishing, 2005
2 Compliance is a conscious new or altered effort by national governments in the post-Summit period aimed to implement the provisions contained in Summit communiqués.
3 According to Nicholas Bayne
* Based on Bayne (Nicolas Bayne. Staying together. G8 in the 21st century. GGS. Ashgate 2005). ** Reported by John J. Kirton as Bayne's "preliminary grade".
*** Based on Nicolas Bayne's methodology assessment by J. Kirton and M. Larionova. **** Based on Nicolas Bayne's methodology assessment by M. Larionova.
References
1. G20 Leaders Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit // G20 Information Centre. 25.09.2009. URL: http:// www.g20.utoronto.ca/2009/2009communique0925. html (date of access: 22.12.2010).
2. G8 & G20 Global Working Group Common Lobbying Positions 2010 // RCICD. 22.04.2010. URL: http:// en.rcicd.org/news/g8-g20-global-working-group-common-lobbying-positions-2010/ (date of access: 22.12.2010).
3. 1975-2009 G8 Commitments on Development // HSE IORI. 12.04.10. URL: http://www.iori.hse.ru/g8/a_ material/G8_Development_Commitments_1975-2009 _12_04_10.pdf (date of access: 06.05.2010).
4. Declaration of Rambouillet // G8 Information Centre. 17.11.1975. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ summit/1975rambouillet/communique.html (date of access: 06.05.2010).
5. G8 Africa Action Plan // G8 Information Centre. 27.06.2002. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ summit/2002kananaskis/africaplan.html (date of access: 06.05.2010).
6. Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Co-operation // OECD. May 1996. URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/35/2508761.pdf (date of access: 06.05.2010).
7. Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind. Adopted at the 70th plenary meeting, 6 Dec. 1988 // The official website of the United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/ res/resa43.htm (date of access: 07.05.2010).
8. Decisions, Recommendations and other Instruments of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development // OECD. URL: http://webnet.oecd. org/oecdacts/Instruments/ListBySubjectView.aspx (date of access: 07.05.2010).
9. Environment and Climate Change. Para 23. 08.07.2008. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ summit/2008hokkaido/2008-climate.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
10. The Bonn Economic Declaration: Towards Sustained Growth and Higher Employment // G8 Information Centre. 04.05.1985. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto. ca/summit/1985bonn/communique.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
11. Ending the Cycle of Famine in the Horne of Africa, Raising Agricultural Productivity and Promoting Rural Development in Food Insecure Countries // G8
Information Centre. 10.06.2004. URL: http://www. g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2004seaisland/famine.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
12. Communiqué // G8 Information Centre. 22.06.1997. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/1997denver/ g8final.htm (date of access: 07.05.2010).
13. G8 Communiqué Okinawa 2000 // G8 Information Centre. 23.07.20000. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto. ca/summit/2000okinawa/finalcom.htm (date of access: 07.05.2010).
14. Communiqué // G8 Information Centre. 22.07.2001. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2001genoa/ finalcommunique.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
15. Genoa Plan for Africa // G8 Research Group.
21.07.2001. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ summit/2001genoa/africa.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
16. G8 Africa Action Plan // G8 Research Group.
27.06.2002. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ summit/2002kananaskis/africaplan.html (date of access: 22.12.2010).
17. Development and Africa // G8 Information Centre. 8.07.2008. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ summit/2008hokkaido/2008-africa.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
18. Africa // G8 Information Centre. 8.07.2005. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2005gleneagles/ africa.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
19. Iraq // G8 Information Centre. 8.07.2005. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2005gleneagles/ iraq.pdf (date of access: 22.12.2010).
20. Statement by the G8 and AU: Sudan // G8 Information Centre. 8.07.2005. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto. ca/summit/2005gleneagles/sudan.pdf (date of access: 22.12.2010).
21. G8 Declaration on Cooperation and Future Action on Stabilization and Reconstruction // G8 Information Centre. 16.07.2006. URL: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ summit/2006stpetersburg/stabilization.html (date of access: 07.05.2010).
22. Research work on "Development of a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of international institutions' activities, analysis and assessment of G8 effectiveness and capabilities of different models to reform the institution for the implementation of Russia's foreign policy priorities in the global governance crisis". Summary // HSE IORI. URL: http://www.iori. hse.ru/materials/cfi_2009_ref.pdf (date of access: 07.05.2010).
