G8 Research Group

Civil society at the Deauville Summit has been buzzing with activity in the aftermath of the communiqué release. NGOs have raised a range of criticisms, with most of them deploring the lack of specific commitments on development for the world’s poorest individuals.

John Ruthrauff, the Director of International Advocacy of US-based NGO coalition InterAction, shared his insights on the summit outcomes with the Civil Society Unit summit team. Like many of the others civil society members, he was largely frustrated by the vague and evasive nature of the communiqué, though not surprised.

Ruthrauff characterized the summit as one that “didn’t deal with NGO issues,” a view that has been echoed by many other civil society actors.  One of his main criticisms centered on the Deauville Accountability Report, which he called a “disaster,” filled mostly with “puff” rather than useful information. The nature of the report, with its ambiguous language and lack of specific timelines, allows G8 leaders to delay keeping their promises.  For advocacy groups like InterAction, the amorphous nature of the communiqué makes it difficult to hold leaders accountable.

Nowhere are the pitfalls of such vague language clearer than in the Report’s account of the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative. At the 2009 summit, USD $22 billion was pledged by the G8 to improve agricultural development and food security. According to the Deauville Accountability Report, 22% of these funds have been dispersed, while another 26% remains “on track” for disbursement. To Ruthrauff, this latter statement represents little more than “air.” Without timelines to keep these pledges on track, he commented, the G8 can continue to evade the delivery of these funds. When asked if he thinks that the L’Aquila funding commitments would be met within the original deadline of three years, he replied that there was “no way,” given the delay evident at this year’s summit. Given the paucity of progress on existing commitments, Ruthrauff insists that advocacy groups must focus their efforts on ensuring that the pledges made at Gleneagles and L’Aquila are met, before asking the G8 for more money.

One final point of interest was the relative effectiveness of the G8 versus the G20 as a useful forum for development talks. Ruthrauff was careful to point out the tremendous differences between the two bodies, with the G8 being much more homogeneous, and the G20 representing a diverse range of governance structures, development realities, and priorities. In his mind, both organizations serve a useful, if different purpose. He welcomes the creation of the G20, and feels it is the more appropriate forum for discussions on financial reform. This does not mean, however, that the G8 is not important when it comes to action on development. Ruthrauff remarked that he does not want to see the G8 dissolve into the G20, as it remains the site of major funding commitments. If the G8 simply faded away, promises made at Gleneagles, L’Aquila, and subsequent summits would also disappear. Yet while acknowledging the strengths of these two Gx institutions, Ruthrauff was also able to point out their inevitable shortcomings. Despite representing the majority of the world’s population and economic wealth, they are still rather exclusive. As a result, nations like Switzerland and Singapore, both nations that carry considerable weight in the global economy, are left out of crucial discussion on today’s most pressing economic issues.

Ultimately, the G8 Summit in Deauville cannot be seen as a victory for NGOs and Civil Society members. The evident theme was one of abandoning or avoiding further progress on prior commitments. Ruthrauff’s  point that NGOs and Civil Society members should not ask for new money, but instead focus on securing all the financial commitments made at previous Summits, is a useful message for further advocacy efforts. Rather than making new promises which they cannot keep, G8 leaders must meet existing pledges made to the world’s most vulnerable citizens.