2006 st. petersburg final compliance update...igor churkin natalia churkina maria kaloshkina arina...

G8 Research Group

2006 St. Petersburg FinalCompliance Update

Brian Kolenda & Matto Mildenberger – Co-Directors, Compliance Unit

Janet Chow – Chair, G8 Research Group

Dr. Marina Larionova – Director, G8 Research Group (Moscow)

Thüringer Landesvertretung, Berlin

1 June 2007

2G8 Research Group

Acknowledgements

The G8RG Compliance Team

♣ Professor John Kirton, Director, G8 Research Group

♣Madeline Koch, Managing Director, G8 Research Group

♣ Dr. Ella Kokotsis, Director of Analytical Research, G8 ResearchGroup

♣ Dr. Marina Larionova, Chair, HSE Research Team

♣ Janet Chow, Student Chair, G8 Research Group

♣ Brian Kolenda, Co-Director, Compliance Unit

♣Matto Mildenberger, Co-Director, Compliance Unit

♣ Laura Sunderland, Senior Researcher, G8 Research Group

♣ Katya Gorbunova, HSE Research Team Leader

3G8 Research Group

Acknowledgements

Team Leaders

Héloïse Apestéguy-Reux Brian Kolenda Matto Mildenberger Julia Muravska

Sadia Rafiquddin Samreen Beg Jeff Claydon Michael Erdman

Courtney Hood Susan Khazaeli James Meers Jonathan Scotland

Cliff Vanderlinden

University of Toronto Analysts

Zeeshawn Ali Dunja Apostolov John Alexander Ashbourne Fritz Bartel Greg Beres Farnam Bidgoli Viktor Brech Giovanni Bruno Navona Calarco Frances Cation Oana Chivaran Christian Cianfrone Rasta Daei Gabriel De Roche Hana Dhanji Kirby Dier Mark Donald Kyle D'Souza Qi Fang Erin Fitzgerald Charlotte Freeman-Shaw

Katrin Geenen Yinuo Geng Matthias Gerber Aaron Ghobarah Sandro Gianella Gunwat Gill Erin Haines Ioana Hancas Sina Hariri Haley Hatch John Howell Sophia Huda Stephanie Ing Maria Delia Ionescu Taleen Jakujyan Katherine Kanczuga Rustana Kardasovski Adrianna Kardynal Nadjiba Karimi Sahar Kazranian Aftab Khan

Aisha Khan Susan Khazaeli Mila Khodskaya Sarah Kim Sarah Koerner Kathryn Kotris Catherine Kunz Augustine Kwok Alexandra Lapin Mariann Lau Stephanie Law Dana Lepshokova Philippa Leslie Anita Li Iryna Lozynska Ekaterina Mamontova Aziza Mohammed Sumera Nabi Dediu Adina Nicoleta Elvira Omarbagaeva Egor Ouzikov

Hilary Peden Bonny Poon Kayla Pries Jen Quito Esmahan Razavi Farah Saleem Doug Sarro Daniela Scur Vera Serdiuk Golta Shahidi Dipna Singh Joseph Tabago Christopher VanBerkum Frida Wallin Jeremy Weiss Venus Yam Loretta Yau Tatyana Zeljkovic

State University Higher School of Economics (Moscow) Analysts

Elena Bylina Igor Churkin

Natalia Churkina Maria Kaloshkina

Arina Shadrikova Yulaj Sultanov

Yuriy Zaitsev

4G8 Research Group

Contents

I. Compliance

II. 2006 Final Compliance Results

III. Results by Country

IV. Results by Issue Area

V. Interim vs. Final Compliance

VI. Predicting Compliance

VII. Conclusion

VIII. HSE Compliance Report

IX. Alternative Perspectives

X. Contact

5G8 Research Group

I. Compliance

Why perform compliance assessments?

♣ Determine the overall effectiveness of the Summit process

♣ Assess to what extent the G8 process has an impact onsovereign states’ policies

♣ Assess how much credibility the leaders bring to the Summittable

♣ Provide transparency and accountability to the Summits

Compliance reports assess to what extent the G8members live up to commitments made at

their annual summits

6G8 Research Group

I. Compliance

Commitments

♣ G8 leaders agree to a diverse range of commitments at everySummit

♣ Commitments need to be:

¬ Deliberate;

¬ Discrete;

¬ Future-oriented; and

¬ Collectively expressed and publicly agreed upon

G8 leaders agreed to 317 commitmentsat St. Petersburg

7G8 Research Group

I. Compliance

Selecting commitments to analyse

♣ Primary Selection Criteria

¬ Importance for the summit, the G8 and the world

¬ Comprehensiveness

¬ Balance:

– By document

– Temporality

– Geography

– Ambition

♣ The G8 Research Group selected 20 St. Petersburg commitmentsas a representative sample

8G8 Research Group

I. Compliance

What is “compliance”?

♣ Compliance happens when national governments alter behaviourto meet a summit target

♣ Compliance can take a number of forms:

¬ Official reaffirmation

¬ Internal bureaucratic review and representation

¬ Budgetary and resource allocations are made or changed

¬ New or altered programs, legislation and regulations

9G8 Research Group

I. Compliance

Measuring compliance

♣ Method devised by Dr. Ella Kokotsis, Director of AnalyticalStudies, G8 Research Group

♣ Building on methodology first developed by Von Furstenberg andDaniels

♣ Each country’s compliance with each issue assessed

♣ Three-tier scoring system:

¬ +1: Full or nearly full compliance with a commitment

¬ -1: Complete or nearly complete failure to implement acommitment

¬ 0: A "work in progress“

♣ Interpretive guidelines were created for each commitment

10G8 Research Group

I. Compliance

The compliance reports

♣ Two reports produced annually

♣ Interim reports

¬ Prepared every January

¬ Summarize G8 compliance from Summit through 31 December

♣ Final reports

¬ Prepared immediately before following Summit

¬ Assesses G8 compliance during the entire period betweenSummits

11G8 Research Group

II. 2006 Final Compliance

How has the G8 performed since St. Petersburg?

♣ G8 countries have taken some actions to comply with their St.Petersburg commitments

♣ Significant efforts would have been needed to fully meet targets

♣ Lowest final compliance since Kananaskis

¬ 0.65 - Gleneagles (2005)

¬ 0.54 - Sea Island (2004)

¬ 0.51 - Evian (2003)

¬ 0.33 - Kananaskis (2002)

¬ 0.53 – Genoa (2001)

St. Petersburg Final Compliance Score: 0.46

12G8 Research Group


G8 performance since 1996

2006 G8 Final Compliance Score: 0.46

0.40

0.27

0.39

0.78

0.53

0.27

0.480.51

0.39

0.54

0.47

0.65

0.45

0.46

0.350.33

0.39

0.48

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Average Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

13G8 Research Group

0.60

0.40

0.55

0.00

0.40

0.60 0.600.58

0.460.45

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Canada France Germany Italy Japan Russia United

Kingdom

United

States

European

Union

G8+EU

2006 Final


2006 G8 performance


14G8 Research Group

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Canada France Germany Italy Japan Russia United

Kingdom

United

States

European

Union

G8+EU

2006 Final Country Interim Avg. Country Final Avg. Interim Avg. Final Avg.


2006 G8 performance (cont’d)

2006 G8 Compliance Historical Comparison

15G8 Research Group


Compliance is generally down across the board

-8%-12%All G8 + EU

-13%-17%European Union

-19%-18%United States

-9%-12%United Kingdom

+28%+27%Russia

-18%-8%Japan

-34%-23%Italy

+9%-18%Germany

-16%-11%France

-8%-12%Canada

2006 Interim% Change2005-2006

2006 Final% Change2005-2006

16G8 Research Group


Host performance: How did Russia do?

2006 Russia Final Compliance Score: 0.45

0.00

0.34

0.17

0.00

0.42

0.33

0.00

0.06

0.25

0.45

0.140.140.14

0.11

N/A

0.13

0.17

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Russia Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

17G8 Research Group


Germany’s presidency: Off to a good start

2006 Germany Final Compliance Score: 0.55

0.58

0.17

0.25

0.17

1.00

0.59

0.08

0.18

0.42

0.50 0.50

0.67

0.88

0.55

0.33

0.45

0.36

0.50

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Germany Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

18G8 Research Group


Canada: Race to the Finish

2006 Canada Final Compliance Score: 0.60

0.47

0.17

0.50

0.67

0.83 0.82

0.77

0.82 0.83

0.50

0.72

0.81

0.45

0.60

0.52

0.58

0.56

0.66

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Canada Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

19G8 Research Group

IV. Results by Issue

Not all commitments are born(e) equal

♣ Russia identified three priority issue areas as host:

¬ Energy Security

¬ Health and Infectious Diseases

¬ Education

♣ Some commitments are easier than others

♣ Different commitments place different burdens on each member

¬ e.g. Climate Change, Global Partnership

20G8 Research Group

No. Issue Area CAD FRA GER ITA JAP RUS UK USA EU

Issue

Average

1 Health (Global Fund) 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0.56

2 Health (Tuberculosis) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.22

3 Health (Polio) 1 0 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0.44

4 Energy (Oil and Energy Reserve Data

Collection)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00

5 Energy Intensity 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.33

6 Surface Transport 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.44

7 Renewable Energy 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89

8 Climate Change 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.67

9 Education (Academic Mobility) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.44

10 Education (Qualification Systems) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.33

11 Education (Gender Disparities) 1 1 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0.22

12 Africa (Security) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.44

13 Africa (Debt Relief) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.89

14 Transnational Crime and Corruption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

15 Intellectual Property Rights 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 N/A 0.13

16 Trade (Export Subsidies, Agriculture) 0 -1 1 -1 1 0 1 0 0 0.11

17 Counter-terrorism (Energy) 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.56

18 Stabilization and Reconstruction (UN) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

19 Global Partnership (Non-Proliferation) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.56

20 Middle East (Lebanon) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00

Country Average: 0.60 0.40 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.58


How did the G8 perform on the issues?

21G8 Research Group

1.00 1.00

0.89 0.89

0.67

0.56 0.56

0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44

0.33 0.33

0.22 0.22

0.13 0.11

0.00 0.00

0.56

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

JOD

I

Lebanon

Renew

able

s

Afr

ica D

ebt

Clim

ate

Glo

bal Fund

Terr

orism

Non-P

rolife

ration

Polio

Tra

nsport

Edu M

obility

Afr

ica S

ecurity

Inte

nsity

Edu Q

ualification

TB

Edu G

ender

IPR

Tra

de

Crim

e /

Corr

uption

UN

Refo

rm


Issue areas sorted by compliance score

2006 Final G8 Issue Area Performance

22G8 Research Group

1.00

0.44

0.89

0.67

0.33

0.80

0.62

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Energy (Oil and Energy

Reserve Data Collection)

Energy Intensity Surface Transport Renewable Energy Climate Change

2006 Final Energy Security Energy Avg. (1996-2006) Environment Avg. (1996-2006)


Energy Security

2006 Final G8 Energy Security Performance

23G8 Research Group

0.56

0.44

0.22

0.53

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Health (Global Fund) Health (Tuberculosis) Health (Polio)

2006 Final Health Health Avg. (1996-2006)


Health

2006 Final G8 Health Performance

24G8 Research Group

0.22

0.33

0.440.47

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Education (Academic Mobility) Education (Qualification Systems) Education (Gender Disparities)

2006 Final Education Education Avg. (1996-2006)


Education

2006 Final G8 Education Performance

25G8 Research Group

1.00

0.44

0.89

0.67

0.22

0.44 0.44

0.33

0.22

0.56

0.33

0.67

0.41

0.33

0.46

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

JOD

I

Inte

nsity

Tra

nsport

Renew

able

s

Clim

ate

Glo

bal Fund

TB

Polio

Edu M

obility

Edu

Qualifications

Edu G

ender

2006 Final Priorities Energy Security Final Avg. Health Final Avg. Education Final Avg. All Issue Final Avg.


Priorities compared

2006 Final G8 Priority Performance

26G8 Research Group


2006 Interim Compliance ScoresNo. Issue Area CAD FRA GER ITA JAP RUS UK USA EU

Issue

Average



3 Health (Polio) 1 0 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0.44

4 Energy (Oil and Energy Reserve Data Collection)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00




8 Climate Change -1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.56


10 Education (Qualification Systems) 0 0 1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 1 0.00


12 Africa (Security) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.22









Country Average: 0.45 0.30 0.45 -0.10 0.30 0.25 0.55 0.35 0.58

All Country Average: 0.35

All Issue Average: 0.35

27G8 Research Group


2006 Final Compliance ScoresNo. Issue Area CAD FRA GER ITA JAP RUS UK USA EU

Issue

Average



3 Health (Polio) 1 0 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0.44

4 Energy (Oil and Energy Reserve Data

Collection)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00




8 Climate Change 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.67


10 Education (Qualification Systems) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.33


12 Africa (Security) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.44









Country Average: 0.60 0.40 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.58

All Country Average: 0.46

All Issue Average: 0.46

28G8 Research Group


G8 performance since 1996


0.40

0.27

0.39

0.78

0.53

0.27

0.480.51

0.39

0.54

0.47

0.65

0.45

0.46

0.350.33

0.39

0.48

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Average Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

29G8 Research Group


Importance of commitment

♣Measured as total commitments in communiqué of interest as afraction of total St. Petersburg commitments (n=317)

♣ Significant relationship between compliance (-1.0 to +1.0) andimportance (0 to 1.0)

¬ R= 0.50; R2 = 25%, F-test Significance level = 0.029

¬ Compliance increases with decreasing importance

y = 0.2374x + 0.0648

R2 = 0.2533

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Importance

Compliance

2006 Final Compliance vs. Importance Linear (2006 Final Compliance vs. Importance)

30G8 Research Group


Measuring ambition of commitments

♣ Commitment is a new G8 initiative

♣ Commitment contains specific actions

♣ Commitment references target dates

♣ Commitment creates new institutions

♣ Commitment is from a new agenda item

♣ Previous research points to target dates as a compliance catalyst

♣ No evidence that the ambition index, or any measures ofcommitment ambition increased compliance scores for the St.Petersburg summit

31G8 Research Group

VII. Conclusion

The final compliance results are in

♣ Compliance is down (except Russia); but so is the compliance gap

¬ The disparity between the high and low country scores is 0.60,from a high of 0.81 at the Gleneagles interim

¬ Russia, Germany and US outperforming historical averages

¬ Increases in performance over interim compliance report for 10of 20 commitments

♣ Energy security agenda a relative success; health and educationagendas underperform

The St. Petersburg Legacy:?

32G8 Research Group

VIII. HSE Compliance Report

Russia Compliance


0.00

0.34

0.17

0.00

0.42

0.33

0.00

0.06

0.25

0.45

0.140.140.14

0.11

N/A

0.13

0.17

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006


33G8 Research Group

IX. Alternative Perspectives

G8 Research Group (Oxford) Environment Performance Report

-0.40

0.00

0.20

0.00

0.40

-0.40

0.60

0.20

1.00

0.00

-0.20 -0.20

0.20

0.00

0.18

-0.04

0.10

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Canada

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Italy

Japan

Russia

UK

USA

EU

Bra

zil

Chin

a

India

Mexic

o

South

Afr

ica

G8+

EU

Plu

s f

ive

G8+

EU

+5

2006 Overall G8 Final Climate Change Compliance Score: 0.18

34G8 Research Group

VI. Contact

http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/compliance

♣ All compliance reports are accessible online

♣ The 2006 compliance report will be available early next week

♣We welcome any and all feedback

¬ Feedback, for example, from the Canadian government, hasbeen very helpful in focusing our full text on compliance

Further Enquiries

♣ Brian Kolenda and Matto Mildenberger, Compliance Unit Directors

¬ +49 (0) 151 55 23 99 13 / [email protected]

♣Madeline Koch, Managing Director, G8RG

¬ +49 (0) 151 49 24 39 23 / [email protected]

35G8 Research Group

Appendix A. Country Performance

Canada

2006 Canada Final Compliance Score: 0.40

0.47

0.17

0.50

0.67

0.83 0.82

0.77

0.82 0.83

0.50

0.72

0.81

0.45

0.60

0.52

0.58

0.56

0.66

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Canada Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

36G8 Research Group


France

2006 France Final Compliance Score: 0.25

0.28

0.00

0.25

0.34

0.92

0.69

0.64

0.50

0.75

0.500.48

0.57

0.30

0.400.390.380.41

0.49

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

France Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

37G8 Research Group


Germany

2006 Germany Final Compliance Score: 0.45

0.58

0.17

0.25

0.17

1.00

0.59

0.08

0.18

0.42

0.50 0.50

0.67

0.88

0.55

0.33

0.45

0.36

0.50

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Germany Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

38G8 Research Group


Italy

2006 Italy Final Compliance Score: -0.05

0.43

0.50

0.67

0.89

0.57

0.00

-0.11

0.38

0.25

0.39

0.44 0.43

0.29

-0.10

0.00

0.34

0.22

0.39

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Italy Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

39G8 Research Group


Japan

2006 Japan Final Compliance Score: 0.25

0.22

0.50

0.20

0.67

0.82

0.44

0.10

0.18

0.42 0.42

0.33

0.52 0.52

0.30

0.400.39

0.33

0.43

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

Japan Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

40G8 Research Group


Russia


0.00

0.34

0.17

0.00

0.42

0.33

0.00

0.06

0.25

0.45

0.140.140.14

0.11

N/A

0.13

0.17

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006


41G8 Research Group

0.42

0.50

0.75

0.50

1.00

0.69

0.42

0.55

0.50 0.50

0.67 0.67

0.95

0.55

0.600.58

0.54

0.65

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

UK Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average


United Kingdom

2006 UK Final Compliance Score: 0.55

42G8 Research Group


United States

2006 US Final Compliance Score: 0.35

0.34

0.60

0.67

0.35

0.25

0.36

0.44

0.72 0.71

0.81

0.35

0.60

0.42

0.50 0.50 0.50

0.45

0.53

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

US Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

43G8 Research Group


European Union

2006 EU Final Compliance Score: 0.53

0.17

0.720.75

0.89

0.58

0.50

0.58

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

0.61

0.73

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(I)

2002 2003

(I)

2003 2004

(I)

2004 2005

(I)

2005 2006

(I)

2006

EU Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average

2006 st. petersburg final compliance update...igor churkin natalia churkina maria kaloshkina arina...

Documents