THE GLENEAGLES SUMMIT of the G-8 will stand out for its focus on two issues: "Climate change, energy and sustainable development" and Africa. No doubt these are important subjects: The first because of the impact on the planet's future, and the second because Africa remains a Dark Continent even in the 21st Century. However, to the vast majority of poor economies, these subjects are far removed from the strains of making ends meet, which really means that to them the Gleneagles event was not of much consequence.

It would certainly have been different had the G-8 leaders (of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Canada and Japan) spent more time clearing the air on the ongoing multilateral trade negotiations. Admittedly, the summit chairman's official summary of the proceedings made the right noises, such as reiterating the group's resolve to "achieve a successful conclusion across the whole of the Doha Development Agenda" and viewing this as "vital to drive growth and boost incomes across the world, and a necessary element of our work to reduce global poverty". It also spoke of the commitment "to open markets more widely to trade in agricultural goods, industrial goods and services", and "to reduce trade distorting domestic subsidies and eliminate all forms of export subsidies by a credible end date". But these are mere generalities, the more important point being that the official summit communiqué's lone paragraph on the ongoing negotiations says nothing more than expressing its preference for a trade package with the "potential to help lift millions out of poverty".

In contrast, the Africa part of the communiqué details how the G-8 can help countries of the region stand on their feet, and includes the announcement doubling the annual level of assistance to the continent to $50 billion by the end of the decade. Such sectoral emphasis is sometimes to be preferred because they imply a better chance of success given the smaller canvas. This apart, as the communiqué says, the current performance of African countries has generated some hope about the future; a justification of sorts also for the renewed Africa initiative. The G-8 initiative can succeed but only if the Africans set their house in order which is easier said than done. On climate change and energy, beyond the plan of action unfolded at the summit nothing much was achieved. Not surprisingly, given the divergent stands of the US and the other G-8 members on the Kyoto Protocol.

Indeed, it was a bit ironic that the US President, Mr George Bush, and the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, used the same argument to bolster their basic positions on keeping costs under control vis-à-vis efforts to use clean energy. While the former felt that one could "grow (one's) economy and at the same time do a better job of harnessing greenhouse gases," the latter argued that there was a limit to what developing countries can do to protect the environment and also achieve growth. Dr Singh did yeoman's service to the cause of the developing world when he urged for lighter imposition by the Intellectual Property Rights regime on the conversion of environmentally-clean technologies into a "public good" for the rich and poor to share alike.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line