Summits |  Meetings |  Publications |  Research |  Search |  Home |  About the G7 Research Group Follow @g7_rg

2007 Heiligendamm G8 Summit
Interim Compliance Report

9 June 2007 to 19 January 2008

Prepared by Michael Erdman, Cliff Vanderlinden, Katya Gorbunova
with Jenilee Guebert,
the University of Toronto G8 Research Group
and the State University Higher School of Economics (Moscow) G8 Research Centre

27 February 2008

The 2007 Heiligendamm G8 Summit Interim Compliance Report reviews progress made on selected commitments set out at the 2007 Heiligendamm Summit for the period of 9 June 2007 to 19 January 2008. The preface and summary of the findings are listed below. The interpretive guidelines used to assess compliance on each commitment are also available.

• Preface and Introduction, with summary tables

Preface

Each year since 1996, the G8 Research Group has produced a compliance report on the progress made by the G8 member countries in meeting the commitments issued at each leaders' summit. Since 2002, the group has published an interim report, timed to assess progress at moment of the transition between one country's year as host and the next, and then a final report issued just before the leaders meet at their annual summit. These reports, which monitor each country's efforts on a carefully chosen selection of the many commitments announced at the end of each summit, are offered to the general public and to policy makers, academics, civil society, the media and interested citizens around the world in an effort to make the work of the G8 more transparent and accessible, and to provide scientific data to enable the meaningful analysis of this unique and informal institution. Compliance reports are available at the G8 Information Centre at www.g8.utoronto.ca/compliance/.

The G8 Research Group is an independent organization based at the University of Toronto. Founded in 1987, it is an international network of scholars, professionals and students interested in the activities of the G8. The group oversees the G8 Information Centre, which publishes, free of charge, analysis and research on the G8 as well as makes available official documents issued by the G8.

For the 2007 Interim Compliance report, 23 priority commitments were selected from the total 329 commitments made at the Heiligendamm Summit, hosted by Germany from June 6 to 8, 2007. This report assesses the results of compliance with those 23 commitments as of January 19, 2008. Once again, the G8 Research Group in Toronto has collaborated with a team at the State University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow led by Katya Gorbunova, specifically on the reports for Russia and Japan, which will host the Hokkaido-Toyako Summit in July 2008. This collaboration builds on the work the two teams did in 2007 and will continue for the final compliance report, which will be released in May 2008.

To make its assessments, the G8 Research Group relies on publicly available information, documentation and media reports. In an ongoing effort to ensure the accuracy, integrity and comprehensiveness of these reports, we encourage comments and suggestions. Indeed, this is a living document, and the scores can be recalibrated if new material becomes available. Any feedback remains anonymous and is not attributed. Responsibility for this report's contents lies exclusively with the authors and analysts of the G8 Research Group.

The work of the G8 Research Group would not be possible without the steadfast dedication of many people around the world. In particular, this report is the product of a team of energetic and hard-working analysts directed by Cliff Vanderlinden, chair of the student executive, as well as Michael Erdman, director of compliance, with the support of Dr Ella Kokotsis, Director of Analytical Research, and Jenilee Guebert, Senior Researcher.

[top of page]

Summary

The University of Toronto G8 Research Group has completed its sixth annual Interim Compliance Report. It is based on an analysis of compliance by G8 member states and the EU with 23 priority commitments from the 2007 Heiligendamm Summit and covers the period from June 2007 to January 2008. This timeframe allows for an assessment of compliance contemporaneously with the transfer of the G8 Presidency from Germany to Japan, which occurred on 1 January 2008.

The Interim Compliance Scores are contained in Table A. Individual country and issue assessments are contained in the sections below. This report is intended to provide a mid-term assessment of the parties' progress toward compliance and to follow the transition in the presidency of the G8. The observations contained in this report are therefore based on relevant information available as of late January 2008. The Final Compliance Report, which is scheduled to be published immediately prior to the 2008 Hokkaido Summit, will provide more comprehensive analysis and updated compliance scores.

This report analyzes compliance with 23 different commitments, as follows:

• eight commitments from the "Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy" document (Intellectual Property Protection; Fighting Climate Change; Energy Technology; Energy Efficiency; Energy Diversification; Raw Materials; Corruption; and the Heiligendamm Process);

• eight commitments from the "Growth and Responsibility in Africa" document (Debt Relief; Official Development Assistance; Financial Markets; Education; Peace and Security; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; Sexual and Reproductive Education; and Health Systems);

• two from the "Heiligendamm Statement on Nonproliferation" (Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty and Hague Code of Conduct);

• two from the "G8 Statement on Counter-Terrorism" (Financial Action Task Force and Transport Security); and

• one each from the "G8 Statement on Darfur/Sudan" (Regional Security: Darfur), the "G8 Declaration on Trade" (Trade) and the "Report on the G8 Global Partnership" (Global Partnership).

[top of page]

The results of the G8 Research Group's assessments indicate that, for the period June 2007 to January 2008, the G8 member states and the European Union received an average compliance score of 0.33. 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 that take action that is directly opposite to the stated goal of the commitment.

The average interim score of 0.33 is lower than in previous years. It is slightly below the score of 0.35 for the St. Petersburg Summit (2006) and is substantially lower than the scores of 0.47 for the Gleneagles Summit (2005), 0.40 for the Sea Island Summit (2004) and 0.47 for the Evian Summit (2003). This year's average compliance score is greater, however, than the score of 0.25 awarded to the Kananaskis Summit (2002).

[top of page]

Although the average compliance score across all countries and all commitments is lower than in previous years, the average scores of some G8 member states are higher this year than at any point since the inception of the Interim Compliance Report in 2002. The United States, which has historically ranked 4th, is in first place with a score of 0.78. The United Kingdom follows closely, with a score of 0.61, while Germany falls to a 3rd place ranking at 0.48. After the European Union, in the 4th spot with a score of 0.39, the compliance scores drop sharply. Canada, which has been awarded an average score of 0.22, is in 5th spot. France and Russia, which together rank 6th, have average scores of 0.17. Italy follows closely, in 8th place at an average rating of 0.13. This represents a substantial improvement for Italy since last year's Interim Compliance Report. Finally, in 9th position is the host of this year's G8 Summit, Japan, which has garnered an average score of only 0.04.

This year's interim compliance scores represent changes of more than 10% from last year's scores for seven member states and the EU. Only Germany has seen a smaller change in its compliance score, with an improvement of 6.7% over last year. Italy has realized the largest increase, up 430% from February 2007, when Italy received an average score of -0.10. The second-largest increase was realized by the United States, the score for which is 123% higher than in February 2007. Finally, the United Kingdom has realized a slight increase of 11% over its score of 0.55 in the St. Petersburg Interim Compliance Report.

In terms of decreases in average scores, Japan has realized the furthest drop, with a decrease of 87% since February 2007. Canada's score has dropped by 51%. Russia and France have realized the second smallest decreases, at 32%. The European Union saw its average score drop the least, by 26% from February 2007.

[top of page]

The Compliance Gap between Countries

The gap between average scores for countries has increased slightly this year to 0.74 (0.78 for the United States and 0.04 for Japan). It is lower than the historical high of 0.90 for the Gleneagles Summit. It is substantially higher than the lowest gap of 0.25 for the Evian Summit, but is nevertheless close to the historical average of 0.60.

[top of page]

Compliance by issue area varies widely, although there are fewer outlier scores than last year. Only one commitment area, Fighting Climate Change, has been awarded a score of +1. Similarly, there is only one commitment, Nonproliferation: Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, for which the average score is negative (-0.22). When the two outliers are excluded, the average compliance score falls only slightly from 0.30 to 0.29.

The average score of +1 for Fighting Climate Change represents a unanimous effort on the part of the G8 member states and the EU to participate constructively in the Bali Climate Change Conference, which was held 3-15 December 2007. Only five other commitments resulted in scores of more than 0.50, including Energy: Efficiency and Regional Security: Darfur (0.78); Energy: Diversification and Counter-Terrorism: FATF (0.67); and Africa: Health Systems (0.56). This is in line with the interim results following the St. Petersburg Summit, when 5 out of 20 commitments resulted in scores above 0.50, but is significantly lower than the post-Gleneagles period, when 9 of 21 commitments were scored above 0.50.

Two commitments, Africa: ODA and Africa: Global Fund, received an average score of 0.44, while one other commitment, Trade, had an average score of 0.33. Commitments that received an average score of 0.22 constitute the largest group, at 9 of 23 commitments. They include Intellectual Property Protection, Energy: Technology, Corruption, Raw Materials, the Heiligendamm Process, Africa: Debt Relief, Africa: Sexual and Reproductive, Counter-Terrorism: Transport Security, and the Global Partnership. In general, these scores result from widespread partial compliance (scores of 0) rather than polarization of G8 member states between compliant and non-compliant countries. Two commitments received average scores of 0.11: Africa: Peace and Security, for which most countries were partially compliant; and Africa: Education Education, for which there was a clear division between compliant (+1) and non-compliant (-1) nations.

An average score of 0 was awarded to two of the commitment areas. Nonproliferation: Hague Code of Conduct was marked by large-scale partial compliance resulting in an average of 0. On the other hand, Africa: Financial Markets divided G8 member states and the EU between those who fully complied with the commitment and those states that had taken no action to support compliance. Finally, Nonproliferation: Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty was awarded the lowest average score, -0.22, largely due to the failure of the member states to show serious efforts toward the commencement of negotiations on the issue of the FMCT. The presence of a commitment with a negative average score is in line with historical trends for interim compliance, although it is a marked change from last-year's commitment scores.

[top of page]

Compliance in Summit Priority Issue Areas

Prior to the Heiligendamm Summit, the German government identified three priority issue areas: Growth and Responsibility (including energy); Africa; and Cooperation with Emerging Economies. Although compliance scores varied within these priority areas, they were noticeably higher for Growth and Responsibility than for either of the other two. Seven commitments, excluding the Heiligendamm Process, were drawn from the Growth and Responsibility document. They included the commitment with the highest average score, Fighting Climate Change, and together received an average score of 0.49. This average is significantly higher than the overall interim compliance average. When the commitments are further refined, the three Energy commitments have an average score of 0.56, lower than the historical average of interim compliance with energy commitments of 0.72.

Eight commitments were drawn from the Growth and Responsibility in Africa document. Together, these commitments received an average score of 0.26, below the average compliance score for all 23 commitments. The average score for Africa, however, is higher than the historical interim compliance average for Development commitments of 0.15. Finally, the sole commitment that corresponded to the priority issue of Cooperation with Emerging Economies, the Heiligendamm Commitment, received an average compliance score of 0.22.

[top of page]

The information contained within this report provides G8 member countries and other stakeholders with an indication of their compliance results in the post-Gleneagles period. As with previous compliance reports, this report has been produced as an invitation for others to provide additional or more complete information on country compliance with the 2006 St. Petersburg commitments. As always, comments are welcomed and would be considered as part of an analytical reassessment. Please send your feedback to g8@utoronto.ca

[top of page]

Table A: 2007 Heiligendamm Interim Compliance Scores

[top of page]

Table B: G8 Compliance by Country, 1996–2007

[top of page]

Table C: 2007 Priority Commitment Interim Compliance