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

2005 Gleneagles Interim Compliance Report

Professor John Kirton, Dr. Ella Kokotsis, Vanessa Corlazzoli, Mike Varey, Aaron Raths and the University of Toronto G8 Research Group

February 9, 2006

The 2005 Gleneagles Interim Compliance Report, which reviews progress made on selected commitments set out at the 2005 Gleneagles Summit, is now available. The summary of the findings are listed below.

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 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 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 2005 Interim Compliance Report, 19 priority commitments were selected from the 212 commitments that were made at the Gleneagles Summit, hosted by the United Kingdom from July 6 to 8, 2005. This report assesses the status of compliance with those commitments as the hosting responsibilities pass from the United Kingdom to Russia, which will host the G8 Summit, for the first time, in St. Petersburg from July 15 to 17, 2006.

We rely on publicly available documents – government announcements, media reports, website documentation – to make our assessments. In an ongoing effort to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness, we welcome comments on the report. Any such feedback would remain anonymous and would not be attributed. The opinions and information contained in this report lie exclusively with the G8 Research Group.

This interim compliance report is being released at our conference "Checking In on the G8's Progress: From Gleneagles to St. Petersburg" on February 9, 2006. The webcast of the conference, held at the University of Toronto, is available from the G8 Information Centre website at <www.g8.utoronto.ca/conferences>

The work of the G8 Research Group would not be possible without the 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 Dr. Ella Kokotsis, Director of Analytical Research, and Vanessa Corlazzoli, chair of the student executive, as well as Mike Varey and Aaron Raths.

[top of page]

Introduction

The University of Toronto's G8 Research Group has completed its fourth annual Interim Compliance Report, based on the results from the G8's compliance from July 2005 to January 2006 with their 19 priority commitments reached at the 2005 Gleneagles Summit (see Appendix). This six month period allows for a compliance assessment with the summit's priority commitments at a time when the hosting responsibility transferred from the United Kingdom to the Russian Federation on January 1, 2006.

The interim compliance scores are summarized in Table A, with individual analytic assessments by country and issue area in the sections below. The final compliance report, due to be published just prior to the 2006 St. Petersburg Summit, will provide a more detailed and comprehensive set of compliance results. This report is intended to assess the compliance results mid-way through the year, following the transition in the hosting rotation, and hence offers preliminary observations based only on the interim findings to date.

This report spans a record 21 priority commitments, including two on global health (HIV/AIDS and polio eradication) and three on trade (Africa, export subsidies and least developed countries). Each priority commitment is surveyed across all G8 countries plus the European Union (EU).

The interim compliance results reveal that from the period following the conclusion of the 2005 Gleneagles Summit until January 2006, G8 members and the EU have complied with their priority commitments 47.3% of the time (see Table A). This average is based on a scale whereby 100% is equivalent to perfect compliance and -100% means that the member governments are either non-compliant or are, in fact, doing the opposite of what was committed to. A score of “0” suggests a work in progress, whereby a commitment has been initiated, but not yet completed within the one year time frame.

The interim compliance score of 47.3% surpasses those of previous interim compliance studies which included 40% for Sea Island (2004), 47% for Evian (2003) and 25% for Kananaskis (2002).

Marking quite a dramatic shift from previous interim compliance reports, the highest complying G8 country across the 21 priority commitments is the United States, with a score of 71%. Although the U.S. did rank second overall in the two previous interim reports, its compliance score increased by over 20% from the 2004 Sea Island interim report the year before. Placing second and also scoring above the median is the typically high-ranking United Kingdom, with a compliance score of 67%. Moving up considerably from its lower place standings in previous reports is Japan, with a compliance score this year of 52%. Canada, traditionally one of the Summit's highest compliers, has dropped considerably during this interim assessment, tying Japan with a score of 52%. Dropping also from third place last year to fifth place is France, with an interim compliance score of 48%. Italy and Germany follow, with scores of 43% and 33% respectively. Russia is the only country to score in the negative range with an interim score of -14%.

The compliance gap between member countries continues to increase at this year's interim point with the scores spanning almost 90% from highest to lowest (75% for the E.U. to -0.14% for Russia). This compliance gap represents a considerable increase from 50% at the interim point post-Sea Island and 25% at the interim period post-Evian. The score is similar, however, to the compliance gap during the first interim report post-Kananaskis, which hit 77%.

Compliance by issue area also varies considerably at the interim point. Of the 21 priority issues assessed, commitments geared towards Middle East Reform, renewable energy and climate change rank the highest with a perfect compliance score of 100%. On the Middle East, this commitment primarily includes the stimulation of a global financial contribution of up to $3 billion per year over the coming three years for the region. On renewable energy, perfect compliance to date reflects the leaders' commitment to develop markets for clean energy technologies, increase their availability in the developing world, and to help vulnerable communities adapt to the impact of climate change. Advancing global efforts to tackle climate change at the UN also score in the ranks of perfect compliance. Compliance is also high with commitments to support the African Union's mission in Sudan, as well as efforts aimed at tackling terrorism, each scoring a respectable 89%. A significant gap in compliance is detected in the next strata of scores as commitments geared towards helping build Africa's capacity to trade and mobilize investment as well as support for UN work on post-tsunami humanitarian aid and reconstruction, each score 67%. Commitments to support the Education for All initiative, as well as those geared towards the development of cleaner, more efficient and lower-emitting vehicles tie at 56%. Scoring slightly below the median at 44%, and tying three ways, are commitments to support the polio eradication initiative, the commitment to mobilize $20 billion over ten years for non-proliferation initiatives, and the provision of additional resources for Africa's peacekeeping forces. Scoring 33% are commitments to address products of interest to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in trade negotiations. Just below this, at 25%, is the G8's commitment to reduce Iraq's debt by implementing the terms of the November 2004 Paris Club agreement. Tied at 22% are three commitments including one to meet the financing needs for HIV/AIDS through the replenishment of the Global Fund, another aimed at doubling aid for Africa by 2010, and the final geared towards supporting a comprehensive set of actions to raise agricultural produc¬tivity in Africa. Issues focused on transnational crime, particularly through the improvement of coordination on anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy crime strategies, as well as commitments to reduce trade distorting domestic agricultural subsidies in Africa, score quite low on the overall compliance spectrum at 11%. The one commitment in which a “work in progress” score of "0" is logged by all G8 members and the EU is with respect to the cancellation of all debts owed by eligible highly indebted poor countries (HIPCs) to IDA, the IMF and the African Development Fund. Good governance, particularly focused on the early ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption, is the only issue to fall within the negative range with an interim score of -11%.

These interim findings reveal some striking differences with the interim results from previous assessments (see Table B). Where debt relief initiatives to the highly indebted poor countries garnered the highest compliance rate (100%) at the interim point post Sea Island, commitments in this area fall at the opposite end of the spectrum, with a compliance score of 0 in the post-Gleneagles period. Another significant shift is with respect to the environment, where leaders scored a “0” post Sea Island, but jumped to 100% following Gleneagles. Transport security and polio eradication also showed significant gains with compliance scores increasing by over 40% in both cases from one year ago. Where no significant changes were made from the previous assessments were in the areas of polio eradication (44%) and transnational crime (11%). Improvements are seen, however, in overall compliance terms post Gleneagles as only one issue area falls within the negative range, contrary to the post Sea Island period, where three issues fell scored in the negative range at the interim point.

Although a comprehensive analytical assessment will not be available until the final compliance scores are in, to date, these interim compliance scores compare favourably with the overall scores from previous Summits including Cologne 1999 (39%), Birmingham 1998 (45%), Denver 1997 (27%) and Lyon (36%). Scores post Gleneagles are comparable to Evian 2003 (51%) and Genoa 2001 (49.5) and only significantly surpassed by Okinawa 2000 (81.4%).

[top of page]

In evaluating the results of this report, the following considerations should be kept in mind.

• Compliance has been assessed against a selected set of priority commitments, rather than all commitments the last summit produced. The priority commitments selected were not randomly chosen but identified to produce a representative subset of the total according to such dimensions as issue areas, ambition, specified time for completion, instruments used and, more generally, the degree of precision, obligation and delegation of each.
  
• In addition to the specific commitments assessed here, summits have value in establishing new principles in normative directions, in creating and highlighting issue areas and agenda items, and in altering the publicly allowable discourse used. Furthermore, some of the most important decisions reached and consensus forged at summits may be done entirely in private and not encoded in the public communiqué record.
  
• Some commitments inherently take longer to be complied with than the time available between one summit and the next.
  
• In some cases, it may be wise not to comply with a summit commitment, if global conditions have dramatically changed since the commitment was made or if new knowledge has become available about how a particular problem can best be solved.
  
• As each of the member countries has its own constitutional, legal and institutional processes for undertaking action at the national level, each is free to act in particular cases on a distinctive national time scale. Of particular importance here is the annual cycle for the creation of budgets, legislative approval and the appropriation of funds.
  
• Commitments encoded in the G8 communiqué may also be encoded precisely or partially in communiqués from other international forums, the decisions of other international organizations, or even national statements such as the State of the Union Address in the U.S., the Queen’s Speech in the UK and the Speech from the Throne in Canada. Without detailed process-tracing, it cannot be assumed that compliant behaviour on the part of countries is fully caused by the single fact of a previous G8 commitment.
  
• Compliance here is assessed against the precise, particular commitments made by the G8, rather than what some might regard as necessary or appropriate action to solve the problem being addressed.
  
• With compliance assessed on a three-point scale, judgements inevitably arise about whether particular actions warrant the specific numerical value assigned. As individual members can sometimes take different actions to comply with the same commitment, no standardized cross-national evaluative criterion can always be used. Comments regarding the judgements in each case, detailed in the extensive accompanying notes, are welcome (see below).
  
• Because the evaluative scale used in this compliance report runs from –100 percent to +100 percent, it should assumed that any score in the positive range represents at least some compliance with the specific commitments made by the G8. It is not known if commitments in other international forums or at the national level on occasions such as the State of the Union Address, Queen’s Speech or Speech from the Throne, etc., are complied with to a greater or lesser degree than the commitments made by the G8.
  
• It may be that commitments containing high degrees of precision, obligation and delegation, with short specified timetables for implementation, may induce governments to act simply to meet the specified commitment rather than in ways best designed to address core and underlying problems over a longer term.
  
• In some cases, full compliance by all members of the G8 with a commitment is contingent on co-operative behaviour on the part of other actors.
  

[top of page]

The information contained within this interim report provides G8 member countries and other stakeholders with an early indication of their compliance results to date, thereby setting the foundation for future action prior to the St. Petersburg Summit on July 15–17, 2006. 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 2005 Gleneagles commitments. As always, comments are welcomed and would be considered as part of an analytical reassessment. Please send your feedback to <g8@utoronto.ca>. A complete assessment of the compliance scores will be made available in the final report and posted on this website by mid-June – approximately two weeks prior to the St Petersburg Summit.

[top of page]

Table A: 2005 Gleneagles Interim Compliance Scores

Note: The average score by issue is the average of all countries' compliance scores for that issue. The average score by country is the average of all issue scores for a given country. The overall compliance average is an average of the overall issue average and overall country average.

[top of page]

Table B: G8 Compliance by Issue, 1996-2005

[top of page]

—	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 February 04, 2008.

All contents copyright © 2024. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.