UofT G8 Information Centre: 2009 L'Aquila Final Compliance Report

11 July 2009 to 20 June 2010
Prepared by Adrienne Davidson, Shiva Logarajah, Sam Plett, Erin Fitzgerald, Netila Demneri and Mark Rakhmangulov,
with Jenilee Guebert
the University of Toronto G8 Research Group
and the State University Higher School of Economics (Moscow) G8 Research Centre
21 June 2010, revised 4 July

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 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 a final report issued just before the leaders’ 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 that has as its mission to serve as the leading independent source of analysis on the G8. The group oversees the G8 Information Centre, which publishes, free of charge, research on the G8 and also publishes official documents issued by the G8.

For the 2009 Final Compliance report, 24 priority commitments were selected from the 254 commitments made at the L’Aquila Summit, hosted by Italy from 8 to 10 July 2009. This report assesses the results of compliance with those commitments as of 22 February 2010. The G8 Research Group in Toronto has again worked with a team at the State University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow led by Mark Rakhmangulov, specifically on the reports for Russia. This continues the collaboration that has existed between the two teams since 2006.

To make its assessments, the G8 Research Group relies on publicly available information, documentation and media reports. To ensure the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity 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. All 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. This report is the product of a team of energetic and hard-working analysts led by Erin Fitzgerald, chair of the student executive, and Netila Demneri, vice-chair, as well as the co-chairs of the Compliance Unit: Adrienne Davidson, Shiva Logarajah and Sam Plett. It would also not be possible without the support of Dr Ella Kokotsis, director of external relations, and Jenilee Guebert, director of research. We are also indebted to the many people who provided feedback on our draft version, whose comments have been carefully considered in this revised report.

Executive Summary

The University of Toronto G8 Research Group has completed its fourteenth annual Final Compliance Report. It is based on an analysis of compliance by G8 member states and the EU with 24 priority commitments from the 2009 L’Aquila Summit and covers the period from 10 July 2009 to 31 May 2010. This timeframe allows for an assessment of compliance approximately from the 2009 L’Aquila Summit to the 2010 Huntsville Summit.

The Final Compliance Scores are contained in Table A. Individual country and issue assessments are contained in the sections below. This report is intended to provide an assessment of the members’ compliance with the commitments made in L’Aquila. The observations contained in this report are therefore based on relevant information available as of the end of May 2010.

The Overall Final Compliance Score

The results of the G8 Research Group’s assessments indicate that, for the period July 2009 to May 2010, the G8 member states and the European Union received an average compliance score of +0.53. 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 final score of +0.53 is on par with scores in previous years.

Compliance by Member

G8 members’ rankings are roughly in line with past final reports. The United Kingdom has maintained its traditional first place, while Japan has risen to second. Canada, historically in second place, has slipped to third – a rank it shares with the European Union. As in the interim report, the United States is ranked fourth. France and Germany are tied for fifth. Like in the final compliance report for the 2008 Toyako-Hokkaido Summit, Russia ranks sixth. Italy is ranked last.

The Compliance Gap between Members

The difference between the highest and lowest G8 member compliance scores is 0.79. The range has decreased from the 0.88 gap in the 2009 interim report, but it is higher than the 0.70 gap between the highest and lowest scoring countries in the 2008 final report.

Compliance by Commitment

Overall compliance by commitment largely scores above the 0-point mark. Out of twenty-four commitments, fourteen were scored above +0.50, which is consistent with past years. Two commitments received a perfect score, while two others receive a score of zero. Only one – the Trade commitment – fell below zero this year.

Within the Climate Change commitments, compliance was generally strong, with Technology Research and Development, Financing, and Forest Degradation receiving average scores of 1, 0.89, and 0.67, respectively. The only outlier among the climate change commitments was Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which received an average score of 0. The average score for the four commitments was 0.64, well above the average compliance score and above the 0.39 average for compliance on Climate Change commitments from 2008.

Other environment commitments, such as Biodiversity, which received a score of 0.89, tended to receive strong scores. The Energy commitments were a similar case, with Energy Efficiency receiving a score of 0.55 and Clean Technology Transfer receiving a score of 0.78.

Security commitments also received among the highest average compliance scores. Piracy received an average score of 1, while Afghanistan and Terrorism both received 0.89. The score for the Corruption commitment was 0.67. The only outlier was African Peace Support, which received an average score of 0.

Economic and finance commitments proved extremely variable. Foreign Direct Investment received an average score of 0.89, while World Economy and International Financial Institutions both received scores of 0.56. Trade received a score of -0.78 – the lowest score of all commitments and the only one to drop below zero. The average score of these commitments amounts to 0.36, which is a significant drop from last year’s average of 0.58. It is, however, higher than the interim average of 0.08 for economic and finance commitments.

Scores for commitments dealing with the international framework for development assistance were low across the board. Official Development Assistance received an average score of 0.33, Aid Effectiveness received a score of 0.33, and Good Governance received a score of 0. Health specific commitments varied, with Health Systems received a score of 0.56 and Child Mortality receiving a score of 0.22. However, among commitments dealing with other aspects of development assistance, the results were more variable. Food and Agriculture’s average score of 0.89, although Water and Sanitation received 0.33 and Education received a score of 0.56. The low average of the development commitments (0.40) is consistent with past reports, although it is well above the very low average from 2008 -0.42.

Future Research and Reports

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. As always, comments are welcomed and would be considered as part of an analytical reassessment. Please send your feedback to g8@utoronto.ca.

Table A: 2009 L'Aquila Final Compliance Scores

Commitment	Canada	France	Germany	Italy	Japan	Russia	UK	U.S.	EU	Average
World Economy [21]	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0.67
Corruption [24]	+1	+1	0	0	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	0.67
Trade [37]	-1	-1	-1	-1	+1	-1	-1	-1	-1	-0.78
FDI [40]	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0.89
Climate Change: Technology R&D [64]	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	1
Climate Change: Financing [66]	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0.89
Climate Change: Forest Degradation [73]	0	+1	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0.67
Biodiversity [81]	+1	+1	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0.89
Energy Efficiency [87]	0	0	0	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0.56
Energy: Clean Technology Transfer [91]	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0.78
Climate Change: CCS [98]	+1	-1	-1	-1	+1	-1	+1	0	+1	0
Africa: Official Development Assistance [115]	+1	0	0	-1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	0.33
Aid Effectiveness [119]	+1	0	0	0	0	0	+1	0	+1	0.33
Water and Sanitation [146]	0	+1	0	-1	+1	0	+1	0	+1	0.33
Health: Health Systems [147]	+1	+1	0	-1	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0.56
Health: Child Mortality [151]	+1	0	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	-1	0.22
Education [157]	+1	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	0	0	0.56
Africa: Peace Support [161]	0	0	0	0	0	-1	0	0	+1	0
Good Governance [167]	0	-1	0	-1	0	+1	+1	0	0	0
Piracy [183]	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	1
Regional Security: Afghanistan [186]	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0.89
Terrorism [202]	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	0.78
International Financial Institutions [203]	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0.56
Food and Agriculture [246]	+1	+1	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0.89

Country Average	0.67	0.42	0.42	0.04	0.75	0.33	0.83	0.63	0.67	0.53

2009 Interim Compliance Average	0.5	0.25	0.29	-0.25	0.54	0.21	0.63	0.42	0.42	0.33
2008 Final Compliance Average	0.75	0.2	0.60	0.10	0.35	0.25	0.80	0.80	0.55	0.48
2008 Interim Compliance Average	0.20	-0.05	0.40	-0.20	-0.10	0.05	0.45	0.45	0.20	0.16

Table B: G8 Compliance by Country, 1996–2008

Research Team

Professor John Kirton, Director, G8 Research Group
Professor Marina Larionova, Chair, HSE Research Team
Dr. Ella Kokotsis, Director of External Relations, G8 Research Group
Jenilee Guebert, Director of Research, G8 Research Group
Erin Fitzgerald, Chair, G8 Research Group
Netila Demneri, Vice-Chair, G8 Research Group
Adrienne Davidson, Co-Chair, Compliance Unit
Shiva Logarajah, Co-Chair, Compliance Unit
Sam Plett, Co-Chair, Compliance Unit
Mark Rakhmangulov, HSE Research Team Leader

Lead Analysts

Analysts at the University of Toronto

Analysts at the State University Higher School of Economics (Moscow)

Natalie Antonowicz	Egor Ouzikov
Hana Bokshi	Olga Tonkonojenkova
Kevin Draper	Harlan Tufford
Ivana Jankovic	Sabina Voicu
Denitza Koev	Vivian Wei
Masa Kovic

Polina Arkhipova	Tatyana Lanshina	Anna Vekshina
Polina Cherepova	Ekaterina Maslovskaya	Yuriy Zaytsev
Natalya Churkina	Yulia Ovchinnikova	Natalya Zlokazova
Darya Frolova	Mark Rakhmangulov

	Lyon 1996	Denver 1997	Birmingham 1998	Cologne 1999	Okinawa 2000	Genoa 200	Kananaskis 2002		Evian 2003
	Final	Final	Final	Final	Final	Final	Interim	Final	Interim	Final
Canada	0.47	0.17	0.50	0.67	0.83	0.82	0.77	0.82	0.58	0.83
France	0.28	0.00	0.25	0.34	0.92	0.69	0.38	0.64	0.50	0.75
Germany	0.58	0.17	0.25	0.17	1.00	0.59	0.08	0.18	0.42	0.50
Italy	0.43	0.50	0.67	0.34	0.89	0.57	0.00	-0.11	0.38	0.25
Japan	0.22	0.50	0.20	0.67	0.82	0.44	0.10	0.18	0.42	0.42
Russia	N/A	0.00	0.34	0.17	0.14	0.11	0.14	0.00	0.42	0.33
UK	0.42	0.50	0.75	0.50	1.00	0.69	0.42	0.55	0.58	0.50
US	0.42	0.34	0.60	0.50	0.67	0.35	0.25	0.36	0.50	0.50
EU	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
G8 + EU	0.40	0.27	0.45	0.39	0.78	0.53	0.27	0.33	0.48	0.51
Number of commitments	19	6	7	6	12	9	13	11	12	12

	Sea Island 2004		Gleneagles 2005		St. Petersburg 2006		Heiligendamm 2007		Hokkaido-Toyako 2008
	Interim	Final	Interim	Final	Interim	Final	Interim	Final	Interim	Final
Canada	0.50	0.72	0.52	0.81	0.45	0.60	0.22	0.65	0.20	0.75
France	0.39	0.50	0.48	0.57	0.30	0.40	0.17	0.52	-0.05	0.2
Germany	0.50	0.67	0.33	0.88	0.45	0.55	0.48	0.57	0.40	0.6
Italy	0.39	0.44	0.43	0.29	-0.10	0.05	0.13	0.17	-0.20	0,1
Japan	0.33	0.39	0.52	0.52	0.30	0.40	0.04	0.30	-0.10	0.35
Russia	0.00	0.06	-0.14	0.14	0.25	0.45	0.17	0.30	0.05	0.25
UK	0.50	0.67	0.67	0.95	0.55	0.60	0.61	0.70	0.45	0.8
US	0.44	0.72	0.71	0.81	0.35	0.60	0.78	0.91	0.45	0.8
EU	0.50	0.72	0.75	0.89	0.58	0.58	0.39	0.48	0.20	0.55
G8 + EU	0.39	0.54	0.47	0.65	0.35	0.47	0.33	0.51	0.16	0.48
Number of commitments	18	18	21	21	20	20	23	23	20	20

—	This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Libraries and the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
	Please send comments to: g7@utoronto.ca This page was last updated August 15, 2024.