The lights are off, heads of state and journalists have departed, and we can now try to understand what G8 leaders have in fact decided. Last week’s meeting in L’Aquila was supposed to address the problems of poverty and the impact of the economic crisis on developing countries. Although many details remain unclear, a glance at the statement adopted and the Chair’s summary confirms a common (and worrying) aspect of G8 summits: an abundance of promises and commitments, without sufficient details and clear mechanisms that would ensure effective implementation.
Let’s start from the least successful area: aid. The statement contains the latest commitment to honour the 2005 Gleneagles promises to double aid to Africa by 2010, but without explaining how that goal is to be reached. Of the US$50bn needed, US$15bn is still missing one year from the deadline. While the US, Japan, Canada, Germany and the UK may be able to achieve the objective, France and Italy have recently reduced their funds allocated to development cooperation. Italy has promoted a new ‘whole-of-country approach’ to ensure greater consistency of policies and the involvement of all actors, all instruments and all financial resources; while its aims may be legitimate, in fact it risks making the contributions and commitments of each government less transparent.
A food security initiative received most attention, designed to support rural development in poor countries and to prioritise the agriculture sector, recently rather neglected, on the international agenda. The G8 has pledged to mobilize $20bn in 3 years for a sector that is vital not only for the welfare of the poorest, but also as an engine of growth, investment and exports. Unfortunately, those resources are unlikely to be sufficient to address the problem of malnutrition and food security in an appropriate manner (ActionAid has estimated that $23bn would be needed every year). It is also unclear what proportion of these promises are indeed additional commitments. The Financial Times, for example, argues that the American and Italian shares ($3.5bn and $480m respectively) would be based on ‘new’ funds, while the British share ($1.8bn) are ‘recycled’ funds, reassigned from other areas of the aid budget.
In an attempt to limit the proliferation of false promises, a new initiative, strongly supported by the British Government, would see the introduction of a mechanism to monitor commitments taken individually or collectively by G8 governments with respect to development. The preliminary report presented at L’Aquila is not particularly rich in detail, but from next year a comprehensive and coherent method of data presentation will be used.
The need to specifically check and monitor the commitments made by the G8 is made even more urgent given the devastating effects that the global crisis is having on developing countries. A study published recently by the Overseas Development Institute in London argues that the negative effects of the crisis on poor countries are more serious than initially thought. Remittances and foreign direct investment flows are declining, and the contraction of demand in rich countries is already having an impact on exports in many poor countries, leading to increased unemployment and poverty.
These challenges are global and, given the shifting global power balance, are probably beyond the capacity of the G8. Developing countries have the right to fully participate in meetings that affect their future. Perhaps it is finally time to relegate the G8 to the history books and leave it to the G20, or another more inclusive forum for dialogue and coordination, to take the reins of global economic policy.
–
This article was originally published in Italian on www.lavoce.info
For development, we need to stop corruption and many other social evils. People those who are hindering the growth of any developing or underdeveloped countries will become helpless only when the system makes black money, history.
End of the day, common public will criticise bureaucrats or politicians for all sorts of social troubles. But can we point our fingures to politicians or bureaucrats for all these troubles?.
I would say ‘No’, we are all responsible for best and worst in our country. We need to act. We should be able to do social campaigning for the development of India and eventually a social opinion should be evolved.
developed countries should ensure that citizens of developing nations do not have more than $1m in their accounts domiciled with thier banks (in developed countires). For as long as the developed countries continues enjoy these huge cash inflows, the world will not see any good from developing nations.
In other words, let the develop countries stop supporting the corrupt leaders in the devloping countries directly or indirectly