G7 Japan: The Hiroshima Summit

Since 2006, Abu Dhabi Ports has been the pulse of trade in the emirate by managing world-class service and innovative partnerships, our entities are ensuring that are always in good hands.

Khalifa Port Free Trade Zone, the largest Free Zone in the Middle East covering an making it one of the most attractive destinations for foreign direct investors to grow

EXPANDING POSSIBILITIES & RAISING EXPECTATIONS

every commercial port in Abu Dhabi. By focusing on cutting-edge technology, everything is faster, safer and more cost-effective – which means that your needs

area of 100sq km, is fully integrated with the 2nd fastest growing port in the world, and expand their business.

JAPAN The 2023 Hiroshima Summit

Published by GT Media Group Ltd.

Produced and distributed by The Global Governance Project, a joint initiative between GT Media Group Ltd, a publishing company based in London, UK, and the G7 Research Group based at the University of Toronto.

www.g7.utoronto.ca

The Global Governance Project provides a vital function for private- and public-sector organisations in support of their governance responsibilities. To carry out executive duties effectively, we must have access to unbiased, objective and independent opinion, based on actual policy set at and influenced by the G7 summits and their leadership.

Publisher: Khaled Algaay

Director: Tom Kennedy

Co-Editor: John Kirton

Co-Editor: Madeline Koch

Guest Editor: Naoki Tanaka

Managing Editor: Emily Eastman

Contact:

GT Media Group Ltd

White Collar Factory, 1 Old Street Yard, London EC1Y 8AF

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 207 6085137

Email:

Connect@globalgovernanceproject.org

@GloGovProj

www.globalgovernanceproject.org

G7 Research Group

Contributors:

Kaylin Dawe

Sonja Dobson

Hélène Emorine

Jennifer Jeffs

Ella Kokotsis

Julia Kulik

Maria Marchyshyn

Malhaar Moharir

Jessica Rapson

Denisse Rudich

Keah Sharma

Julia Tops

Alissa Wang

Brittaney Warren

Maria Zelenova

© 2023. The entire contents of this publication are protected by copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. The views and opinions expressed by independent authors and contributors in this publication are provided in the writers’ personal capacities and are their sole responsibility.

Their publication does not imply that they represent the views or opinions of the G7 Research Group, University of Toronto or GT Media Group Ltd and must neither be regarded as constituting advice on any matter whatsoever, nor be interpreted as such. The reproduction of advertisements in this publication does not in any way imply endorsement by the G7 Research Group or GT Media Group Ltd of products or services referred to therein.

Emmanuel Macron, president, France

13

16

PROSPECTS FOR THE HIROSHIMA SUMMIT

John Kirton, director, G7 Research Group

14

STRONGER TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Charles Michel, president, European Council

15

PROFOUND CHANGE AFOOT

Ursula von der Leyen, president, European Commission

Naoki Tanaka, president, Centre for International Public

Joe Biden, president, United

Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister, United Kingdom

NON-PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

20

G7 PERFORMANCE ON NON-PROLIFERATION

Maria Zelenova, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

22

RELIABLE, SCALABLE, SAFE ENERGY

Interview with Rafael Mariano Grossi, director-general, International Atomic Energy Agency

24

A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mitsuru Kurosawa, professor emeritus, Osaka University

REGIONAL SECURITY IN EUROPE AND ASIA

26

G7 PERFORMANCE ON REGIONAL SECURITY: UKRAINE

G7 Research Group analysts

28

BEHIND INCREASED DEFENCE

Jacob Benjamin and David A Welch, Balsillie School of International Affairs

COUNTERING CRIME, CORRUPTION, TERRORISM AND PROLIFERATION

30

AN END TO THE LAWLESS CRYPTO SPACE

T Raja Kumar, president, Financial Action Task Force

32

HUMANITY AT THE FORE Volker Türk, high commissioner for human rights, United Nations 34

THE FIGHT AGAINST FINANCIAL CRIME

Denisse Rudich, director, G7 and G20 Research Groups London

48

G7 PERFORMANCE ON HEALTH

Hélène Emorine, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

36

G7 PERFORMANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Brittaney Warren, director of compliance and climate change research, G7 Research Group

38

ACTING FOR ALL LIFE ON EARTH David Cooper, acting executive secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

50

MILESTONE MOMENTS

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general, World Health O rganization

52

ADVOCACY: RETHINKING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR GLOBAL CHALLENGES

Axel R Pries, president, World Health Summit

54

GOING FURTHER THAN RAPID RESPONSE

40

CLEANING UP HAZARDOUS WASTE Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions ENERGY

42

G7 PERFORMANCE ON ENERGY

Ella Kokotsis, director of accountability, G7 Research Group

44

NO SECURITY WITHOUT CLEAN ENERGY

Interview with Francesco La Camera, director-general, IRENA

46

MAXIMUM ENERGY, MINIMUM EMISSIONS

Haitham Al Ghais, secretary-general, OPEC

Seth Berkley, CEO, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance

56

THREE KEY LESSONS

Winnie Byanyima, executive director, UNAIDS, and undersecretary-general, United Nations

58

BETTER HEALTH IN THE CARIBBEAN AND SMALL ISLAND STATES

Joy St John, executive director, Caribbean Public Health Agency

60

A NEW GLOBAL HEALTH ORDER

Ilona Kickbusch, founding director, Global Health Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

62

PREVENTING NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS: ARE WE BEING FAR-SIGHTED ENOUGH

Vladimir Hachinski, Western University, and Ryosuke Takahashi, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine

MACROECONOMIC POLICY

64

G7 PERFORMANCE ON MACROECONOMIC POLICY

Alissa Wang, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

66

LESSONS IN RESILIENCE

Mathias Cormann, secretarygeneral, OECD

68

ADVOCACY: BEPS 2.0 PILLAR TWO AND ESG INCENTIVES: CHARTING THE PATH FORWARD

Barbara Angus, tax policy leader, EY Global

70

THE POWER OF COHESIVENESS

Mark Sobel, US chair, Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum

FINANCIAL STABILITY

72

THE DARK SIDE OF DIGITAL MONEY

Chiara Oldani, professor of monetary economics, University of Viterbo ‘La Tuscia’

74

FINANCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Jennifer Jeffs, senior research associate in global finance, G7 Research Group

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

76

G7 PERFORMANCE ON TRADE

Maria Marchyshyn, lead researcher on trade, G7 Research Group

78

G7 PERFORMANCE ON INFRASTRUCTURE

Julia Tops, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

80

THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENCE

Kunio Mikuriya, secretarygeneral, World Customs Organization

82

ADVOCACY: CLIMATE ENGAGEMENT IN THE WASH SECTOR

Fiona Jeffery, founder and chair, Just a Drop

TRAVEL AND TOURISM

84

TRUST IN TOURISM TO BUILD A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL

Zurab Pololikashvili, secretary-general, United Nations World Tourism Organization

86

TAKE-OFF FOR GREENER TRAVEL

Julia Simpson, president and CEO, World Travel and Tourism Council

DEVELOPMENT AND DEBT

88

G7 PERFORMANCE ON DEVELOPMENT

Sonja Dobson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

90

REALISING A BETTER WORLD

Interview with Achim Steiner, administrator, United Nations Development Programme DIGITALISATION

92

G7 PERFORMANCE ON THE DIGITAL ECONOMY Kaylin Dawe, researcher, G7 Research Group

94

DELIVERING DIGITAL FOR ALL THIS DECADE Doreen Bogdan-Martin, secretary-general, International Telecommunication Union

96

BENEATH THE DIGITAL SURFACE

David Olive, senior vice president, ICANN

98

THE JOB AHEAD

Gilbert F Houngbo, director-general, International Labour Organization

100

G7 PERFORMANCE ON GENDER EQUALITY

Julia Kulik, director of research, G7 Research Group

102

DIGITAL RIGHTS ARE WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Sima Bahous, under-secretarygeneral, United Nations, and executive director. UN Women

THE G7 SYSTEM

COMPLIANCE

104

PREDICTING G7 PERFORMANCE ON COMPLIANCE

Jessica Rapson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

108

PROSPECTS FOR PERFORMANCE

Keah Sharma and Malhaar Moharir, co-chairs, Summit Studies, G7 Research Group

COOPERATION

110

COUNTING ON JAPAN

Hugo Dobson, School of East Asian Studies, University of Sheffield

112

A SYMBOLIC SUMMIT

Junichi Takase, director, Research Institute of New Global Societies, Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

114

RENEWED UNITY, FRESH PURPOSE

Jonathan Luckhurst, professor of international relations, Soka University

any unilateral attempt to change the status quo by force or the threat or use of nuclear weapons and upholds the international order based on the rule of law. I will lead the discussion as chair and demonstrate the G7’s strong determination to the world with

There are mounting challenges facing the international community, such as the global economy including energy and food security, regional affairs including Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific, proliferation, economic security, and global issues including climate change, global health and development. As chair, I will facilitate candid discussions among the G7 leaders to articulate ideas

This year of the G7 presidency also serves as a valuable opportunity for the next generation and beyond, the youth and children, to turn their attention to global issues and take action. We will provide various opportunities to deepen exchanges, learn together and experience the Hiroshima Summit for

those who will be at the helm of tomorrow’s Japan and world.

With the cooperation of everyone in Japan, including the host cities and prefectures, I wish to foster the momentum of our G7 presidency.

Let us work together towards the success of the summit and ministerial meetings as well as towards a bright future for Japan and the world.

We will provide various opportunities to deepen exchanges, learn together and experience the Hiroshima Summit for those who will be at the helm of tomorrow’s Japan and world”

Meloni Prime Minister,

Giorgia

Italy Triggering sustainable growth

Only a democratic system can ensure the essential conditions for triggering sustainable growth, taking action in the areas most able to produce positive effects and guarantee the best conditions for development. I am referring to justice, equity, legality, the correct functioning of the free market and the need to ensure that institutions are stable, fast and efficient. Having more stable and efficient institutions means being able to enjoy greater reliability at the international level and managing to focus energies on major strategic and long-term objectives …

A democratic system guarantees free private initiative, protects jobs and allows all citizens to participate in the definition of policy guidelines and to contribute to, and benefit from, the nation’s social and economic growth. In a democratic system, economic growth must be matched by an increase in general well-being and an appropriate distribution of the resulting benefits. Economic development, and improved well-being, influence the democratic process and can trigger democratisation processes. The more intense the growth, the more an adequate level of social and economic development is achieved, and [the] more likely a population will choose the path of democracy. Democracy delivers economic growth and shared prosperity, but also economic growth and shared prosperity deliver democracy.

This is also why the Italian Government is pursuing the ‘Mattei Plan for Africa’, a non-predatory cooperation model to create value chains close by, and to help African nations to live well off the resources available to them.

Italy is committed to making its contribution in terms of investments and sharing its deep expertise in the food security sector. In this regard, I am happy

to announce that from July 24 to 26 we will host in Rome the “Stock Taking Moment” Food Systems Summit. We attach great importance to this event also considering the role that the Roman hub of the United Nations will be able to play. The summit will be a starting point to define a common strategy, together with the United Nations and the European Union.

We need to support those Nations that have not yet reached our level of economic development.

Solidarity is a fundamental democratic value, also to demonstrate that [the] West is NOT against the rest! In this regard, Italy wants to do its part and we will continue to pursue these principles during our next G7 Presidency.

I believe that democracies can reach better results according to our principles

and respecting our values. It takes time, but it is worth it and together I’m sure we can absolutely make it.

Summit for Democracy, 29 March 2023

Providing military aid to Ukraine is necessary to ensure that a nation under attack can legitimately defend itself in line with the United Nations charter. We have formalised a sixth aid package with measures that strengthen above all air defences. This means protecting the lives of civilians, it means providing protection against the indiscriminate bombings that attack vital infrastructure for the population in the hope of making the Ukrainian people surrender after being deprived of water, electricity and heating … It is necessary to stand up and be counted on these issues, and we are not afraid to say that respecting the commitments undertaken is vital for our international credibility and for our own national sovereignty, because quite simply freedom has a price and, if you are not able to defend yourself, someone else will do it for you, but won’t do it for free, imposing their interests even to the detriment of yours, and I don’t believe this has ever been a good deal for anyone.

With regard to geopolitical and diplomatic matters, in our view the pressure being put on Moscow is essential to ensure respect for international law and, even more so, to create the best conditions possible to begin a negotiation process and reach a just peace. So far, the conditions have not been ripe for this, but we must continue to pursue them with tenacity, as we are doing every day.

Russia’s aggression has also had repercussions on global food security, contributing to fragility in the Mediterranean and Africa, and therefore also to illegal migratory flows. I therefore wish to reaffirm that we support the agreement on the export of grain in the Black Sea, which has just been renewed. We believe the issue of Ukraine’s future reconstruction is also key; in this regard, I believe that the ‘Italian system’ is ready to make its contribution. We are also working towards this objective through the conference on Ukraine’s reconstruction, which we will be hosting here in Rome … Address to the Senate, 21 March 2023

Olaf Scholz Chancellor, Germany

New forms of international solidarity

Russia has already failed completely in reaching its imperialist goals.

Ukraine is defending itself with great success and impressive courage. A broad international alliance – led by the G7 – is providing the country with financial, economic, humanitarian, and military support …

We are resolutely pushing forward with the decarbonization of our industry.

We want to be climate-neutral by 2045. And at the same time, we will remain a country with a strong manufacturing sector … What we are doing in Germany also serves the goal of making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. At a European level, we are going to lower our net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990. This decision stands.

Here, we are relying on the market, on competition, and on innovation. The EU’s emissions trading system is a case in point. Even today we are using it to cut permissible emission levels in a way that is predictable for all. At the same time, this system is serving as a catalyst for innovation.

But to ensure the most ambitious are not disadvantaged, we prepare a carbon border adjustment mechanism in Europe. At the same time however, Europe remains open for international trade. I am doing my utmost to ensure that the free trade agreements we have successfully negotiated with Canada, Korea, Japan, New Zealand, and Chile will soon be followed by new ones: with MERCOSUR, India, and Indonesia. And we are also open to discuss a tariff agreement for the industrial sector with the United States.

Through these agreements we are creating a level playing field and we are preventing high-emission industries from heading off to countries with less ambitious climate targets.

This is also the aim of the international Climate Club we launched during Germany’s G7 Presidency. A Secretariat has recently been set up at the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] and the International Energy Agency. So the Club is now open to new, ambitious members.

World Economic Forum, 18 January 2023

First of all, … the EU stands unified – and it stands behind Ukraine’s future EU membership.

NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] is gaining two new members …

My second point: the sooner President Putin realises that he cannot achieve his imperialist objective, the greater the chance that the war [in Ukraine] will end soon with a withdrawal of Russia’s occupying forces …

My third message is therefore: we will continue to strike a balance between providing the best possible support for Ukraine and avoiding an unintended escalation …

And that brings me to my fourth message: Germany is committed to living up to its responsibility for Europe’s security and that of NATO Allied territory – without any ifs or buts …

Therefore, my fifth point is: the European Union must pull together strategically when it comes to arms policy …

Further steps must be taken to consolidate a geopolitical Europe. After all, security cannot be achieved through military strength alone in our digital, technological and globalised world.

And that’s why my sixth point is: for us Europeans –and I’m ultimately talking about all open and democratic societies like our own – it’s crucial that we become more resilient overall.

That will not be achieved by de-globalisation, by turning our backs on the world.

That would be a betrayal of our own values – as well as an ill-advised decision economically.

Rather, it can only be achieved by ending one-sided, risky dependencies – and making our political and economic relations broader and more robust …

All countries are called upon to defend certain fundamental principles of the international order – including China … At the same time, I’m under no illusions about what we can achieve through dialogue alone – also among our democratic partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America …

We have to genuinely address the interests and concerns of these countries – as the basic prerequisite for joint action.

That’s why it was so important to me to not merely have representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America at the negotiating table during the G7 Summit last June.

I really wanted to work with these regions to find solutions to the main challenges they face: growing poverty and hunger – partly as a consequence of Russia’s war – as well as the impact of climate change or the COVID-19 pandemic. And that brings me to my seventh and final point: if the multipolar world of the 21st century is to have an order which is based on justice and penalises injustices, then we need new forms of international solidarity and new ways of enabling countries to have their say.

Munich Security Conference, 17 February 2023

Joe Biden President, United States

The resilience of democracy

Look, you know, that’s the power of these summits. Not just to speak high-minded words and shine a spotlight on those critical issues, but to galvanize action that translate[s] to concrete progress for people around the world. That’s how we make democracy deliver for everyone …

Here in the United States, we’ve demonstrated that our democracy can still do big things and deliver important progress for working Americans.

We’re bringing down the cost of essentials like prescription drugs and health insurance premiums. We’re giving families a little bit more – as my dad used to say, a little bit more breathing room.

We’re rebuilding America’s infrastructure, driving innovation and tackling the climate crisis – all while creating good union jobs and investing in communities that too often have been left behind in the past.

We’re also demonstrating the resilience of American democracy.

Summit for Democracy, 29 March 2023

Canada and the United States, together with a coalition of 50 nations we jointly worked to put together, are making sure that Ukraine can defend itself.

We’re supplying air defense systems, artillery systems, ammunition, armored vehicles, tanks, and so much more. Tens of billions of dollars so far.

Together with our G7 partners, we’re imposing significant costs on Russia as well, denying Russia critical inputs for its war machine.

We’re independently holding Russia accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that Russia is committing and continues to commit as I speak today … Putin was certain he would have been able to break NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization] by now. He was certain of that. But guess what? His lust for land and power has failed thus far.

The Ukrainian people’s love of their country is going to prevail.

In the face of President Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, Canada and the United States are also making clear our commitment to our NATO Allies. We’ll keep our Alliance strong and united. We’ll defend every inch of NATO territory.

An attack against one is an attack against all.

Address to the Canadian Parliament, Ottawa, 24 March 2023

Putin’s invasion has been a test for the ages. A test for America. A test for the world. Would we stand for the most basic of principles?

Would we stand for sovereignty?

Would we stand for the right of people to live free from tyranny?

Would we stand for the defense of democracy?

For such a defense matters to us because it keeps the peace and prevents open season for would-be aggressors to threaten our security and prosperity. One year later, we know the answer.

Yes, we would.

And yes, we did.

Together, we did what America always does at our best.

We led.

We united NATO and built a global coalition.

We stood against Putin’s aggression.

We stood with the Ukrainian people … Our nation is working for more freedom, more dignity, and more peace, not just in Europe, but everywhere.

Before I came to office, the story was about how the People’s Republic of China was increasing its power and America was falling in the world.

Not anymore.

I’ve made clear with President Xi that we seek competition, not conflict.

I will make no apologies that we are investing to make America strong. Investing in American innovation, in industries that will define the future, and that China’s government is intent on dominating.

Investing in our alliances and working with our allies to protect our advanced technologies so they’re not used against us.

Modernizing our military to safeguard stability and deter aggression.

Today, we’re in the strongest position in decades to compete with China or anyone else in the world.

I am committed to work with China where it can advance American interests and benefit the world.

But make no mistake: … if China threatens our sovereignty, we will act to protect our country. And we did.

And let’s be clear: winning the competition with China should unite all of us. We face serious challenges across the world.

But in the past two years, democracies have become stronger, not weaker.

Autocracies have grown weaker, not stronger.

America is rallying the world again to meet those challenges, from climate and global health, to food insecurity, to terrorism and territorial aggression.

Allies are stepping up, spending more and doing more.

And bridges are forming between partners in the Pacific and those in the Atlantic. And those who bet against America are learning just how wrong they are.

It’s never a good bet to bet against America. State of the Union Address, 7 February 2023

Justin Trudeau Prime Minister, Canada

Pulling together in an era of entangled global crises

People around the world are feeling the compounding impacts of entangled global crises: conflict, climate change, food and energy insecurity, and pandemics. With these crises driving up the cost of living, displacing people from their homes, disrupting traditional supply chains and sowing uncertainty for the future, G7 countries must once again do what we always do during tough times: pull together.

Last year, when Russian president Vladimir Putin made the grave mistake of invading a free and independent country, we pulled together to implement coordinated and hard-hitting sanctions to put pressure on him and his enablers. We have provided the training, military equipment, financial assistance and humanitarian aid the Ukrainian people need – and we will keep supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. When it comes to standing up for human rights, for the rule of law, for democracy, and standing against disinformation and foreign interference, the G7 stands together, and more united than ever.

The impacts of Russia’s war of aggression have been felt far beyond the borders of Ukraine. The war compounded global inflation, making it harder for families to make ends meet at the end of the month. It caused concern about regional food supplies with Russia blocking Ukrainian grain from reaching some of the world’s most vulnerable regions. And it showed us that too many countries were reliant on Russian oil and gas to power their economies. So we pulled

together to fill gaps where possible, now and into the future. But geopolitical uncertainty stretches beyond Russia too. Now, as countries around the world are seeking strong, reliable trading partners to develop the supply chains our economies need, we must keep pulling together to meet that demand.

The clean economy presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to not only keep 1.5°C of warming within reach and avert the worst impacts of climate change, but also to create and secure good, middle-class jobs for our people and grow our economies. For too long, it was taken as conventional wisdom that we had to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. And there are still those who think that way. But if you ask the Canadian innovators developing clean hydrogen to ship to Germany or Japan or workers processing critical minerals to power the North American electric vehicle sector, they would tell you that we do not have to choose between clean air and good jobs. When we cut emissions, we can drive economic growth and build new strong, reliable supply chains that reduce our reliance on raw materials and components from countries such as China and Russia too. This is economic policy, it is climate policy and it is security policy.

PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST

Above all, what we must do in this moment is put people first. That means we, as G7 members, need to adopt policies at home that ensure the prosperity we are seeking to create is shared, not among the largest corporations and the wealthiest in our societies, but by everyone – including those who are too often left behind. For example, affordable child care, which we are already implementing in Canada, is delivering real results by driving economic growth with more women entering the workforce. Whether through the Sustainable Development Goals or the work of the Gender Equality Advisory Council and amplifying the voices of women, particularly in places such as Iran and Afghanistan, G7 members work together on our shared responsibility to support people. And we have a shared responsibility to demonstrate that our free, open and rules-based system not only works, but also delivers the strongest and most prosperous economies where people have the best chance of success. Because we know that only when everyone, everywhere has clean air and clean water, a good job and equal opportunity, can we

For the past few years, we have spoken a lot about tough times. We have used the word ‘unprecedented’ and said ‘now, more than ever’ more times than we can count. But in this era of entangled crises, there is only one way we get through: by pulling together. Pulling together to seize the opportunity to build clean and reliable supply chains for our economies and our workers, pulling together to stand up for democracy and what is right, and pulling together to build a healthy future for our children and grandchildren. Now, more than ever, we need to stand together.

When we cut emissions, we can drive economic growth and build new strong, reliable supply chains”

Emmanuel Macron President, France

New economic ambitions

It is an unprecedented situation in history: a number of staggering challenges must be urgently dealt with. They range from security and the climate to demographic challenges with young people arriving, and in every African State, they must be offered a future. States and administrations must be consolidated, with massive investment in education, health, employment, training and the energy transition. This must all be done while under more pressure than others from climate change and its effects, the terrorism offensive, and economic, health and geopolitical shocks. I believe I can say that no other region in the world has been subjected to this obligation of a result in the space of one or two generations, as the African continent is today … This proximity and energy should inspire us and encourage us to realize the strength that lies in our advantage of being neighbours to Africa, and to be among the countries that have a unique, human, existential tie to this continent, which is a blessing. Our fate is entwined with that of the African continent … I believe that by continuing and stepping up the work already underway we can ward off this nascent opposition between the supposedly Western North and a Global South, which are said to no longer have shared approaches. I strongly reject that notion, and we have to prove that it is wrong. We demonstrated it through a new method which we have now also begun. The G7 in Biarritz was prepared with the African countries which I invited. We also did this at the G20 in Bali, where we brought together all African countries before we started to work together via an ongoing conversation of sorts. And it was exactly the same thing

we did when we launched the ACT-A Initiative, designed with the African Union Bureau, in a dialogue which was also unprecedented. And we will now do the same thing.

A SOCIAL INVESTMENT APPROACH

At the Summit we will organize in Paris on 23 June, we will consolidate this shift from an assistance to a social investment approach. On the new South-North partnership, it is precisely because it is with Africa, but also with India and Barbados, that we can form a new pact to set out a new international financial architecture to fight inequalities and fund

supports democracy and freedom, in Africa and beyond. A country which talks to everyone, including political opponents. A country which prefers solid institutions to providential individuals. A country which believes that military coups can never be alternatives to democracy. And, as many African intellectuals have recalled, democracy also has African origins. So our role is not to impose or proclaim our values, but to help networks of intellectuals and civic actors to maintain democracy by drawing on democratic practices from their society …

It is clearly also in our interests to provide new economic ambitions on the continent of Africa …

That is why we fought to have a framework within the G20.

It is also in our interests to act collectively with our European allies and position Europe as a partner of reference on major defence and security issues …

It is the same thing we want to do in terms of financing African infrastructure. It is only with this lever that we can truly have a level playing field in terms of competing with other actors. Several of you are working in that area, for which I sincerely thank you. But it is by using this lever that we can convince our African partners to adopt the standards to which our companies can work and produce high-quality infrastructure which we want to promote as part of the G20. It is the very approach which the European Union adopted with the Global Gateway, and which we then used at the G7 with the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment and €600 billion which will be invested by 2027. These are huge financial levers, but it is also the G20 framework, which is [a] responsible, sustainable, public finance framework for these infrastructures. That is why we must also travel together, talk together, act together, and each time we mobilize this European-African theme, we have kept our promises … Address before visiting Central Africa, Paris, 27 February 2023

Rishi Sunak Prime Minister, United Kingdom Adapting to our new reality

In the last 18 months, the challenges we face have only grown. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine … China’s growing assertiveness …

The destabilising behaviour of Iran and North Korea … all threaten to create a world defined by danger, disorder, and division.

Faced with this new reality, it is more important than ever that we strengthen the resilience of our own countries …

We’re providing an extra £5bn over the next two years, immediately increasing our defence budget to around 2.25% of GDP [gross domestic product] …

For the first time, the United Kingdom will move away from our baseline commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence to a new ambition of 2.5%.

Putting beyond doubt that the United Kingdom is – and will remain – one of the world’s leading defence powers.

AUKUS trilateral press conference, San Diego, 13 March 2023

The United Kingdom will always be on the side of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

And the security of our European continent will always be our overriding priority.

Now there’s no greater example of those commitments than our response to the war in Ukraine.

Just this year we became the first country in the world to provide tanks to Ukraine – and the first to train pilots and marines. We gave £2.3 billion last year – and we will match or exceed that in 2023.

Now other allies can tell a similar story – and our collective efforts are making a difference.

But with every day that passes, Russian forces inflict yet more pain and suffering.

Now the only way to change that is for Ukraine to win.

So we need a military strategy for Ukraine to gain a decisive advantage on the battlefield to win the war, and a political strategy to win the peace.

To win the war, Ukraine needs more artillery, armoured vehicles and air defence.

So now is the moment to double down on our military support.

When Putin started this war, he gambled that our resolve would falter.

Even now, he is betting that we will lose our nerve.

But we proved him wrong then.

And we will prove him wrong now …

But to win the peace we also need to rebuild the international order on which our collective security depends.

First, that means upholding international law.

The whole world must hold Russia to account.

We must see justice through the ICC [International Criminal Court] for their sickening war crimes committed, whether in Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol or beyond.

And Russia must also be held to account for the terrible destruction it has inflicted.

We are hosting the Ukraine Recovery Conference in London this June.

And we should consider – together – how to ensure that Russia pays towards that reconstruction.

Now second, the treaties and agreements of the post–Cold War era have failed Ukraine.

So we need a new framework for its long-term security.

From human rights to reckless nuclear threats, from Georgia to Moldova, Russia has committed violation after violation against countries outside the collective security of NATO [the North Atlantic Treaty Organization].

And the international community’s response has not been strong enough.

As Jens Stoltenberg has said, “Ukraine will become a member of NATO.”

But until that happens, we need to do more to bolster Ukraine’s long-term security.

We must give them the advanced NATO-standard capabilities that they need for the future.

And we must demonstrate that we’ll remain by their side, willing and able to help them defend their country again and again. Ukraine needs and deserves assurances of that support. So ahead of the NATO summit in Vilnius we will bring together our friends and allies to begin building those long-term assurances.

And our aim should be to forge a new charter in Vilnius to help protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression.

Now let me conclude with one final thought.

What’s at stake in this war is even greater than the security and sovereignty of one nation.

It’s about the security and sovereignty of every nation. Because Russia’s invasion, its abhorrent war crimes and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric are symptomatic of a broader threat to everything we believe in.

From the skies over North America to the suffering on the streets of Tehran, some would destabilise the order that has preserved peace and stability for 80 years.

They must not prevail. And we need not be daunted.

As President Zelenskyy said when he addressed the UK Parliament … we are marching towards the most important victory of our lifetime. It will be a victory over the very idea of war.

And we could have no greater purpose than to prove him right.

Munich Security Conference, 18 February 2023

Charles Michel President,

European Council

Stronger together for the common good

Deglobalisation. As the world is buffeted by a whirlwind of global crises, we increasingly hear this term to describe the trend of the world today.

We must resist this trend. A more deglobalised, less multilateral world will not make the world safer and more prosperous. It will make it more dangerous, more fractured. Only a global approach, anchored in effective multilateralism, can address today’s complex challenges.

Covid-19 and the war against Ukraine have undeniably shaken our geopolitical moorings. They have influenced global trade relations and intensified the precarity of the world’s most vulnerable, driving up inflation, food and energy prices, and the cost of living. They have also widened the chasm between rich and developing countries and exacerbated global poverty. Many heavily indebted countries now face acute, multifaceted crises – from fighting terrorism and crushing debt to malnutrition, hunger and humanitarian crises.

As the world navigates a geopolitical transition, we should resist the forces that lead towards a patchwork of antagonistic coalitions. Carving the world into opposing blocs will only foment greater division and make it harder to solve global problems.

COOPERATING FOR THE COMMON GOOD

The European Union will continue to reach out to all who want to cooperate for the common good. We strive to build balanced relationships with partners based on our shared interests and to tackle problems through inclusivity and multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations, World Health Organization and World Trade Organization.

Closing the gap between the rich and poor must be a top priority. We will not achieve this through a global hodgepodge of different norms, standards and trading practices, in an atmosphere of heightened security tensions. This would catapult the world back in time, away from the cooperative multilateral approach defined by shared international standards and mutually beneficial free trade.

As the G7, we stand united to address the key challenges of our time. We are forging alliances to fight world hunger, for instance, and to ensure global food security. Programmes such as the Global Alliance for Food Security and the Food and Agriculture Resilience Mission are leading the way. The European Union is also taking strong action. Since May 2022, the EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes have enabled the export of nearly 25 million tonnes of Ukrainian agricultural products to global markets. The EU will also provide over €8 billion to support global food security until 2024.

With developing and emerging economies, we are combatting climate change and helping to make a success of the climate transition. The EU and its member states are the largest provider of public climate finance in the world, with more than €23 billion in 2021. The Just Energy Transition Partnerships are helping countries to accelerate the transition to clean energy and technology.

Quality infrastructure is also key to the well-being of people. Through the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, the G7 and EU are working to strengthen global partnerships for high-standard investments in sustainable, transparent and quality infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries. The quality of people’s well-being is also defined by the quality of their health. The G7 is therefore working to strengthen global health systems, notably through equitable access to safe and affordable vaccines. We support global health sovereignty by expanding local manufacturing for vaccines and other essential medical products in developing countries.

When we speak about the health of our people and societies, this increasingly includes our ‘digital health’ as well. Digital technology is the beating heart of open and democratic societies. It must be anchored in trust. Building this trust is all our responsibility – to ensure that the data we exchange is safe and the safeguards for our fundamental freedoms are robust. This will benefit our citizens, economies and global well-being.

BACK ON THE TRACK OF HOPE

Global inequality and poverty are going in the wrong direction. We need to reverse this trend and bridge the gap between the world’s richest and poorest. It is a question of human dignity. It is also a matter of global stability. This can only be achieved through effective multilateral cooperation and a global system in which power is distributed more fairly. Reforming the United Nations and including the African Union in the G20 would be steps in the right direction. The European Union is a strong partner for peace, security and development. We will continue to extend a hand to all those who wish to band together to make the world a fairer place for everyone. Together, we will put the world back on the track of hope.

Ursula von der Leyen President, European Commission Profound change afoot

The basic promise of democracy is equality. It should not matter whether you are a man or a woman. It should not matter how you identify yourself. It should not matter how you look, what family you come from, or who you love. It should not matter whether or not you are part of the majority. In a democracy, everyone must enjoy equal rights and opportunities. But equality is not a given. It is an aspiration that is constantly challenged, including within our own democratic societies. Some people continue to be discriminated [against] because of their colour, their faith, their gender or because of who they love. The path towards full equality for all citizens is long, including in Europe. But we are moving forward. For instance, the European Union has launched a new push for equality in the workplace; with equal pay for equal work, so that women earn the same as their male colleagues; or with a Child Guarantee, so that all families can afford childcare; or with a fair minimum wage, so that all workers can enjoy a decent living. We also set out a new initiative against racism, and anti-Semitism and strategies for the rights of persons with disabilities and LGBTIQ equality. That is the unique strength of democracy. Democracies deliver opportunities, for all.

Today, we see that this basic principle is threatened. Not only within societies but also between states. Russia could not accept that the people of Ukraine would choose their own path. Putin is trying to deny this nation’s right to exist, to deny that Ukrainians exist as a people, with their history, their culture, their identity. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is an outdated imperial war. A war against the right of all countries and all people to exist, to determine their own future. For many, Ukraine may seem a foreign country far away. But the values and wishes of the brave Ukrainians could not be closer to us: the right to be themselves, the right to live freely and independently from the grip of a neighbour who feels mightier and superior. Billions of people on all continents share the

same desire. This is why Europe will keep standing by Ukraine because they are also defending our values and our democracy.

Summit for Democracy, 29 March 2023

We see rising inflation making the cost of living and the cost of doing business more expensive. We see energy being used as a weapon. We see threats of trade wars and the return of confrontational geopolitics. In addition, climate change already comes with a huge cost and we have no time to lose in the transition to a clean economy.

The net-zero transformation is already causing huge industrial, economic and geopolitical shifts – by far the quickest and the most pronounced in our lifetime. It is changing the nature of work and the shape of our industry. But we are on the brink of something far greater. Just think: in less than three decades we want to reach net zero. But the road to net zero means developing and using a whole range of new clean technologies across our economy: in transport, buildings, manufacturing, energy. The next decades will see the greatest industrial transformation of our times – maybe of any times. And those who develop and manufacture the technology that will be the foundation of tomorrow’s economy will have the greatest competitive edge … Here in Europe, we moved first with the European Green Deal to set the path to climate neutrality by 2050. We have cast our net-zero target into law to provide the predictability and transparency business needs. We followed it up with the investment firepower of NextGenerationEU, our €800 billion investment plan, the Just Transition Fund and other instruments across the economy. This is unprecedented investment in clean technology across all sectors of the green transition. Clean tech is now the fastest-growing investment sector in Europe – doubling its value between 2020 and 2021 alone. And the good news for the planet is that other major economies are now also stepping up. Japan’s green transformation plans aim to help raise up to JPY 20 trillion – around €140 billion – through ‘green transition’ bonds. India has put forward the Production Linked Incentive Scheme to enhance their competitiveness in sectors [such as] solar photovoltaics and batteries. The UK, Canada and many others have also put forward their investment plans in clean tech. And of course, we have seen the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, their US$369 billion clean-tech investment plan. That means that together, the EU and US alone are putting forward almost €1 trillion to accelerate the clean energy economy. This has the potential to massively boost the path to climate neutrality.

World Economic Forum, Davos, 17 January 2023

John Kirton, director, G7 Research

Group

Prospects for the Hiroshima Summit

The G7’s 49th annual summit is truly historic. For three days, from 19 to 21 May 2023 in Hiroshima, G7 leaders will simultaneously confront two genuinely existential threats to the planet. The first is the danger of nuclear war in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons, nuclear-armed North Korea threatening its neighbours and a militarising China willing to invade Taiwan. The second threat is climate change, relentlessly driving global temperatures towards liveable limits and approaching critical tipping points beyond which there is no return. Accompanying this deadly duo are the interconnected crises of energy, food, health, economic,

financial and social insecurity, development setbacks, rising debt in poor countries and democratic decline.

To confront these threats, Japanese prime minister and host Fumio Kishida, at his second regular G7 summit, will join German chancellor Olaf Scholz at his second, US president Joe Biden at his third, French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau at their eighth, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni and the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at their first, and the European Union presidents Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen at their fourth. Invited leaders come from the Indo-Pacific countries of India, Indonesia, Australia, Korea, Vietnam, Comoros and the Cook Islands, as well as Brazil.

KEY PRIORITIES

Security, the G7’s top priority, is highlighted by the summit’s location in Kishida’s hometown of Hiroshima. It starts with reducing the threats of nuclear war, proliferation and poor civilian reactor safety, by taking realistic, practical steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. It features regional security in Europe, including further sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine. It adds strengthening a free, open Indo-Pacific, amid China’s threat to neighbouring democracies. It embraces crime and corruption and the overall need to defend democracy and human rights everywhere.

Ecology, another top priority, is led by climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Leaders will offer a blueprint to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, reduce their own by 45% by 2030, strengthen energy security through clean and renewable sources, help climatevulnerable people, and ask all major emitters to assist.

The key priority of health begins with countering the continuing Covid-19 pandemic, and learning its lessons to strengthen the global health architecture for prevention, preparedness and response for the pandemics sure to come. Leaders will do so by shaping a new pandemic accord, better International Health Regulations and a richer Pandemic Fund, all with a better equipped World Health Organization at the core. They will spur success on sustainable universal health coverage for the United Nations high-level meeting in September. They will also address HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, chronic and non-communicable diseases, zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance, and mental and brain health, especially as dementia spreads among the rapidly ageing populations in key G7 members.

The economy, another top priority, starts with strengthening economic security by building resilient supply chains for critical minerals, other key goods, essential technologies and infrastructure, and by countering economic coercion, non-market practises and malicious digital misuse. It includes restoring non-inflationary growth through fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policy and strengthening financial stability through better financial regulation and supervision. It extends to trade, investment, infrastructure, travel and tourism, and digital governance to standardise norms based on digital free flow with trust and democracy, through new partnerships for transparency. Key components are restoring development in poor countries and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals due by 2030, through helping vulnerable people, raising development finance, countering non-sustainable debt and overcoming vulnerabilities in the global food system. Society, yet another priority, features improving gender equality by synergising efforts to advance women in security, the economy and society. It includes supporting better jobs and labour standards, education, human capital, and care for children and youth.

Strengthening the G7’s global governance, the final priority, includes improving implementation of summit commitments, and the G7’s work with multilateral organisations amid a changing balance of power and cascading crises. It embraces cooperating with the major

John Kirton is the director of the G7 Research Group, the G20 Research Group, the BRICS Research Group and the Global Health Diplomacy Program, under the umbrella of the Global Governance Program at the University of Toronto, where he is a professor emeritus of political science. He is co-author, most recently, of Reconfiguring the Global Governance of Climate Change, and is co-editor of G20 Indonesia: The 2022 Bali Summit as well as a global health series, including the recent Health: A Political Choice – Investing in Health For All. Twitter @jjkirton  www.g7.utoronto.ca

growing democracies led by India, and strengthening the G7’s relationship with the G20 and the many G7 engagement groups.

GATHERING MOMENTUM

Propelling progress on these priorities are Kishida’s pre-summit visits to his fellow G7 leaders and the G7’s virtual summit on 24 February with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. Further momentum comes from G7 members’ strong compliance of over 90% by mid April with last year’s priority commitments and from the 15 stand-alone G7 ministerial meetings Japan has scheduled.

At Hiroshima, G7 leaders will build on this strong start to do the bigger, bolder things that only they can do and that the world badly needs. Their actions will flow from and strengthen the G7’s distinctive foundational mission of protecting and promoting open democracy, individual liberty and social advance everywhere. With G7 leaders now acting together with great unity, the Hiroshima Summit promises to produce a strong performance for the world.

JOHN KIRTON

At Hiroshima, G7 leaders will build on this strong start to do the bigger, bolder things that only they can do and that the world badly needs”

Naoki Tanaka

, president, Centre for International Public Policy Studies

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has raised questions about how well our current economic models can work amid the major changes and analytical challenges it caused and what G7 leaders at their Hiroshima Summit should do in response. The challenge has been compounded by new standards of corporate governance, which have considerable impact on Russia, China, Japan and Asia. The answers thus far are as follows.

First, based on the experience of the 1970s, macroeconomic policy should be aimed at

controlling expected inflation rates.

Second, developed countries’ ‘zero interest rate’ policy to avoid economic contraction due to the Covid-19 pandemic has been called into question, but premature conclusions should not be made.

Third, the crisis in Ukraine could be directly linked to a crisis in the European Union for countries with excessive national debt relative to the size of their economies. Within the EU, what conditions would allow a ceasefire in Ukraine? And for Japan, with its large outstanding national

Global economic modulation: identifying the signs

debt, how does the Ukraine crisis feed back into its market?

Fourth, in March 2023, after the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the United States Federal Reserve Bank, Treasury Department and others joined forces to contain the systemic risk. But although Basel requirements focus on large banks, other businesses have found it difficult to apply such standards. What is the market’s assessment here?

Fifth, in our new era of globalisation, in places where there is no decarbonisation, no rule of law, no respect for human rights and rising despotism, how are our predictive models of the global economy affected?

A CRITICAL POSITION

Here China’s economic position is critical, especially as it shifted from a zero–Covid-19 policy to a post-zero–Covid-19 policy as 2023 began. Its demand for raw materials imports rose, but its structural recession was exposed by problems in its real estate market and government intervention in Hong Kong. In March, Xi Jinping unveiled his new policy, but the slump in foreign direct investment in China continued, and real estate has not revived.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also increased divisions between the G7-led Global North and the Global South. The invasion caused fuel and grain prices to skyrocket and thus created instability in developing countries highly dependent on importing energy and food. The US, the EU and Japan issued sanctions against Russia based on respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights. This created a growing gap with developing countries, especially in many countries in Africa, which received important material and technological support from the Soviet Union after their independence. Consequently many African countries abstained from United Nations resolutions condemning Russia.

Moreover, expectations of rising inflation in advanced economies have reversed the trend in developing countries from capital inflows to capital outflows. In particular, tightened money supply in the US could trigger a ‘tantrum’ in developing countries, which would find it more difficult to manage their economies. Although this is not what the US and other developed countries want, no one considers the impacts on developing countries. Disciplining the global economy is also a conceivable consequence of the Global North’s desire to call itself the ‘unipole’ of the Global South.

FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS

Russia’s invasion had major implications for China and India, which historically have had deep relations with Russia. Practical considerations also made it unlikely that China or India would be subject to economic sanctions. However, these two countries form the main poles of the Global South. India seems to be acting for itself, playing the democratic card to differentiate itself from

Naoki Tanaka is president of the Centre for International Public Policy Studies and a freelance economic analyst specialising in a variety of fields, including international and Japanese economics, politics and industry. He was previously president of the 21st Century Public Policy Institute.

China, but not coming so close to the so-called West, represented by the G7, as to break the framework of the Global South.

It will be important to inspect the path of economic spillover into the Global South from the so-called West. China and India, without enough external financial dependence, require different approaches. However, with countries such as Morocco, Thailand and Malaysia increasingly open to the outside world, it is possible to obtain the indicators necessary to capture the major trends in the global economy and to forecast prospects. Interference in economic causality is possible even for countries in the Global South.

At the Hiroshima Summit, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida should do his best to lead his G7 colleagues in avoiding assisting the war-waging capabilities of authoritarian regimes and, most importantly, in establishing decarbonisation measures across borders.

NAOKI TANAKA

It will be important to inspect the path of economic spillover into the Global South from the so-called West ”

NON-PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

G7 performance on

non-proliferation

Zelenova, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

The G7 has long been committed to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The development of WMDs has continually challenged international and regional security, posing potentially catastrophic consequences. Recently,

North Korea’s missile tests and Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons in its ongoing war with Ukraine have heightened the need for united global action on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear security. These risks highlight the urgent need for G7 action and leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

MARIA ZELENOVA

Maria Zelenova is a senior researcher with the G7 and G20 Research Groups. Based in Paris, she holds a BA in political science and history from the University of Toronto and an MA in international security from Sciences Po Paris.

Twitter @maria__zelenova  www.g7.utoronto.ca

Non-proliferation was first mentioned at the 1977 summit, where the G7 leaders dedicated 7% (200 words) of their communiqué to the issue. Since then it has been mentioned every year except at the 1982 summit. The number reached a high at the 1991 summit with 23% (1,847 words). There followed a dip for several years, reaching a low of 1% in 2001. But from 2010 to 2012, the leaders paid more attention to non-proliferation, with the most words of 5,120 (28%) at the 2011 summit. By portion, the 2012 summit had the highest ever, with 38%. Since 2013, it has plummeted, remaining at or under 10%. At the 2021 summit, the leaders dedicated only 2% (314 words) to non-proliferation. In 2022 they gave 7% (1,280 words).

COMMITMENTS

Since 1977, G7 leaders produced 263 commitments on non-proliferation. For many years, commitment making was sporadic. It peaked at the 2011 summit with 44 commitments, or 23% of the

At a time in history when the threat level is high, the consequences of inaction on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction threaten not only regional stability, but international security as well

Maria

total. This dropped to none in 2013. From 2014 to 2022, just 32 non-proliferation commitments were made, taking no more than 1% of all commitments per summit, and with none made in 2019 and 2020. The 2022 summit made seven commitments, for 1%.

COMPLIANCE

The G7 Research Group has assessed G7 members’ compliance with 36 commitments on non-proliferation. They average 81%, solidly above the overall 76% average on all subjects. The highest compliance was achieved with commitments made in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014, all with compliance above 85%. The highest – 100% – came in 2003. More recently, compliance has fallen to 63% for 2019 and 38% for 2021. By January 2023, compliance on the non-proliferation commitment assessed from 2022 was 63%.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

There are steps that G7 leaders can take to improve their members’ compliance with their summit commitments on non-proliferation, to

reduce the risk to regional stability and international security.

First, North Korea’s nuclear missile tests, Iran’s nuclear programme and Russia’s threats to deploy nuclear weapons in Ukraine may push the leaders to perform better. Acknowledging these shocks in their communiqué could raise compliance. Between 2015 and 2021, the G7 recognised nuclear proliferation as a crisis and a “new level of threat” in the 2017 communiqué. For that period, the 2017 summit and the 2018 summit had high compliance of 82%.

Second, the leaders can improve compliance by making more commitments. The highest compliance was achieved for 2003 with 100% and for 2012 with 97%. The 2003 summit produced 26 commitments and dedicated 11% (1,863 words) to non-proliferation. The 2012 summit had 15 commitments and 34% (4,240 words). Conversely, the summits with very low compliance – 62% for 2002 and 63% for 2019 – each had few commitments and 12% (1,430 words) and 0.3% (23 words) respectively. The 2021 summit, with compliance of only 38%, had just 314 words for 2% and two commitments on non-proliferation.

Third, the leaders should set ambitious multi-year targets in their commitments and combine them with money mobilised. Commitments made in 2000, 2005 and 2006 that included a five- and ten-year timeline for negotiating the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, with the later ones also including raising funds for the Global Partnership priorities, achieved a high average compliance of 81%. Commitments without a multi-year timeline averaged 78%.

On Iran, G7 leaders have made significant progress in restoring and upholding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action since the United States withdrew from it in 2018. More generally, although attention at summits to non-proliferation has decreased in recent years, given the Covid-19 pandemic and the climate crisis, the ongoing war in Ukraine and Russia’s continued threats to use nuclear weapons present significant concerns. If G7 leaders can successfully build on their past success on non-proliferation, they can make truly ambitious commitments and achieve the success needed to prevent a global security disaster.

G7 performance on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 1975–2022

Note: blank space means no data

Interview with Rafael Mariano Grossi, director-general, International Atomic Energy Agency

Reliable, scalable, safe energy

Nuclear science and technology are key to solving many of the world’s crises and reaching lasting peace, but financial investment is required. It is here that the G7 can help

Despite global concerns about energy security and climate change, are we seeing a nuclear renaissance?

I’m not sure I would call it a renaissance because nuclear has been here for more than half a century. It provides more than 40% of the G7’s low-carbon energy, and a quarter of the world’s. It’s a reawakening, perhaps. Governments and the public realise we need all options and nuclear energy, compared to other choices, is a reliable, scalable, safe way to improve energy security and reduce carbon emissions. But nuclear energy capacity will need to more than double by 2050 to meet our global climate goals. That means extending the lives of current nuclear power plants and building many more. Less nuclear means more coal.

What are the major risks today?

The world’s 400-plus nuclear power plants had high degrees of safety during the pandemic, which stress-tested vital operations, including supply chains and staff availability.

Today, we cannot talk about nuclear safety without talking about the war in Ukraine – the first military conflict being fought around the facilities of a major nuclear power programme. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been assisting Ukraine since the very beginning. Today, we have teams at Ukraine’s five nuclear power plants, including Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhya. When I was there in April the safety situation had not improved. The IAEA, and I personally, are doing everything we can to protect that plant. It is a key responsibility of the IAEA and the international community. The G7 plays an important role in support of these efforts.

How do you see the situation in Iran and North Korea?

We are being tested.

In verifying the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, the IAEA continues to be fair but firm. Regarding Iran’s obligations under its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, I am giving them every opportunity to clarify our concerns and provide the required information. This has been outstanding for far too long.

Also, unfortunately, for over two years, Iran has not been implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and, as a consequence, the IAEA has been unable to perform key verification and monitoring activities. For more than six months our surveillance and monitoring equipment has not been operating.

Iran has recently given assurances that it will again cooperate with us. I hope that by the time this interview is in print, Iran will have made good on the promises it

made when I visited Tehran in March. Every day that goes by makes the task of confirming the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme more difficult.

Also very concerning was North Korea’s exit from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ejection of our inspectors back in 2009. We continue to monitor North Korea’s growing nuclear weapons programme, which violates multiple United Nations resolutions, from outside its borders. We stand ready to return when the situation again allows.

What is the role of the G7 in all this?

As global players, the G7 members play key roles in many of these issues. They play an important part in supporting the IAEA and its unique, indispensable work in safeguards, safety and security. They support our work in Ukraine and have sent equipment and more to its nuclear power plants via the IAEA. And of course their political support for protecting Zaporizhzhya is key.

On safeguards, G7 members need to be aware –and I think they are – that IAEA’s work has increased dramatically although its budget has not. There is more nuclear material in more places to inspect. If inspectors return to North Korea – and even Iran – we will have much more work on our hands.

What would you say to the G7 about the IAEA’s mission?

There is much more we can do together. The world is in crisis – from climate change and energy, food and water insecurity to pandemics and the cancer crisis. In each of these cases nuclear science and technology are key to the solution. It is time we realise the promise of ‘Atoms for Peace’ made 70 years ago. We must make sure everyone

has access to life-saving and life-affirming nuclear science and technology. The IAEA plays the central role here and the G7 has steadfastly supported us. But we need to do more. So I have launched three flagship initiatives: Rays of Hope to tackle cancer; NUTEC Plastics to deal with plastic pollution; and ZODIAC to enhance global preparedness for future pandemics. These all require financial investment that aligns with the G7’s own goals in terms of development assistance. Safeguards create a more secure world, but lasting peace cannot be achieved without sustainable development.

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI

Rafael Mariano Grossi became director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2019. In 2013, he was appointed Argentina’s ambassador to Austria and representative to the IAEA and other Vienna-based international organisations. In 2019, he was president designate of the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and from 2014 to 2016 he served as president of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. He was chief of cabinet at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons from 2002 to 2007.

Twitter @RafaelMGrossi / @iaeaorg  iaea.org

Nuclear energy capacity will need to more than double by 2050 to meet our global climate goals”

University

The current security environment for nuclear weapons is terrible. First, Russia attacks Ukraine and threatens to use nuclear weapons, which violates the principal rules of international law including the Charter of the United Nations. Second, the legal restraints on strategic nuclear arms established after the adoption of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968 will be lost unless a new START Treaty is overtaken by a successor treaty by February 2026.

Historically, G7 summits have not focused strongly on nuclear issues. However, in the G7 Ise-Shima Leaders’ Declaration, under Japan’s 2016 G7 presidency, G7 leaders stated that “we reaffirm that non-proliferation and disarmament issues are among our top priorities. We reaffirm our commitment to seeking a safer world for all and to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons in a way that promotes international stability. In

A world without nuclear weapons

At the Hiroshima Summit, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are in sharp focus as the G7 leaders resolve to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Mitsuru Kurosawa, professor emeritus, Osaka

this context, we endorse the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Hiroshima Declaration on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation.”

Just after that summit, US president Barack Obama visited Hiroshima. This was the first visit by a sitting US president. President Obama visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, laid wreaths at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, delivered powerful messages on realising a world free of nuclear weapons and met with atomic bombing survivors.

A LIFE’S WORK

The G7 Leaders’ Communiqué at Elmau under Germany’s 2022 presidency also stated that the G7 leaders “are united in our resolve to comprehensively strengthen the NPT” and that they “underline the authority and primacy of the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology”. The declaration said that “the G7 reaffirms its commitment to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons”.

The G7 Hiroshima Summit will emphasise the importance of nuclear disarmament. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who will chair the meeting, is a very strong promoter of nuclear disarmament, especially

MITSURU KUROSAWA

Mitsuru Kurosawa is professor emeritus at Osaka University and Osaka Jogakuin University. He has been a visiting scholar at the University of Virginia and the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He was the founding president of the Japan Association of Disarmament Studies, and has served as an adviser to the Japanese delegation to the Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conferences in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. He has published 11 books on disarmament, including, most recently, 50 Years of the NPT and Progress in Nuclear Disarmament (2021).

as he is the elected representative from Hiroshima. He has always said that nuclear disarmament is his life’s work.

Prime Minister Kishida was the first Japanese leader to attend the NPT Review Conference, doing so in August 2022. In his speech on the first day of the conference, he said, “I believe that we must take every realistic measure towards a world without nuclear weapons step by step, however difficult the path may be.” He proposed the Hiroshima Action Plan, which includes the following five actions: the importance of continuing the non-use of nuclear weapons, enhancing transparency, maintaining the decreasing trend of global nuclear stockpiles, securing nuclear non-proliferation, and encouraging visits to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by international leaders.

SIX ACTIONS TO TAKE

At the Hiroshima Summit, we should expect the G7 leaders to take six actions on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

First, they should declare, in the strongest words possible, their criticism of Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine as well as its threat to use nuclear weapons. As this is the most acute current global security crisis, it is imperative to send a clear message to Russia.

Second, they should issue a strong message against activities that promote nuclear proliferation such as North Korea’s recent aggressive activities including the launch of many missiles, which destabilise the world, as well as Iran’s strong pursuit of making nuclear weapons, which directly diminishes the non-proliferation regime.

Third, they should strengthen the norms that strictly prohibit attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities, including nuclear power plants, which severely damage the surrounding environment.

Fourth, they should encourage the United States and Russia to return to negotiations or engage in a dialogue on reducing strategic nuclear weapons, and possibly reducing non-strategic nuclear weapons, as soon as possible.

Fifth, they should repeat their determination to pursue nuclear disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

Sixth, they should start negotiations or a dialogue for reducing nuclear risks, to prevent the unintentional use of nuclear weapons caused by miscalculation, misunderstanding or miscommunication.

Hiroshima, as the site of this year’s G7 summit, is the very best place to discuss nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Prime Minister Kishida is strongly encouraging international leaders to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed, US president Joe Biden is expected to visit Nagasaki.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida … is a very strong promoter of nuclear disarmament … He has always said that nuclear disarmament is his life’s work”

G7 Research Group analysts

G7 performance on regional security: Ukraine

On 24 February 2023, G7 leaders met virtually with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. They strongly condemned Russia’s onslaught on Ukraine, and committed to intensify diplomatic, financial and military support for Ukraine. Permeating the energy, security, health, economic and human rights concerns from the war is a fear of Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. This represents a new stage in G7 performance on Ukraine.

CONCLUSIONS

The G7 made its first communiqué reference to Ukraine in 1986, in 8% of the total words that year, responding to the deadly nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Ukraine reappeared in 1992, now in terms of regional security, taking 2% of the communiqué. That portion rose in the following years, returning to 8% in 1995.

In the second phase, from 1996 to 2013, during a period of relative regional stability, the portion varied from zero in 2002, 2012 and 2013 to 2% in 1997 and 2010, and 3% in 1998 and 1999.

The third phase began in 2014, when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. The G7 communiqué portion spiked to 18% that year. From

2015 to 2021, it declined steadily, with 3% in 2015 and 2016, 2% in 2017 and 2018, 0.2% in 2019, 0% in 2020 and 2% in 2021.

The fourth phase came with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, leading the G7’s Elmau Summit in June to devote 26% of its communiqué to this issue. The G7 also held five special summits before Elmau to respond to Russia’s war.

COMMITMENTS

From 1975 to 2022, the G7 made 130 commitments on Ukraine, for 2% of the total.

From 1992 to 2000, the G7 made 19 commitments, averaging 3% per summit. Highs came with 9% in 1994 and 1999, and lows of zero in 1993 and 1% in 1997 and 1998.

From 2001 to 2013, there were only four commitments, made between 2007 and 2010 and averaging 0.1% per summit.

From 2014 to 2021, there were 27 commitments, averaging 1% per summit, with highs in 2014 of 4% and 2013 of 3%. The lows were 0% in 2020, 0.5% in 2021 and 0.6% in 2017.

The fifth phase started in 2022, with 80 commitments on Ukraine’s regional security and

The G7 leaders have committed to intensify support for Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian aggression

G7 performance on regional security: Ukraine, 1975–2022

75% average compliance on commitments assessed on Ukraine

commitments on Ukraine made since G7 summits began

closely related subjects including food security and economic stability. These took an unprecedented high of 15% of the communiqué.

COMPLIANCE

The eight commitments on regional security in Ukraine from 2014 to 2021 assessed by the G7 Research Group average 75% compliance, just below the G7’s overall 76% average. The 2014 summit averaged 100% compliance on Ukraine; 2015 had 88% and 2017 had 94%. Compliance dropped for 2016 to 57% and for 2018 to 66%. Compliance for 2019 was 75%. By January 2023, compliance with the 2022 commitments was already 100%.

The European Union and the United States led with 100% compliance, followed by the United Kingdom with 84%, and Germany and France with 79%. Canada had 67%, Italy 59% and Japan 50%.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

These assessments suggest some possible causes of, and corrections for, G7 members’ compliance on Ukraine.

G7 RESEARCH GROUP ANALYSTS

The G7 Research Group is a global network of scholars, students and professionals, whose mission is to serve as the world’s leading independent source of information and analysis on the G7 major market democracies. To help fulfil this mission, it conducts annual interim and final assessments of G7 members’ compliance with their priority summit commitments.

Twitter @g7_rg  www.g7.utoronto.ca

First, shock-activated vulnerabilities seem to cause very strong compliance. The two consecutive summits with very high compliance immediately followed Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea – 100% for 2014 and 88% for 2015. This shock and the resulting vulnerability seems to spur strong compliance. Its impact subsequently diminished, as compliance dropped to 57% for 2016. Moreover, the strongest shock of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was followed by 100% compliance by January 2023 with Elmau’s commitments on Ukraine.

Second, the number and portion of conclusions and commitments on regional security in Ukraine have little independent impact on compliance, once the shock-activated vulnerabilities are considered. The peak Crimean invasion and annexation years of 2014 and 2015 averaged compliance of 94%, 666 words and eight commitments. The very low compliance for 2016 and 2018 had much lower averages of words and commitments. However, the numbers strongly coincided with the strength of the shock-activated vulnerability.

Third, special summits caused by shock-activated vulnerabilities also strongly coincide with higher compliance. Thus the 2014 Brussels Summit, with 100% compliance, was preceded by a special summit in the Hague. The 2022 Elmau Summit, with 100% compliance by January 2023, was preceded by six special summits in 2022. In both 2014 and 2022, these special summits focused heavily on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Jacob Benjamin and David A Welch, Balsillie School of International Affairs

Behind increased defence

However one wishes to characterise China’s actions – confident, assertive, aggressive – it is clear that Chinese foreign policy has catalysed its region’s democracies to adopt stronger defence postures. Remarkably, in December 2022 the government of Fumio Kishida mandated Japan’s defence spending to reach an estimated 40 to 43 trillion yen during the period 2023–2027. This means that over that five-year span Japan will spend roughly 1.4 times as much on defence as China does in a single year (according to the Chinese Communist Party’s official figures). Despite this asymmetry, this earmark reflects a very significant step towards ‘normalising’ Japanese defence policy; it elevates Japan’s defence posture globally, with defence spending to reach levels akin to those of Germany and the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Kishida government plans to bring defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product by 2027 – the aspirational benchmark of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Further reflecting doctrinal shifts, Japan’s new National Security Strategy enables the Japanese Self-Defense Forces to use ‘counterstrike’ weaponry to retaliate against foreign military targets if attacked. The threat posed by a rapidly improving Chinese missile arsenal clearly factored into this decision.

In Korea, foreign policy was but one subject in a crowded domestic political discourse in the 9 March 2022 election, but it is still telling that the Korean electorate chose the People Power Party over a more dovish Democratic Party of Korea. PPP president Yoon Suk yeol explicitly campaigned on bolstering Korean foreign policy to be more responsive to security challenges from

Chinese foreign policy may have catalysed the region’s democracies to adopt stronger defence postures, but there are other factors at play behind a shared resolve to resist authoritarian threats to world order

China and North Korea. One year after taking office, though, President Yoon is juggling security imperatives with the realities of trade dependence on China. He is evidently leery of disrupting economic activity with Korea’s largest trading partner in an already trying global economic climate for growth. President Yoon has watered down some of the assertiveness expressed during his electoral campaign. He has eschewed more Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence systems, for example – the deployment of which on Korean soil Beijing deplores.

OPPOSITE TRAJECTORY

In the Philippines, the storyline is evolving in the opposite direction. Prior to assuming office, President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos planned on shifting China-Philippines relations into a “higher gear”, but the geopolitics of the South China Sea have resulted in a shift into reverse. Beijing’s refusal to acknowledge Manila’s rights in the South China Sea, coupled with its failure to follow through on earlier economic commitments to former president Rodrigo Duterte, has led the Philippines to tilt towards the United States. In February 2023, Washington and Manila accelerated the bilateral Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, initially signed in 2014 but until recently dormant. This acceleration allows American forces to access “four new ‘Agreed Locations’ in strategic areas of the country”. Although the “agreed locations” are not confirmed, at least some are reportedly on the shores of the Philippines’ northern island of Luzon on both the South China and Philippine Seas. The proximity of US troops to the Taiwan Strait would also effectively enhance US integrated deterrence vis-à-vis a Chinese Communist Party mulling military action against Taiwan. Although the more technical aspects of the upgraded EDCA can get lost in the larger narrative, it is nonetheless evident that Manila has signalled to Beijing that the days of the Duterte administration’s pro-China policy are over. China is but one factor conditioning the region’s democracies to adopt stronger defence policies. North Korea conducted a record number of missile tests in 2022 – nearly 100 – which directly played into conditioning two of the developments discussed above: a significant upgrade of Japanese missile defence capabilities and discussions about

DAVID A WELCH

JACOB BENJAMIN

Jacob Benjamin is a PhD candidate at the University of Waterloo and the Balsillie School of International Affairs, specialising in conflict and security. He holds an MA in political science from the University of Waterloo. He researches, analyses and writes on the international relations and security of the Indo-Pacific region as well as Canadian foreign policy. He has been published in the International Journal, and his political commentary has appeared in The Diplomat and many Canadian newspapers.

Twitter @_JacobBenjamin

David A Welch is University Research Chair and professor of political science at the University of Waterloo and the Balsillie School of International Affairs. His most recent book is Security: A Philosophical Investigation. His book Painful Choices: A Theory of Foreign Policy Change was the inaugural winner of the International Studies Association ISSS Book Award for the best book published in 2005 or 2006, and his Justice and the Genesis of War was the winner of the 1994 Edgar S Furniss Award for an Outstanding Contribution to National Security Studies. He is co-author of Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation, 10th edition, with Joseph S Nye, Jr. He is currently co-editor of International Theory

Twitter @DavidAWelch

deploying additional THAAD batteries to Korea. Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to compound the vulnerabilities facing East and Southeast Asian countries. Immediately following the 2022 G7 Elmau Summit, President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida attended a NATO summit in Madrid, and in November 2022 Korea opened a diplomatic mission to NATO. Increased Japanese and Korean interest in engagement with NATO is one of several indications that many Southeast and East Asian democracies see Russian aggression against Ukraine as a threat not just to European but to global security. To quote Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, “if a principle is accepted that crazy decisions and historical errors are the justification for invading somebody else, I think many of us are going to be feeling very insecure in the Asia-Pacific, but also in the rest of the world”.

The leitmotif of East Asian security since the 2022 Elmau Summit and for the 2023 Hiroshima Summit, in short, is a gelling of democratic resolve to resist authoritarian threats to world order.

Many Southeast and East Asian democracies see Russian aggression against Ukraine as a threat not just to European but to global security”

An end to the lawless crypto space

T Raja Kumar, president, Financial Action Task Force

The Financial Action Task Force is working on multiple fronts to help its members go after the digital financial flows that fuel crime and terrorism –and the G7 has a critical role to play in its success

Illicit financial flows weaken the global financial system, delay growth and hinder development. They fuel serious crimes – such as terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking, corruption and environmental crime – that threaten our safety, security and society.

Concerted global action is needed to keep financial flows with links to crime and terrorism out of the financial system and to strengthen economies around the world. The Financial Action Task Force is committed to leading strong, coordinated and effective action against the threats posed by illicit finance.

The G7 must lead by example in fully and effectively implementing the FATF Recommendations, which are the global standards on combatting money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. Around the globe, countries have made progress in implementing most of the standards; however,

progress on implementing FATF’s updated requirements on crypto assets has been relatively poor.

In 2019, FATF extended its global anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing standards to crypto assets. However, 73% of countries – including some G20 countries – are still non-compliant or only partially compliant with the FATF Standards and have not yet begun to supervise crypto activity. This unacceptable situation must be urgently addressed. The risks posed by crypto assets continue to grow. The recently published FATF report on ransomware financing highlighted that ransomware payments have increased significantly in recent years, almost exclusively using crypto assets. Crypto assets are also used to evade sanctions, and by terrorist groups to raise and move funds.

T RAJA KUMAR

T Raja Kumar began a two-year term as president of the Financial Action Task Force on 1 July 2022. He currently serves as senior adviser (international) in Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs. He was deputy secretary (international) from 2015 to 2021 and chief executive of the Home Team Academy from 2014 to 2018. He also served as Singapore’s deputy commissioner of police (policy), director of the Police Intelligence Department and senior deputy director of the Commercial Affairs Department. He was also the first chief executive of the Casino Regulatory Authority. Twitter @FATFNews  fatf-gafi.org

While the risks have increased, crypto assets continue to operate in a virtually lawless global environment. Countries need to take urgent action to shut down lawless spaces, which allow criminals, terrorists and rogue states to use crypto assets. At its February 2023 Plenary, FATF agreed to accelerate implementation of AML/CFT controls and supervision in the crypto asset sector. The sector is challenging to regulate and many countries lack experience or expertise in this area.

FATF will roll out an initiative to help countries take appropriate action, in particular those with materially important crypto sectors. G7 countries should lead by example and regulate the crypto sector so that no virtual safe havens exist for illicit financial transactions. This includes implementation of the ‘travel rule’, which requires virtual assets service providers to identify the sender and receiver of the transaction.

CRITICAL TRANSPARENCY

Transparency of beneficial ownership is also crucial in fighting money laundering, corruption, tax evasion and sanctions evasion. Lack of transparency enables criminals to use complex corporate structures or legal arrangements such as trusts to hide illegal assets or activities. Access to beneficial ownership information helps investigators follow financial footsteps and detect and disrupt criminal activity. FATF has strengthened its recommendations on beneficial ownership requirements for both legal persons and legal arrangements. Countries must ensure that their competent authorities have access to adequate, accurate and up-to-date information on the true owners of companies, trusts and other legal arrangements. By fully and effectively implementing FATF’s strengthened beneficial ownership requirements, countries can close the loopholes that have allowed criminals to hide their illegal activities and assets. Finally, recovering the proceeds of crime is effective in stopping money laundering and other economic crimes. Asset recovery aids victims, targets the economic driver behind the criminal activity and prevents more crime from occurring. There is much room for improvement: many countries have yet to prioritise asset recovery, and authorities are only recovering a tiny percentage of global illicit financial flows.

As a result, criminals retain huge profits and are growing in strength and capability – posing even greater risks. FATF has thus made it a priority under the Singapore Presidency to improve global asset recovery. In September 2022, the inaugural FATF-INTERPOL Roundtable Engagement (FIRE) brought together senior operational professionals from around the world. It agreed on key takeaways that would enhance the effectiveness of national systems, and will review progress and chart next steps at FIRE 2 in September in Lyon. In February, the first FATF Learning and Development Forum on Asset Targeting and Recovery Systems hosted by Italy’s Guardia di Finanzia allowed FATF Global Network participants to hear how GDF tackled organised crime using asset recovery, share experiences and learn from each other.

FATF is working on multiple fronts to help members go after the financial flows that fuel crime and terrorism. The G7’s leadership role in fully and effectively implementing FATF’s global standards is crucial to our collective success.

Recovering the proceeds of crime is effective in stopping money laundering and other economic crimes … [but] many countries have yet to prioritise asset recovery”

Humanity at the fore

of humanity’s unity. It shows us the way towards enduring peace, shared prosperity and justice, amid respect for our differences.

REKINDLING COMMITMENTS

Seventy-five years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, we need to rekindle its spirit and its commitments.

The right to life, liberty and security of person. The right to education, health, food, shelter, clothing and social protections. Freedom from any form of discrimination, whether based on sex, race, belief, sexual orientation or any other factor. Freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Freedom from torture, and from unlawful or arbitrary arrest or detention. The right to a fair trial.

These and other fundamental rights and freedoms build resilient, confident societies, able to withstand and surmount threats, resolve disputes peacefully, and facilitate sustained progress in prosperity and well-being for all their members.

This is the way to rebuild trust.

Trust between states: that they will act in line with

To analyse what has happened to our world in recent years is a sobering task.

A multiplication of conflicts, from Syria to the Sahel, exposing increasing numbers of civilians to lasting, and even lethal, harm.

War in Europe – one that is murderous and destructive, and exports misery throughout the world.

Advancing climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss, robbing people and our planet of health, resources and the capacity to fulfil their potential, and threatening our way of life and our future.

Covid-19, which killed millions and exposed and deepened vulnerabilities in every economy and society, drawing attention to gaping inequalities.

Harmful pushbacks on the equal rights of women and many others, together with an explosion of online hate speech, directed at women and members of racial and other minorities.

Harsh restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of expression, opinion and assembly, amid increasing crackdowns on civic space in every region of the world.

These painfully clear examples show how connected our human rights are.

Crises, as they spread, cascade and crash into each other, creating even more devastating and far-reaching harms.

The years from 1914 to 1945 brought the most devastating warfare, genocide, a pandemic and economic pain that humanity had ever known.

In 1948 governments from Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Middle East adopted a manual for preventing conflict and misery. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights draws from every culture and tradition, and expresses the core truth

Recent years have witnessed colliding crises that threaten our foundations of human rights for all. From their summit in Hiroshima, the G7 leaders must ensure human rights prevail

Volker Türk, high commissioner for human rights, United Nations

the international laws and agreements that they themselves have drafted, and jointly work to advance the common good.

Trust between people and their governments, which have promised to represent and serve them.

Trust and respect between communities.

Human rights are universal, and indivisible. The old distinctions between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other, are artefacts of the Cold War with no relevance today. All human rights must advance together, on the same footing, so that they reinforce each other.

The pandemic demonstrated the essential nature of the rights to decent healthcare, social protections, clean water and sanitation, decent work and adequate housing. These rights are fundamental to human dignity – and essential to every country’s sustainable development and political stability.

Failure to uphold these rights and address inequalities can have

VOLKER TÜRK

Volker Türk assumed the role of United Nations high commissioner for human rights in October 2022. He was previously the undersecretary-general for policy in the Executive Office of the United Nations secretary-general. He was assistant secretary-general for strategic coordination from 2019 to 2021 and assistant high commissioner for protection in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 2015 to 2019. Mr Türk also served UNHCR in Malaysia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kuwait.

Twitter @volker_turk @UNHumanRights  ohchr.org

devastating consequences for people – but also fuel mistrust in state institutions, social unrest, violence and even conflict.

Freedom from fear and freedom from want are equally valuable and equally necessary.

No matter how powerful, economic growth on its own cannot redress structural injustices or deliver people’s fundamental rights.

DISMANTLE INEQUALITIES

We must dismantle the architecture of inequalities, and advance a sound recovery, by building economies that promote people’s rights and well-being.

A human rights economy seeks to redress root causes and structural barriers to equality, justice and sustainability, by prioritising investment in economic, social and cultural rights.

It delivers maximum social protection, and quality education and healthcare for all, as well as access to justice and the rule of law, effective climate and environmental action, fundamental freedoms and the broadest possible civic space.

It ensures that business models and economic policies are guided by human rights standards.

It enables integrated socio-economic policies that advance each Sustainable Development Goal, including ending discrimination against women and girls as well as racial, ethnic and linguistic minorities – because this is just, and because such discrimination causes massive society-wide and generational harm.

It emphasises redistributive fiscal policies, and efforts to end corruption and illicit financial flows – which siphon money away from public spending.

It also includes support for participative, inclusive, transparent and accountable budget processes that enable the public and civil society to ‘follow the money’ – bolstering trust in government and ensuring that policies will be more effective and advance people’s rights.

Justice, human rights and our planet must be, unequivocally, at the centre of national and global economies and policies.

To support countries and societies to build human–rights-enhancing economies, my office is strengthening efforts to provide technical support and mainstream human rights standards, principles and policies across every action by governments and by the United Nations system.

Human rights are not just our job. They are your job – the job of the leaders of the G7 and every other government.

Economic growth on its own cannot redress structural injustices or deliver people’s fundamental rights”

The fight against financial crime

With the nature of crime evolving and bad actors exploiting a fast-changing world, there has never been a more critical time for the G7 to take leadership and collective action to tackle illicit finance and sanctions evasion

There is a need for strong leadership at the G7 Hiroshima Summit on sanctions evasion and illicit finance, as bad actors seek to exploit a fast-changing, unstable world. As like-minded partners with shared democratic values and a belief in a rules-based international order, G7 members must drive collective action, building effective frameworks to stop criminals and kleptocrats from profiting from ill-gotten gains and making it easier to identify, freeze and seize illicit financial flows, including those linked to sanctions evasion.

The drive to digitise propelled by Covid-19 has boosted fraud and cybercrime and changed how organised crime networks operate. Fraud costs the global economy $5 trillion annually, thanks to technology. Fraud and hacking are readily available ‘services’. Cybercrime costs will likely increase to $10.5 trillion by 2025. Ransomware attacks by

Denisse Rudich, director, G7 and G20 Research Groups London

organised criminals and state-backed hackers cost $2.3 billion in 2022. Experts expect a ‘catastrophic’ cybersecurity event linked to artificial intelligence and mutating malware that defends itself to evade detection. Organised crime networks have diversified, leading to increased illicit lending, acquisition of distressed companies and infiltration of companies in industries not previously involved in organised crime. There are also 28 million victims of human trafficking worldwide, and the growing drug trade is fuelled by more demand for cocaine, fentanyl and opioids.

COMPLEX SANCTIONS

The conflict in Ukraine has led to complex, extensive sanctions against individuals and entities in Russia and Belarus covering oil and gas, financial services, gold, luxury goods and dual-use goods, among

others. More than $300 billion of Russian central bank assets have been blocked and global trade and financing patterns have been disrupted. With more sanctions comes more sanctions evasion, and, daily, new methods and transhipment routes. Crypto-related illicit financial flows linked to sanctions evasion peaked at $20.6 billion in 2022.

NEW AVENUES FOR CRIME

For environmental crime, criminals are exploiting the pledge to net zero, including through fraudulent carbon emissions trading via ‘phantom credits’, greenwashing and government funds to support the clean energy transition diverted by shell companies. Critical minerals needed for new energy sources are frequently found in conflict zones or captured states with high levels of corruption. Illegal logging and wildlife trade remain profitable, with 15% of timber exports found to be illegal and record levels of poaching linked to high demand in Asia. Increased exploitation of online channels such as social media and e-commerce sites, the darknet and mobile payment providers drive wildlife cybercrime. Internet companies have blocked or removed over 11.6 million posts linked to the sale of illegal wildlife products.

The G7 sets the agenda to tackle money laundering and illicit financial flows. It has pledged to strengthen the fight against cybercrime, transnational organised crime, environmental crime and human trafficking, particularly online and offline sexual and labour exploitation of women and children. The G7 has also promised a whole-of-society approach to tackle corruption and kleptocracies and to work with African countries to develop beneficial ownership registries. At the 2022 Elmau Summit, the G7 committed to sustain and intensify political pressure, including via stronger and more comprehensive sanctions.

The G7 created the Russia Proxies and Oligarchs Task Force to coordinate sanctions targeting Russia and Belarus, freezing or blocking more than $58 billion in assets. It should consider whether the task force could include allies and states vulnerable to Russian influence to improve implementing sanctions, build capacity and address sanctions evasion. The task force should work with the Financial Action Task Force and the private sector, including civil society, to identify sanctions evasion trends and share intelligence on new financing methods and networks used to support the conflict in Ukraine. Public-private partnerships are key to sharing financial intelligence that can facilitate more proactive mitigation against illicit financial flows.

BUILD DEFENCES

The G7 should continue implementing more stringent measures against conflict diamonds and gold, and fight money laundering linked to war crimes and atrocities, including by asking the FATF to explore this topic further, and by considering making sanctions evasion and war crimes predicate offences

DENISSE RUDICH

Denisse Rudich is director of the G7 and G20 Research Groups London and a financial crime prevention specialist in policy development, strategic advisory and risk management. A technical expert for the Council of Europe, she has experience in setting up global frameworks in the investment and wholesale banking sectors, advising regulators, government and fintech/regtech firms, and supporting forensic investigations in both the public and private sectors. Rudich is involved in several global initiatives aimed at building effectiveness and collaboration in the fight against financial crime and is the CEO of Rudich Advisory.

Twitter @g7_rg

 www.g7.utoronto.ca

$5trn

$10.5trn

15%

annual cost of fraud to the global economy in cybercrime costs by 2025 of timber exports found to be illegal

for money laundering. G7 members should continue to build defences against cyber-enabled and tech-enabled money laundering and fraud by working with internet and data service providers, financial institutions, civil society, law enforcement and public sector partners to identify threats and best practices to mitigate threats, including fraud, environmental and wildlife crime, and to target organised crime networks. The G7 should also continue to support the development of public beneficial ownership registries. The G7 should further commit to increasing human, technology and financial resources and lowering global barriers to effective asset seizures. Lastly, the G7 should also consider creating common data standards to support countries and financial institutions in implementing measures to fight money laundering and terrorist finance.

The drive to digitise propelled by Covid-19 has boosted fraud and cybercrime and changed how organised crime networks operate”

G7 performance on

On 19–21 May, G7 leaders will meet in Hiroshima to address many pressing, interconnected and competing global challenges. At the top of the agenda are geopolitical threats to the rules-based international order, not least the threat of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. But a more insidious threat persists: fossil fuels.

G7 leaders thus must ensure short-term energy security, amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, while preventing the fossil fuel sector from blocking the swift restructuring of the global

At their Hiroshima Summit, G7 leaders must ensure short-term energy security while collectively distancing their policies and revenue streams from fossil fuel interests

Brittaney Warren, director of compliance and climate change research, G7 Research Group

energy system. They can do several things to improve compliance with their climate commitments. Above all, they must commit to securing a healthy planet by collectively distancing their policies and revenue streams from fossil fuel interests.

CONCLUSIONS

The G7 has devoted only 5% of its communiqués to climate change, in two distinct phases. The first is from 1979, when climate first appeared, to 2004, when the most attention to climate change was only 6% of the communiqué, and the average was only 2% per summit. Then in 2005, under the UK’s leadership, deliberation rose to 9%. From 2005 to 2022, deliberation increased to average 13% per summit. The 2022 Elmau Summit jumped to 25%, second only to the 2009 summit with 33%.

COMMITMENTS

The G7 has made 479 climate commitments, or 7% of the total across all subjects. They arise in the same two phases as with the conclusions, but with a smaller rise. Between 1979 and 2004, the G7 made 5% of its commitments on climate change per summit. Between 2005 and 2022, it made 9% – a 4% rise.

From the 2005 summit to the 2010 summit, climate change averaged a relatively high 13% of commitments. Another phase may now have started, as the 2021 summit made 13% on climate change and the 2022 summit made 15%.

COMPLIANCE

The G7 Research Group has tracked G7 members’ compliance with 99 (21%) climate commitments in the year after each was made. Compliance averages 74%, nearly on par with overall compliance of 76% across all subjects. Between 1979 and 2004, average climate compliance was 72%. Between 2005 and 2022, it rose only 4%, to 76%. In the G7’s near 50-year existence, slow and steady defines G7 climate performance, even as the climate change crisis has gotten progressively worse.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

Slow and steady will not win the race to stop climate change. Nonetheless the G7 can shift its climate compliance trajectory upwards by doing several things.

First, G7 leaders can explicitly mobilise more resources for their climate commitments that have had historically lower compliance. The lowest compliance, at 45%, is with commitments to help a specific developing country with a specific problem (such as helping Brazil protect its tropical forests or Haiti recover from a natural disaster); with a commitment to engage with civil society, with 50%; and with a commitment to support a regional initiative, with 50%. In sharp contrast, compliance is 23%–28% higher with commitments that seek to support and engage with the corporate world. Climate change is a global problem felt locally; regional and local people and communities within and beyond the G7 need greater support.

This includes – but means more than – financial support. At 68%, commitments that mobilise money for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries have among the lowest compliance. The G7 must provide

BRITTANEY WARREN

Brittaney Warren is director of compliance and director of climate change research for the G7 Research Group, the G20 Research Group and the BRICS Research Group at the University of Toronto. She is co-author of Reconfiguring the Global Governance of Climate Change, with John Kirton and Ella Kokotsis. She has also published on links between climate and health, and on accountability measures to improve summit performance. She holds a master’s degree in environmental studies from York University.

Twitter @brittaneywarren  www.g7.utoronto.ca

new and additional funding to compensate for the disproportionate impact of members’ industrial pursuits on the Global South and on marginalised groups within their own borders.

International norms and law seem to encourage compliance. Commitments with such references have the highest compliance of 77% (after commitments that reference the G7 itself, with 78%). This is particularly salient today amid democratic decline and the rise of authoritarianism worldwide and its accompanying threat to the rules-based international order.

In fact, across all policy areas, G7 compliance is higher with commitments to improve democracy and its liberal value of human rights. This supports research that shows a positive correlation between democratic institutions and stronger climate change policy, and recommendations that the G7 commit to making a healthy climate a human right.

CONCLUSION

Thus, to improve its climate compliance, the G7 should redirect its attention and resources from the private sector, starting with the fossil fuel sector, to the regions, countries and segments of society with the least resources, the most harms and the least responsibility for climate change. It must continue to strengthen democratic institutions and human rights. This includes strengthening international norms and laws dealing with climate action. Here the G7 needs to address greenwashing, the spread of climate disinformation and the presence of the fossil fuel lobby at climate negotiations.

Acting for all life on Earth

Last year, a framework was agreed that responds to the challenge of biodiversity loss. Now, the G7 must lead by example to ensure its successful implementation

David Cooper, acting executive secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Biodiversity is essential for life on Earth. We need it for clean air, water, food and medicine. It plays a critical role in regulating the Earth’s climate and mitigating the effects of climate change. Yet biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. World leaders are now recognising that the interrelated crises of biodiversity loss, climate change, land degradation and desertification, ocean degradation and pollution undermine our health and well-being, increase the risk of pandemics and pose an existential threat to our society, culture, prosperity and planet.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework agreed at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022 responds to the challenge of biodiversity loss. It includes an ambitious set of goals and targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, by addressing the direct and indirect drivers of loss and degradation. It calls for improved governance, finance and capacity building. The G7 was instrumental in garnering support for the ambitious framework during the negotiations and helped secure its adoption. Now, G7 leaders must lead by example and take the urgent actions needed to ensure its successful implementation.

A SYNERGISTIC APPROACH

The key to success is a whole-of-government approach, because this crisis must be addressed by all sectors, working synergistically towards a common goal. G7 leaders are central to ensuring that this occurs at the national level. They must lead discussions among ministers and put in place the governmental policies, accountability mechanisms and finance necessary to ensure that national targets are established and acted on. Likewise, G7 leaders need to ensure a whole-of-society approach, so action is taken cohesively and equitably with women, youth, Indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society and business, among others.

The G7 members represent some of the largest economies in the world, responsible for a significant proportion of natural resource use, global greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and other environmental impacts. They therefore have a particular responsibility to address the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. Action on land use change, overexploitation, pollution and invasive alien species is critical. At the same time, G7 leaders must take decisive measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because climate change is also a major driver of biodiversity loss. Businesses should disclose their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity, address biodiversity-related risk and progressively reduce their negative effects. The G7 plays a particular role in ensuring that large and transnational companies comply with these requirements.

$700bn per year, the current global biodiversity finance gap

DAVID COOPER

In line with the targets agreed in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, G7 leaders should take the lead in mobilising biodiversity-related international financial resources so that at least $20 billion per year is provided from developed to developing countries by 2025, and at least $30 billion per year by 2030. Together with domestic finance and finance from the private sector, this will help to progressively close the current global biodiversity finance gap of $700 billion per year. In parallel, G7 leaders need to lead by promptly eliminating, phasing out or reforming incentives, including subsidies, that are harmful to biodiversity.

LED BY THE G7

Building on these steps, G7 leaders should embark on the transformative changes needed across economies and societies to ensure sustainable and equitable development in harmony with nature. This includes promoting sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries, as well as sustainable consumption and production patterns across all sectors.

The well-being of all citizens, their children and all future generations in the G7 members and throughout the world depends on the actions taken this decade to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The world needs the G7 to ensure that these actions begin now, so the targets can be achieved by 2030. The world needs the G7 to lead by example in building a shared future for life on earth.

David Cooper is the acting executive secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Prior to that, he was deputy executive secretary in charge of leading strategic and planning activities, as well as the intergovernmental processes and activities under the Convention and its Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols. He has more than 30 years of experience in environmental and agricultural science and policy, and international negotiations. As secretary of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the CBD, he was instrumental in facilitating the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Twitter @hdavidcooper @UNBiodiversity

G7 leaders should take the lead in mobilising biodiversityrelated international financial resources so that at least $20 billion per year is provided from developed to developing countries by 2025, and at least $30 billion per year by 2030”

Cleaning up hazardous waste

Preventing, controlling and managing pollution by hazardous chemicals and wastes is central to improving the health and well-being of people and planet, but despite remarkable progress, there is still work to be done – and there are specific ways in which the G7 can help

The world today faces three major, interconnected environmental crises: pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss. These are all driven by anthropogenic activity and unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. Preventing, controlling and managing pollution by hazardous chemicals and wastes is central to improving health, human well-being and prosperity for all.

The Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, together, embody the life-cycle approach to managing chemicals and waste and form the overarching international legal basis for global efforts to address the adverse impacts of hazardous chemicals and wastes.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions

Wastes and Their Disposal prevents and minimises hazardous waste generation, ensures environmentally sound management and controls transboundary movements.

The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade promotes shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among parties in international trade, and contributes to environmentally sound use.

The Stockholm Convention protects human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants. The implementation of these three conventions contributes to addressing the three planetary environmental crises, as well as supporting the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development.

REMARKABLE PROGRESS

Over the past 30 years there has been remarkable progress on the environmentally sound management of hazardous chemicals and wastes. In response to illegal transboundary movements of hazardous wastes, parties to the Basel Convention committed to promote and implement more efficient waste prevention and minimisation strategies, take measures to decouple economic growth and environmental impacts, and encourage more systematic and comprehensive global and regional efforts for improved access to cleaner production methods, including through capacity building and technology transfer. Recently, the Conference of the Parties amended the Basel Convention to address the transboundary movements of plastics and e-wastes more effectively.

Amendments adopted in May 2019 enhanced the control of the transboundary movements of plastic waste and clarified the scope of the convention as it applies to such waste. In addition, the COP also adopted a decision on further actions to address plastic waste. The decision includes actions for preventing and minimising the generation of plastic waste, improving its environmentally sound management and controlling its transboundary movement, reducing the risk from hazardous constituents in plastic waste, and public awareness, education and information exchange.

Amendments adopted in June 2022 enlarged the control of transboundary movements of e-waste and made all electronic and electrical waste subject to the prior informed consent procedure.

The number of hazardous chemicals subject to the prior informed consent procedure under the Rotterdam Convention has also increased throughout the years. Currently, 54 chemicals are listed in Annex III, 35 pesticides (including three severely hazardous pesticide formulations), 18 industrial chemicals and one chemical in both the pesticide and the industrial chemical categories. The most recent inclusions are decabromodiphenyl ether and perfluorooctanoic acid, its salts and related compounds.

ROLPH PAYET

Rolph Payet has been the executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions since 2014. The first president and vice-chancellor of the University of Seychelles, he served as minister of environment and energy from 2012 to 2014. In addition to having been the Seychelles’ chief negotiator for the Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, he also established important multi-stakeholder platforms, such as the Global Island Partnership, and co-chaired the International Coral Reef Initiative.

Twitter @rolphpayet  brsmeas.org

POSITIVE RESULTS

The Stockholm Convention, which initially included 12 persistent organic pollutants, today lists 31 chemicals, with more in the pipeline. Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid, its salts and related compounds were listed in 2022 in Annex A for elimination. As highlighted in the recently released second effectiveness evaluation report, monitoring results indicate that regulations targeting POPs have successfully reduced POPs levels in humans and the environment.

Despite this progress, the work of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions is not done yet. The Stockholm Convention’s time-bound target on polychlorinated biphenyls is fast approaching, and with an estimated 721,000 tons still to be eliminated, there is a high risk this target will not be met. PCBs are among the 12 initial POPs listed under the Stockholm Convention: their production and new uses are banned. Parties to the convention must eliminate the use of PCBs in equipment by 2025 and ensure the environmentally sound waste management of liquids containing PCBs and equipment contaminated with PCBs by 2028.

Parties to the Stockholm Convention have sent strong messages to the financial mechanism of the convention and to donors highlighting the need to support parties’ ability to meet the targets, which they themselves negotiated and agreed to. G7 leaders at their Hiroshima Summit can help accelerate action by raising awareness on the targets for the sound management of chemicals and waste and by mobilising the financial, political and technical resources necessary to ensure the PCBs targets are met. Meeting the targets of multilateral agreements is essential to the credibility of multilateralism as a means to address global challenges, including the major and interconnected environmental crises the world faces.

Recently, the Conference of the Parties amended the Basel Convention to address the transboundary movements of plastics and e-wastes more effectively”

energy G7 performance on

The G7 leaders meet at Hiroshima after the second year of the conflict in Ukraine has begun. As Russia continues to squeeze its gas supply to Europe, the climate-energy nexus remains a predominant global and G7 theme. While Russia’s actions have shown the world the inherent risk of relying heavily on fossil fuel imports, the crisis has also driven powerful structural changes that will accelerate the global clean energy transition. Under Japan’s

presidency, the G7 is poised to fast-track this global energy transition in ways that enhance energy security, resilience and affordability, decrease dependency on fossil fuel imports, and create a more sustainable and equitable energy future for all.

CONCLUSIONS

The G7 has dedicated an average of 927 words or 9% of its communiqués to energy at each regular, annual summit.

Ella Kokotsis, director of accountability, G7 Research Group

The climate-energy nexus remains a predominant global and G7 theme as Europe weans itself off Russian oil and gas. Under Japan’s presidency, the G7 is poised to fast-track the global energy transition

Ella Kokotsis, director of accountability, G7 Research Group

The phase from 1975 to 1989 had peaks of 1,309 words (62%) in 1979 and 1,742 words (44%) in 1980, and lows of zero in 1985 and 1988.

The second phase, from 1990 to 2004, had a high of 702 words (9%) in 1991, and a low of 43 words (0.4%) in 2002.

The third phase, from 2005 to 2014, had a high of 6,333 words (38%) in 2009 and a low of 567 words (3%) in 2005.

The fourth phase, from 2015 to 2022, produced fewer overall energy conclusions. The peaks came in 2015 with 1,688 words (13%) and 4,189 words (22%) in 2022 – spiking after Russia’s invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. Lows came in 2020 with zero and 409 (4%) in 2018.

COMMITMENTS

Between 1975 and 2022, the G7 generated 388 energy commitments, a number surpassed by those on development, health, environment, gender and climate change.

The first phase, from 1975 to 1983, produced 113 energy commitments, with 43 (78%) in 1979, at the height of the second oil crisis.

The second phase, from 1984 to 1996, only generated three energy commitments, all made in 1991.

The third phase, from 1997 to 2006, saw a significant increase, with 155 commitments. Highs came in 2005 with 57 commitments (26%), followed by 78 commitments (24%) in 2006, when Russia hosted its first and only summit.

The fourth and fifth phases, from 2007 to 2022, had 250 energy commitments –the most since the G7’s inception. Highs came in 2007 with 41 commitments (12%), followed by 2022 with 49 (5%). By portion, the 2021 summit had the highest, where energy accounted for 31%. Lows came in 2013, 2019 and 2020 when energy fell off the agenda entirely.

COMPLIANCE

Members’ compliance with these energy commitments averaged 82%, based on the 25 commitments assessed for compliance by the G7 Research Group. This surpasses the 76% average across all subjects.

The highest compliance scores, of 100%, came from the 2001 and 2018 summits. Moreover, by January 2023 compliance with the assessed energy security commitment made at the 2022 summit was already at 100%. The lowest compliance came for 2003 with 61%, 2012 with 68%, and 2014 and 2017, each with 75%.

388

commitments on energy made since G7 summits began

Among the members, the European Union has the highest compliance on energy, with 94%. This is followed by the United States with 92%, the United Kingdom with 90%, Germany with 86% and Canada with 84%. France with 80%, Japan with 78% and Italy with 68% are below average.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

Several opportunities exist to improve compliance with the G7’s energy commitments at Hiroshima.

Commitments that reference meetings of energy ministers, use highly binding language and create official-level bodies that deal with energy have generated 100% compliance. References to publicprivate-sector partnerships are key (95%), as are defined timetables for actionable outcomes (94%) and links to regulatory frameworks (89%).

Commitments referencing outside agencies, at 78%, fall slightly below the energy average of 82%. Moreover, very low compliance levels are associated with low-binding language (61%) as well as references to voluntary reporting mechanisms (56%).

As Europe seeks to wean itself off Russian oil and gas by 2027, diversification by energy source and type will be key to maintaining energy security while furthering pathways to net zero. Under Japan’s presidency, the G7 can engage its energy ministers, and collectively agree on highly binding commitments with defined timetables for actionable outcomes that will mitigate the immediate energy crisis without compromising the world’s longer term decarbonisation objectives.

82%

average compliance on energy commitments assessed

ELLA KOKOTSIS

Ella Kokotsis, PhD, is director of accountability of the G7 and G20 Research Groups. She has attended most G7 summits since 1994, has written broadly on various aspects of summitry and global governance, has directed the research and publication of numerous analytical documents, and has spoken extensively at summit-related conferences worldwide. She is co-author, with John Kirton and Brittaney Warren, of Reconfiguring the Global Governance of Climate Change and, with John Kirton, of The Global Governance of Climate Change: G7, G20 and UN Leadership.

Twitter @g7_rg  www.g7.utoronto.ca

Diversification by energy source and type will be key to maintaining energy security while furthering pathways to net zero”

Interview with Francesco La Camera, director-general, IRENA

No security without clean energy

Progress in the power sector on renewables does not go far enough. The G7 must make essential moves towards carbon neutrality before it’s too late

What advances have been made in achieving the renewable energy transition?

We need action now. Success in reducing emissions determines whether the global temperature rise can be limited to 1.5°C. Considerably scaling up renewables and efficiency solutions by 2030 is the only realistic option.

IRENA’s Preview of the World Energy Transitions Outlook 2023 shows that the scale and extent of the change in all sectors fall far

short. The energy transition is off track. There is some progress in the power sector, with renewables representing an unprecedented 83% of power additions. The biggest annual increase in renewable energy capacity – 295 GW – was added worldwide in 2022.

Unfortunately, the good news ends here. Deployment is concentrated in a few countries and a tiny number of technologies. Renewables power levels must more than triple to more than 10,000 GW by 2030.

We must look at transport, industry and heating, too. G7 members have committed to reach net zero by 2050. This requires comprehensively transforming all end-use sectors, as well as energy transport and trade.

IRENA supports this ambition and is working closely with Japan’s G7 presidency on critical materials, offshore wind and clean hydrogen. Hydrogen could become the vital link between renewable power generation and hard-to-abate sectors.

What major tasks and challenges remain?

We don’t have the luxury of time to evolve a clean energy system like the one that enabled fossil fuels over the past 150 years.

We can address structural barriers by focusing on the demand for clean energy and enablers of a renewables-dominated system. WETO outlines three priority areas: Infrastructure: We need to build the physical infrastructure for the new system – investing in grids and trade routes on land and sea, including for hydrogen and its derivatives.

Policies: We need the policy and regulatory architecture to incentivise investment.

Skills: We need to shift institutional capacities to align people’s skills and capabilities with the new energy system –a well-skilled workforce must benefit from the transition.

This requires significant investment and a new paradigm for international cooperation in which all actors play an optimal role.

How is IRENA working to reinforce and expand the existing advances?

We must rewrite the way international cooperation works. The expanding roster of actors in the energy transition requires assessing roles to leverage respective strengths and efficiently allocate limited public resources.

The transition requires large public investment to trigger the systemic change we need. Multilateral financial institutions should focus on building the physical infrastructure necessary to develop energy systems that run on renewables.

Although the global investment across transition technologies reached a record

FRANCESCO LA CAMERA

Francesco La Camera assumed the role of director-general of IRENA in 2019. He formerly served as director-general of sustainable development in Italy’s Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea. As the national coordinator for the circular economy, he led the Italian delegation at several Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He served as co-chair of the Africa Centre for Climate and Sustainable Development and co-chaired the Financial Platform for Climate and Sustainable Development.

Twitter @flacamera  irena.org

high of $1.3 trillion in 2022, annual investment must more than quadruple. By 2030, cumulative investments must reach $44 trillion, with transition technologies representing 80% of the total – or $35 trillion.

Public financing is critical to help achieve a just, inclusive energy transition. Yet the investment gap between developed and developing countries is widening. Last year, 85% of investments in renewables benefited only 50% of the global population. Africa accounted for only 1% of additional capacity. This must change.

IRENA’s finance platform, ETAF, channels much-needed capital to developing countries and emerging markets to close that gap.

How does IRENA see the role of infrastructure for the energy transition? What makes the system work is infrastructure bringing energy into your home. Most countries have the resources to harness renewables, but physical 27 PWh 89.8 PWh

4% 5% 62%

28% 10% 91.1%

infrastructure is necessary to deliver them. We must also consider the change in geographic dynamics that includes the Global South.

Take the example of green hydrogen: not all regions are equally covered by pipelines. Dense pipeline networks in East Asia, Eurasia and North America contrast starkly with the relatively sparse networks on other continents, and an almost complete absence in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Furthermore, infrastructure is durable. Every decision today about fixed energy infrastructure should consider the structure and geography of the low-carbon economy of the future and avoid the risk of stranded assets.

How can G7 leaders at their Hiroshima Summit help?

G7 members must address today’s energy security challenges while making progress towards carbon neutrality. Leaders must strike the right balance between reactive measures and proactive energy transition strategies that promote a more resilient, inclusive and climate-safe system, and send a strong signal to the world.

There is no security without clean energy. Several root causes of today’s crises stem from the fossil fuel–based energy system: overdependence on a limited number of fuel exporters, inefficient and wasteful energy production and consumption, and inadequate accounting for environmental costs.

An energy transition based on renewables can reduce or eliminate such inefficiencies. Coal and oil power has no place in the decarbonised energy system. The speed of the change will determine the levels of energy security and resilience at the national level and offer new opportunities for improved human welfare globally.

Maximum energy, minimum emissions

There may be no one-size-fits-all solution to a sustainable energy future, but collaboration and inclusive action will be essential in achieving a just and permanent transition

Haitham Al Ghais, secretary-general, OPEC

Imagine a world without oil and the multitude of essential daily products that are derived from it: gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, kerosene, toothpaste, deodorant, soap, cameras, computers, car tyres, upholstery, contact lenses, artificial limbs and hearts, many types of medicine and much more.

Essential services that people depend on would vanish, transportation would grind to a halt, many homes would be without heat, people’s health would suffer, global food supply chains would be disrupted and energy poverty would rise further. It is a world that does not bear thinking about.

But such an image underscores the importance of a just and sustainable energy transition in which no people, no industry and no country are left behind. The challenges for energy, climate and sustainable development are enormous and this means the parameters of the discourse need to be inclusive. We need every voice at the table, with the G7 playing a vital role.

RISING DEMAND FOR ENERGY

With populations and economies growing, the world will need more energy in the coming decades. In our World Oil Outlook 2022, we forecast that global energy demand will expand by 23% to 2045. Meeting this growth, ensuring energy security and affordable access, and lowering global emissions in line with the Paris Agreement require all

energies, and unprecedented investment and collaboration.

For the oil industry alone, which will make up almost 29% of the world’s energy needs by 2045, global investment requirements total $12.1 trillion between now and then. This equates to more than $500 billion each year.

Recent annual levels have been significantly below this amount, due to industry downturns, the pandemic and the increasing focus on environmental, social and governance issues.

SUSTAINABILITY AT STAKE

In fact, we believe that not enough investment is going into all energies. To put it simply, the sustainability of the global energy system is at stake.

We are playing catch-up on investments. We need a long-term, investment-friendly climate that works for producers and consumers.

The chronic underinvestment needs to be rectified. It is not about waiting for tomorrow; it is about making it happen today.

OPEC member countries are ready, willing and able to play a key role in helping provide energy to the world and in reducing emissions.

We are investing in upstream and downstream capacity. We are mobilising cleaner technologies and our vast pool of human expertise to help decarbonise the industry. We are making major investments in renewables and hydrogen capacity, carbon capture utilisation and storage, and other technologies, as well as promoting the circular carbon economy to improve overall environmental performance.

History has shown us that energy transitions evolve slowly and have many paths. We also need to remember the sad reality that more than 700 million people still have no access to electricity and 2.4 billion use inefficient and polluting systems.

What can be viewed in energy market turmoil over the past 18 months or so is what can occur if we do not take on board the interwoven complexities of energy.

It is clear that no one has all the answers. In fact, we may not know all the questions – but that does not mean we cannot take action now.

The overall focus needs to be on emissions reduction and the use of all fuels across the world. In this regard, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to a

HAITHAM AL GHAIS

His Excellency Haitham Al Ghais was appointed OPEC secretary-general on 1 August 2022. In 1991, he served as a diplomatic attaché in Kuwait’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1993, he joined the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and was appointed deputy managing director for international marketing in 2021. He represented Kuwait on OPEC’s board of governors from 2016 to 2021, and in 2017 served as the first chair of the Joint Technical Committee. In 2018–2019, he led Kuwait’s team in finalising the Charter of Cooperation between OPEC and non-OPEC countries. Twitter @OPECSecretariat  opec.org

growth in global energy demand forecast to 2045

23% of energy needs will be met by the oil industry by 2045

sustainable energy future. What is the right path for one may not be the right path for another.

COLLABORATION AT THE FORE

We fully support a global, multilateral approach, with collaboration at the fore. We need to work with one another, and not against one another.

We look forward to this year’s 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in the United Arab Emirates – an OPEC member – and its championing of an inclusive agenda, with the event undertaking a first global stocktake since the Paris Agreement.

700m

29% people live without access to electricity

As Dr Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, presidentdesignate of COP28, has said, we need “maximum energy, minimum emissions”. This is a key takeaway for the G7 leaders when they meet in Hiroshima, as we plan for an orderly energy transition, driven by the challenges of energy security, affordability and sustainability.

As I have noted on many occasions, we hope the future sees investments and finance in the energy transition focusing on an ‘all peoples, all fuels and all technologies’ approach.

We are mobilising cleaner technologies and our vast pool of human expertise to help decarbonise the industry”

The

G7 performance on health

Although health has featured at the top of the G7’s agenda in the past few years due to Covid-19, the G7 has a long history of acting on health. The G7 first addressed the issue in 1979 when it committed to working with developing countries on hunger and malnutrition. Since then, the G7 has played a leadership role by working to improve infant, child and maternal mortality, and by collaborating on preventing and responding to infectious diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the G7’s 1975 creation, leaders have dedicated 55,921 words in their regular summit communiqués to health, averaging 1,165 words, or 9%, per summit. They have produced 88 stand-alone documents on health.

HÉLÈNE EMORINE

Hélène Emorine is a senior researcher with the G7 Research Group, based at Trinity College in the University of Toronto. She holds an MSc in global governance and diplomacy from the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on cooperation between states, non-state actors and the private sector through international and plurilateral institutions.

Twitter @HeleneEmorine  www.g7.utoronto.ca

Health first appeared in G7 communiqués in 1979. But only since 1996 has it appeared at every summit. It received the highest number of words in 2016 at 6,087, for 26%. Between 2001 and 2016, peaks for health were in the 20% range: 2001 had 24%, 2003 had 22%, 2006 had 23%, and 2010 and 2016 had 26% each. Health has been a significant focus since the Covid-19 pandemic struck. It peaked at 72% of the total words in 2020. In 2021 it decreased to 24% and fell to 17% in 2022.

COMMITMENTS

G7 leaders have made 687 collective, politically binding, future-oriented, core commitments on health. These cover malnutrition, health research, ageing, illicit drugs, Covid-19 and more.

Between 1975 and 1999, health commitments represented less than 10% of the total across all subjects. This portion rose to 13% in 2000. It dropped to 5% in 2001 before increasing to 10% in 2002 and dipping below 10% for the next several summits. It reached a new peak of 18% at the 2006 summit. Other peaks came in 2010 with 17%, 2015 with 16% and 2016 with 24%.

In response to the pandemic, the virtual summit in 2020 produced the highest peak, with 44%. Health remained a major focus in 2021 with 21%. It decreased to 7% in 2022.

COMPLIANCE

Commitments are important but are effective only if G7 members comply with them. The G7 Research Group has assessed

Hiroshima Summit is an opportunity to move beyond reacting to the emergency of Covid-19 and shift focus to tackling long-term health challenges – but only if G7 leaders can harness the momentum driven by the pandemic

Hélène Emorine, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

91 of the 687 health commitments for compliance. Overall, compliance averages 78%, slightly above the 76% average across all subjects.

Compliance with commitments is inconsistent, subject to many peaks and dips. The first commitments assessed, in 1983 and 1997, received full compliance. Compliance from 1998 was 68% and from 1999 was 50%. This rose to 91% from 2000 and 94% from 2001. Other peaks came in 2003 with 90%, 2007 with 86%, 2012 with 100%, 2013 with 95%, 2014 with 92% and 2015 with 86%. The G7’s lowest compliance ever came from 2017, with just 25%. But compliance has risen since then to 71% from both 2018 and 2019, 95% from 2020 and 91% from 2021. Halfway between the 2022 and 2023 summits, compliance was already 75%.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

G7 leaders can do three things to sustain and improve the G7’s already significant compliance with its health commitments. First, they can ensure that these commitments refer to core and related international health organisations, specifically the World Health Organization and the United Nations. Indeed, commitments that reference the WHO average 83% and

those referring to the UN average 91% – both well above the 78% average for all health commitments and the 76% overall average.

Second, commitments that include mobilising money, such as pledging financial support to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis, average 76% compliance, close to the 78% average for health.

Third, commitments made at the five summits with pre-summit health ministerial meetings (2006, 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021) averaged 82% compliance. Those without such a ministerial averaged 76%. Japan’s

commitme nts on health made since G7 summits began

78%

average compliance on health commitments assessed

2023 presidency, with its pre-summit health ministerial meeting in May, bodes well for compliance with its summit health commitments. For 2024, Italy’s G7 presidency should maintain this trend. At Hiroshima, G7 leaders can move beyond reacting to the emergency of Covid-19 and focus on effectively addressing long-term health challenges, if they can harness the momentum and urgency caused by the pandemic to make more health commitments that refer to the WHO and UN, mobilise money, and build on the meeting of their health ministers.

Commitments that reference the World Health Organization average 83% and those referring to the United Nations average 91% – both well above the 78% average for all health commitments”

In its 75th year, the World Health Organization remains essential – especially now, as it builds a new framework to respond to health emergencies that ensures the painful lessons of the past three years are not lost

Milestone moments

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of the World Health Organization. Like the United Nations of which we are a part, the WHO was forged in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is therefore no coincidence that the authors of our constitution wrote not only that health is a fundamental human right of all people, but also that the health of all peoples is fundamental to peace and security.

Three quarters of a century later, Covid-19 has demonstrated just how right they were. Officially, the pandemic has killed almost 7 million people, and they are just the reported deaths; we know

the actual toll is several times higher. Millions more continue to live with the sometimes debilitating effects of post–Covid-19 conditions, or ‘long-Covid’. Severe disruptions to essential health services resulted in excess mortality in many countries, as people missed out on the lifesaving care they needed and immunisation coverage dropped for the first time in a decade.

But the pandemic has been so much more than a health crisis. It has also caused great economic upheaval, destroying livelihoods, shuttering businesses and wiping out more than four years of progress on eradicating poverty. It has also caused great social upheaval, with schools and universities closed, and a torrent of mis- and disinformation eroding trust between

people, governments and institutions. And it has caused great political upheaval, both within and between countries.

LEARNING FROM MISTAKES

The key issue now is whether we will learn from the mistakes the pandemic has taught us, so that we do not repeat them in the future. For decades, the global response to epidemics and pandemics has operated on a cycle of panic and neglect. Already we see signs of that cycle repeating: the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report, a survey of 1,200 leaders that ranks the likely impact of risks, found that infectious diseases rank near the bottom of the 32 perceived risks over the long term.

The painful lessons of the past three years must not go to waste. We have a duty

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general, World Health Organization

7m

reported deaths from Covid-19

to those we have lost, and to those who will come after us, to make the serious and permanent changes to the global health security architecture to keep future generations safer from epidemics, pandemics and other health emergencies.

That is what the pandemic accord now being negotiated by the WHO’s member states is all about: a generational agreement among countries to work in cooperation – not in competition – to face shared threats with a shared response.

INITIATIVES ALIGNED

The accord will be an overarching framework to provide cohesion for the many other initiatives that are now under way to strengthen the governance, financing, systems and tools needed to respond to health emergencies. That

includes some that have already been established, including the new Pandemic Fund at the World Bank, the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, the Universal Health and Preparedness Review, and the mRNA Transfer Hub in South Africa, and others that are still in discussion, including a new platform for equitable access to vaccines and other tools, and proposals for a global health emergency corps.

THE LONG-TERM VIEW

Alongside and underpinning these efforts to strengthen the world’s defences against health emergencies is the WHO’s long-term work supporting countries to strengthen their health systems and progress towards universal health coverage, built on the foundation of strong primary health care.

Japan, which itself embarked on its journey towards universal health coverage in the aftermath of the Second World War, has been a strong and consistent supporter of the WHO’s work in this area. In its G7 presidency this year, we look forward to Japan’s continued leadership and support – and that of all G7 members – for the global movement towards universal health coverage, particularly as we approach the Second High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, to be held at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Today, 75 years since the founding of the WHO, the need for international cooperation is more important than ever. As the world’s wealthiest and most powerful countries, most of which were founding members of the WHO, the G7 plays a vital role in the pursuit and fulfilment of its mission, which remains as relevant as ever: the highest attainable standard of health, as a human right, and the foundation of peace and security.

ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was elected director-general of the World Health Organization in 2017 and re-elected for a second term in 2022. He is the first person from the WHO African Region to serve as WHO’s chief technical and administrative officer. He served as Ethiopia’s minister of foreign affairs from 2012 to 2016 and minister of health from 2005 to 2012. He was elected chair of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Board in 2009, and previously chaired the Roll Back Malaria Partnership Board, and co-chaired the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Board.

Twitter @DrTedros

The accord will be an overarching framework to provide cohesion for the many other initiatives that are now underway to strengthen the governance, financing, systems and tools needed to respond to health emergencies”

TEDROS

Rethinking international cooperation for global challenges

The Covid-19 pandemic, earthquakes in Türkiye, Syria, Pakistan, wildfires, droughts, floods, and many more extreme events caused directly or indirectly by climate change, contribute to the multi-crises environment we live in today. All these crises have their critical imprint on population and individual health on a global scale. Health is invaluable, regardless of where we live on the globe. We are increasingly seeing that actions taken on one side of the world can have significant effects on the health of people anywhere else. Dividing the world into North and South, developed and less developed, rich and poor, does not make much sense when it comes to cooperation for health. The most prevalent health threats might differ from location to

location, but ultimately, health cannot be maintained sustainably unless we seriously commit to prevention and ensure that adequate access to health care is realised everywhere. Thus, (natural) disasters and other unprecedented crises must lead us to invest in the causes together. The very close cooperation for COP28 between climate and health is a good example of this. As we call for better cooperation to address common challenges, we need to factor in legitimate national interests and perspectives. Globalisation has so far increased the speed of technological development and the amount of international trade but is now being reconsidered along various dimensions. It is now clear that globalisation in the way it was implemented in the past decades has failed to deliver the promised increase in equality of opportunity and living

To bring to fruition our common wish to survive and be healthy, a new global order is required that takes into account the perspectives of all nations and groups

Axel R Pries, president, World Health Summit

World Health Summit

conditions within and between countries and regions. It is an increasingly political risk that the richest countries and the strongest international actors benefit the most, while weaker nations and groups continue to fall behind. This leads to a loss of trust in multilateral organisations and processes and – in some countries –increasing susceptibility to populist and nationalist temptations. In the field of global health, rich nations and big donors frequently set priorities and approaches, often without consulting the countries and communities most affected. Increasingly, low- and middle-income countries want to move away from this donor-driven official development assistance model and seek real partnerships that are different to the often disease-based approaches preferred by donors. The establishment of the mRNA vaccine technology transfer hub in South Africa under the auspices of the WHO is a relevant example of this approach and shows how multilateral technology transfer can be organised to benefit LMICs.

This type of fair global cooperation is the response we need to global challenges in these crisis-driven times. Global health must continue to work on new approaches that combine fair international partnerships with common humanitarian principles and with a high respect for regional and national views and requirements.

There is still a power imbalance among nations across the globe. Economic performance has determined the impact and membership in intergovernmental forums such as the G7 or G20 – which increasingly also deal with global health issues. Their deliberations led to the creation of the Global Fund and now more recently the Pandemic Fund. Yet global issues require inclusive multilateral cooperation with ‘all voices heard’, irrespective of the size of their economy. The balance between size, economic power and regional viewpoints is delicate, but well known to many federal structures, including the European Union and African Union as well as the United States, all employing slightly different solutions to similar challenges.

FACILITATING DIALOGUE

At the World Health Summit, we commit to facilitating high-level dialogues among political actors with very diverse backgrounds from all across the globe. This includes G7 and G20 participation in the World Health Summit programme, but

AXEL RADLACH PRIES

Axel Radlach Pries became president of the World Health Summit in 2021. He was the Dean of Charité from 2015 to 2022, having been head of the Charité Institute for Physiology from 2001. He has chaired the Council for Basic Cardiovascular Science and the Congress Programme Committee basic section in the European Society of Cardiology, was president of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe and CEO of the Berlin Institute of Health. He has received the Malpighi Award, the Poiseuille Gold Medal and the Silver Medal of the European Society of Cardiology.

Twitter @WorldHealthSmt @ChariteBerlin

 worldhealthsummit.org

at the same time there is a commitment to inclusivity of LMICs across all regions and topics. Stimulating diverse encounters, not only across disciplines and stakeholder groups but also between different government actors, is a primary goal for the World Health Summit. Due to its convening power, the World Health Summit provides a forum for formal and informal exchanges up to the highest level of leadership.

While platforms such as the World Health Summit can contribute to developing a new approach to multilateral action in the global health sector, the foundations for new processes, structures and financing mechanisms can only be negotiated at government levels with the broadest possible representation of nations, such as at the World Health Organization and the United Nations General Assembly. At the heart of such developments is a set of principles; they must be:

• rule based;

• reliable;

• fair;

• inclusive; and

• equitable.

Future cooperation must take into account the interests of all nations and groups in order to achieve sustainable solutions to global challenges, including global health. In turn, all nations must be willing to prioritise global health and well-being over national egoism. The globe is getting smaller at an increasing speed and critical changes in the environment are becoming a common threat for all of us. I hope that we will all understand that our common wish to survive and be healthy needs a new global health order.

Bharat Masrani

We are increasingly seeing that actions taken on one side of the world can have significant effects on the health of people anywhere else”

Photo credit: Wiebke Peitz

G7 and G20 leaders recently took an important step towards ensuring that the world is better prepared for the next pandemic by backing what has become known as the 100 Day Mission. This ambitious plan aims to accelerate the development of pandemic vaccines, treatments and diagnostics, to make them available within just 100 days of a pandemic outbreak – three times faster than during Covid-19. However, although a rapid response is critical to prevent escalation and mitigate the impact of a pandemic, speed only goes so far if the vaccines cannot reach the people who need them most.

Look no further than the current pandemic. The speed at which Covid-19 vaccines were developed was unprecedented – one of the few success stories of this global crisis. Another is the creation of COVAX, a global mechanism

Going further than rapid response

to remove the financial barriers and make equitable access possible. These should have ensured a rapid, equitable global response. Yet barriers to access and delivery still prevented hundreds of millions of people from getting vaccinated quickly, barriers that persist more than two years after vaccines became available.

A MORE IMPACTFUL RESPONSE

The next time a pandemic strikes we do not just need our response to be faster – it must be more impactful. That means urgently identifying and addressing any challenges or obstacles to end-to-end delivery. There will be a next time: that is an evolutionary certainty. Thanks to global trends such as climate change, the threat of future Covid-scale pandemics could even double in the coming decades.

Yet today, as we enter the fourth year of the current pandemic, are we any closer to

Another pandemic is an evolutionary certainty. What is less certain, however, is how effective our response will be – and whether we can ensure it is equitable

Seth Berkley, CEO, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance

being better prepared? COVAX delivered close to 2 billion doses in the first two years, the largest and most complex global deployment of vaccines ever, with around 90% going to people in lower-income countries and with the majority of people most at risk now fully protected. Indeed, 82% of healthcare workers and 69% of older people in these countries are now fully vaccinated, compared to 89% and 92% respectively in high-income countries. But we faced severe delays along the way. This was partly because of vaccine hoarding and export restrictions, which hindered the global supply of vaccines. But many countries had weak health systems even before the pandemic, and struggled to get doses out to people fast enough. In low-income countries Covid-19 coverage is on average still only 27% and routine immunisation coverage has been backsliding, with increasing numbers of children who have not received even a single dose of a vaccine. Until we ensure stronger health systems and more resilient primary health care are in place everywhere, we are collectively not ready for an equitable global response to the next pandemic.

One big challenge is that the last to be reached are often some of the hardest to reach. These people are not just missing out on pandemic vaccines. They and the communities in which they live are among the most marginalised, facing multiple deprivations beyond health. Figuring out

≈2bn

how to reach these communities now will pay dividends in terms of future pandemic preparedness, and help bring them routine interventions. This will move us closer to universal health coverage, and help put us back on track to meet the Sustainable Development Goals.

PRIORITISING GLOBAL HEALTH

%

went to people in lower-income countries

SETH BERKLEY

Seth Berkley, a medical doctor and epidemiologist, joined Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, as CEO in 2011. Previously, he founded the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative in 1996 and served as president and CEO for 15 years. He was an officer of the Health Sciences Division at the Rockefeller Foundation and has worked for the Center for Infectious Diseases of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Carter Center, where he was assigned as an epidemiologist at the Ministry of Health in Uganda.

Twitter @GaviSeth  gavi.org

That is why Japan, as host of the Hiroshima Summit, has made global health the priority, as part of a push for resilient universal health coverage. This should be applauded. Japan has long been a champion of global health: a long-term supporter of Gavi, instrumental during its 2016 G7 presidency in financing and supporting the creation of an Ebola vaccine stockpile, and a key supporter of COVAX from the very beginning. To continue to prioritise the pandemic and the need for more resilient health systems when many other countries have shifted to a post-Covid mentality, and when there are many other pressing global crises, shows incredible leadership and the recognition of the ongoing and urgent need to address the remaining barriers to equitable vaccine access.

Although the rapid scientific development of vaccines is without question among the most significant challenges to improving future pandemic preparedness and response, so too is the delivery of vaccines. Getting billions of shots into the arms of people in countries all over the world, simultaneously and often in some of the toughest settings, has been one of the most underestimated challenges – and understated accomplishments – of this pandemic. We are still not done. To ensure we are truly ready for the next one and able to mount a response that is not just rapid but also impactful, one of the best ways is to first finish the job with Covid-19.

Thanks to global trends such as climate change, the threat of future Covid-scale pandemics could even double in the coming decades”

90

Covid-19 vaccine doses delivered by COVAX in the first two years of the pandemic

To ensure global health security, the world should harness the infrastructure used to fight AIDS

Winnie Byanyima, executive director, UNAIDS, and under-secretary-general, United Nations

In these times of compounding global health crises, the importance of universal health coverage, which Japan has long championed, has never been clearer. As Prime Minister Fumio Kishida set out in The Lancet, ensuring Health for All is crucial to global security, as it is key to respond to – and adequately prepare for – the future pandemics that scientists warn are on the horizon. Noting how the international Covid-19 response exposed the vulnerabilities in our global

Three key lessons

health systems, he called for reimagining the global health architecture.

How can Health For All be achieved? How can we prepare for pandemics and ensure that health crises do not rip through economies and societies? From the experience of the global AIDS response and its role in driving progress on health overall, three key lessons can be drawn.

OFFICIAL ASSISTANCE

First, it will be vital to harness the capabilities developed to fight AIDS. Official development assistance from the G7 members to the HIV response has been crucial in fighting the AIDS pandemic. To respond to Covid-19, governments built upon surveillance systems that were developed to track HIV, and harnessed what has been called the HIV infrastructure, from laboratories all the way to community networks. So too with the Ebola and Mpox responses. Continuing to build up the tried and tested systems developed by the AIDS movement is key to responding effectively to all current and future pandemics.

Second, it is essential to ensure that developing countries have sufficient resources to provide Health For All. The World Bank has issued a stark warning: if urgent action is not taken, two-thirds of developing countries are set to see health investment per capita stagnate or decrease until 2027, compared to 2019 pre–Covid-19 levels. In 2021, lower-income countries spent four times as much on repaying international debt as they did on health. The G7 is uniquely placed to bring public and private creditors into debt negotiations and to improve domestic legislation to enable fast and fair debt restructuring or cancellation, so these governments can devote vital resources to health instead of debt payments. A full deployment of the reallocation of the special drawing rights at the International Monetary Fund, agreed to by the G7 at the Elmau Summit in 2022, is also needed, prioritising pandemic response and prevention. A growing portion of official development assistance should support health investments. For sustainability,

of developing countries are set to see health investment per capita stagnate or decrease until 2027 unless urgent action is taken

domestic revenues also need to grow, which will require closing tax loopholes and progressive fiscal reforms.

Third, it is critical for our collective global health security that developing countries get access to medical technologies at the same time as rich countries. This has not happened in the Covid-19 pandemic. Capable companies in the Global South were not allowed to produce Covid-19 vaccines, tests and treatments because a small number of pharmaceutical companies were granted monopolies on the technology. Yet the AIDS response has taught us that it was the production of generics in developing countries that drove down the cost of HIV medicines by 99%. With substantial funding from the G7 governments, HIV medicines were purchased and delivered at scale. Now, three-quarters of people with HIV are on treatment, able to live long and healthy lives. These lessons need to be applied to Covid-19, to new long-acting technologies for HIV prevention and treatment, and to international pandemic preparedness processes. Health technologies need to be recognised as public goods, requiring governments and companies to share knowledge, transfer technology and support regional manufacturing in the Global South, especially in Africa, to ensure access to medicines for all.

FROM ASPIRATIONS TO ACHIEVEMENTS

This moment of polycrisis can only be overcome through bold action driven by courageous leadership. In this interconnected world, it is an opportunity the world cannot afford to miss. Prime Minister Kishida is right that this G7 has a key role to play in ensuring that Health For All and pandemic preparedness move from aspirations to achievements.

WINNIE BYANYIMA

Winnie Byanyima assumed the role of executive director of UNAIDS in November 2019. She had been executive director of Oxfam International since 2013. Prior to that, she served for seven years as the director of gender and development at the United Nations Development Programme. She began her career as a champion of marginalised communities and women 30 years ago as a member of parliament in the National Assembly of Uganda. In 2004, she became the director of women and development at the African Union Commission. Twitter

In 2021, lower-income countries spent four times as much on repaying international debt as they did on health”

Better health in the Caribbean and small island states

How is the health of people in small island developing states, such as those in the Caribbean, harmed by the effects of Covid-19, slowing economic growth, inflation, indebtedness and climate change?

vaccines, and improved systems that address vaccine production and match supply with demand more equitably.

Interview with Joy St John, executive director, Caribbean Public Health Agency

Covid-19 illustrated the importance of health in all policies, yet health financing is seen as draining the public purse. The medical model reigns in healthcare provision, where expensive curative care is better resourced than cost-effective prevention measures such as immunisation. These challenges reduce the available health spending for those of us in SIDS. The burden of out-of-pocket expenses for health care is growing. Health indices will not be good, especially for those with chronic diseases or the vulnerable, including children who did not get immunised, or the marginalised, including climate and Covid-19 migrants without access to health care.

There is a silver lining: humanitarian assistance for Covid-19 improved systems for critical care, expanded the range of immunisation equipment for ultra-cold chain

The harmful effects of climate change are more real in SIDS. We have evidence in the Caribbean from unprecedented flooding in the past three years, ongoing sargassum problems affecting our coastlines and vector-borne diseases, and a critical tourism sector that depends highly on sustained livelihoods.

How are their governments and societies responding?

Infection prevention and control measures became life lessons that people absorbed, even if they grumbled.

Mental health stigma significantly diminished because everyone was forced into disturbing life-altering circumstances, and anyone could develop mental illness. People became entrepreneurial and more community minded.

Caribbean governments banded together and showed citizens that

Another pandemic is an evolutionary certainty. What is less certain, however, is how effective our response will be –and whether we can ensure it is equitable

their health mattered by curtailing life-threatening situations.

However, the inevitable realities of those policies meant that governments began focusing on bringing economic activity back. Admirably, infection control measures lasted.

Caribbean governments also worked together to address the economic disasters that beset them.

Reopening the Caribbean’s tourismdependent economies has required immense coordination between public health authorities and the private sector. Despite resource constraints and other external challenges, government leaders have made navigating through these new paradigms easier.

How is the Caribbean Public Health Agency countering these constraints?

CARPHA has partnerships to strengthen systems to mitigate the impacts of climate change on environmental and human health. Making systems more climate resilient can only be accomplished through collaboration.

We are working on a pilot project for climate resilience with the Pan American Health Organization, funded by the European Union; a training programme on building codes for harvesting rainwater, funded by the Caribbean Aqua-Terrestrial Systems and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit; and an EU/ CARIFORUM project on water and sanitation, early warning systems, climate-resilient water safety planning, food safety plans, and capacity building in leadership in climate change and health.

The Caribbean Health-Climatic Bulletin is a collaboration among CARPHA, PAHO and the Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology to help health professionals prepare for favourable or inclement climate conditions.

The Tourism and Health Program protected workers and built confidence with the Caribbean Travellers’ Health Assurance Stamp for Healthier Safer Tourism; seven hospitality health, safety and environmental sanitation standards; technical guidelines for safe work and reopening; training in health and safety measures for Covid-19 and other infectious diseases; confidential electronic monitoring and response systems; support for tracking and reducing illness spread through rapid information sharing and response; advocacy and promotion campaigns to foster measures for Healthier Safer Tourism and vaccination; and the

JOY ST JOHN

Joy St John was appointed executive director of the Caribbean Public Health Agency in 2019. From 2017 to 2019, she was assistant director-general of the World Health Organization, responsible for climate and other determinants of health. She served as the chief medical officer of Barbados for more than 12 years and was the first Caribbean person to chair the executive board of the WHO, from 2012 to 2013.

Twitter @CARPHAExDir  carpha.org

Covid-19 Tourism Task Force to support health measures for safe tourism.

What advances has it made?

CARPHA is celebrating 10 years. An increase in our core budget, financed by member states, was approved. Corporate functions are being improved through EU funding for risk management, a new strategic plan and enterprise resource planning. We upgraded systems to combat cybersecurity attacks and improved communications.

CARPHA implemented integrated surveillance, improved disaster preparedness and response, and updated our partnering policy.

Our annual research conference continued during the pandemic.

CARPHA built trust with its members.

What tasks and challenges remain?

Health financing has declined since the pandemic but the weaknesses revealed still remain. The global health workforce is tired, and the Caribbean region remains under-resourced – yet still other regions recruit from us!

How can G7 leaders at their Hiroshima Summit best help the Caribbean and SIDS?

G7 leaders must understand that despite significant Covid-19 fatigue, we still have the weak systems and frank breaches in health security that have enabled the pandemic to last so long. Those breaches are widening, and exhausted health staff are unlikely to manage effectively if similar situations develop.

G7 leaders must not waste this crisis. They must immediately fix those glaring weaknesses: support the Pandemic Fund; address the drivers of climate change, which also drove aspects of Covid-19; and make policies that block the causes of non-communicable diseases, which made so many people vulnerable.

Despite significant Covid-19 fatigue, we still have the weak systems and frank breaches in health security that have enabled the pandemic to last so long”

A new global health order

Recent intensifying calls for a new global health order reflect the fear that we are entering the last phase of the usual cycle of panic and neglect. But if no decisions are taken now, the world will be unprepared for the next pandemic. The signs are everywhere: this year’s World Economic Forum did not have health threats high on its agenda, nor did the Munich Security Conference.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the food crisis, continuous environmental damage from floods and earthquakes, and other crises are redirecting attention and money. The same might be the case with this year’s G20 and G7 – especially as the war, the North–South divide and broader geopolitics make agreements

Ilona Kickbusch, founding director, Global Health Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

ever more difficult to achieve. And we are also witnessing weakening trust in the multilateral system, including in the World Health Organization.

We are at a crossroads in making the world safer and better protected from health threats. We can succumb to neglect and nationalism or heed the great human and economic losses caused by the pandemic as the most compelling reasons to change things for the better. This is the challenge the G7 faces, as some members actively aim to create new structures, such as a Global Health Threats Council at the

To effect change in the global health system and make the world safe, we need a stronger, streamlined –and, crucially, coordinated – approach to preventing, preparing for and responding to pandemic threats

United Nations, a proposal that would significantly weaken the WHO.

To effect change, a new global health order must mean a stronger, streamlined approach to preventing, preparing for and responding to the inevitable pandemic threats. But new structures and centres of influence can lead to duplication, fragmentation and inefficiency – that was the message from WHO member states at the Executive Board meeting in early 2023.

THE WHO AT THE FRONT LINE

From the first case of Covid-19 reported on New Year’s Eve of 2019 to the WHO’s immediate sharing of available information and advice with all countries and the declaration in late January 2020 of the highest level of alert over the pandemic, the WHO led the response –and consequently is at the front line of criticism. Countries created the WHO 75 years ago to be the guiding international voice on global health threats. It is the only mandated body that brings the political and technical dimensions of health together in one place, through the World Health Assembly and its Executive Board. And it functions, despite immense geopolitical turbulence and the many unknowns associated with Covid-19.

Rightly, many recommendations have been made to strengthen the world’s ability to deal with pandemics, and important government-led processes – centred at the WHO – are under way. Negotiations for a legally binding international agreement or instrument rooted in the WHO constitution, known as the pandemic accord, is one. Considering more than 300 targeted amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations is another. And the historic decision by WHO members to gradually increase

membership dues to represent 50% of the organisation’s core budget by 2030–31 will help it fulfil its vast, expanding mandate across all areas of health, including emergencies. Moreover, there will be a high-level Pandemic Summit at the United Nations General Assembly in September this year. Clearly, all these negotiations and proposals are about both a potential pandemic and, equally, the power balance in global health and the North–South divide, as most global challenges disproportionally affect the Global South. Countries’ lack of trust in one another – one outcome of Covid-19, based particularly on unequal vaccine distribution – stands in the way of collective action and unified solutions.

COLLECTIVE ACTION

The WHO was the glue that held the global health infrastructure together during the pandemic, while many countries embarked on their own, often selfish and invariably disconnected courses, to the detriment of the global response. Of course, the WHO faced unforeseen challenges and was not successful in all of its

The G7 must avoid the tendency to seem impactful by creating yet another structure that fragments the world’s health emergency response. We are already witnessing the limited success of the Pandemic Fund created by the G20. We must also ensure that the three major diplomatic processes now under way do not get in each other’s way and are not exploited to achieve short-term diplomatic trade-offs.

The WHO’s constitution, adopted by all countries, explicitly gives it the task to “act as the directing and co-ordinating authority on international health work”. This must be the North Star of all the processes under way: the pandemic accord negotiations, the IHR revisions, the Pandemic Summit, and the deliberations at the G7 and the G20. The best way to move towards a new global health order is to strengthen and empower the WHO to fulfil its essential roles.

ILONA KICKBUSCH

Ilona Kickbusch is the founding director of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. She served on a panel of independent experts to assess the World Health Organization’s response to the Ebola outbreak and is a member of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. She previously had a distinguished career with the WHO and Yale University, and has published widely on global health governance and global health diplomacy. She is a member of the WHO Council on the Economics of Health For All. She is co-editor of, most recently, Health: A Political Choice – Investing in Health For All Twitter @IlonaKickbusch  ilonakickbusch.com

The G7 must avoid the tendency to seem impactful by creating yet another structure that fragments the world’s health emergency response”

Health professionals are trained to deal with diseases. Few engage in prevention, which remains underestimated, underfunded and underused, but is pivotal in stemming the rising tide of neurological disorders. For dementia, billions spent on finding a drug to counter cognitive deterioration have yielded two drugs of questionable efficiency and unquestionable complications and high costs. Moreover, an effective drug to slow cognitive deterioration in symptomatic patients would only address the symptomatic late phase of the disease. It would do nothing to prevent increasing waves of cognitive impairment, driven by ageing populations compounded by an open-scissors crisis of upward ageing trends and downward birth rates. In 1960 global life expectancy was 51 years; now it is 72 years. The global fertility rate was 5 births per woman; now it is 2.4. In Japan’s super-aged

Preventing neurological disorders: are we being far-sighted enough

and declining birth rate society, life expectancy has changed from 68 years to 85 years while the total fertility rate has declined from 2 to 1.3 per woman. This poses mounting social, economic and health challenges.

One approach is keeping older adults healthy and working past their current retirement ages. Another is educating people to optimise their cerebral, mental and social health so that they can contribute to the

increasingly knowledge-based economy. Integral brain health is key to health, productivity and well-being throughout life.

Promoting brain health includes preventing risk factors and enhancing protective factors. Neurological disorders inflict the largest proportion of disability adjusted life years. Stroke and dementia account for 62%. Stroke, ischemic heart disease and most dementias share modifiable risks and

If we do not slow the pandemic of neurological disorders, we face an even greater pandemic driven by ageing populations – but still too few health professionals deal in prevention

Vladimir Hachinski, Western University, and Ryosuke Takahashi, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine

protective factors, and also to a lesser degree, with Parkinson’s disease and bipolar disorders.

Risk factors differ in other neurological disorders, but promoting integral brain health might mitigate their consequences and prevent complications from the triple threat of stroke, ischemic heart disease and dementia.

Integrating and scaling up prevention by promoting integral brain health through multiple approaches can promise a quantifiable difference. The World Health Organization is acting at the global level, and several countries have national brain health plans that must be complemented by community initiatives that can more easily integrate population-focused and individual approaches.

INTEGRAL BRAIN HEALTH: AN URGENT ACTION PLAN

An abyss exists between what is done and what needs to be done. An abyss cannot be crossed in small steps, so we need an Integral Brain Health Urgent Action Plan to:

1. Consider integral brain health –cerebral, mental and social – in all individual, community and governmental decisions.

2. Create a compendium of actionable knowledge on what is known and what needs to be and can be known by experts and users, and strategies of motivation and implementation.

3. Fund new approaches to promoting and scaling up integral brain health in different-sized populations, with variable measures and reflecting different cultures.

4. Empower existing leaders, organisations and communities to implement their highest impact measures based on cost effectiveness.

5. Create a new integral brain culture through public campaigns featuring highly accomplished brain users such as sports champions, innovators, artists, writers, media personalities, scientists and scholars.

One slogan could be “Integral brain health now”. The campaign could promote a basic ABC of ‘Activity and rest, Balanced diet and Connecting with others’ to help people think better, feel better and perform better. It would emphasise the simplest, most effective individual actions. For example, walking 4,000 steps a day decreases mortality and provides

VLADIMIR HACHINSKI

Vladimir Hachinski is a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences at the Robarts Research Institute of Canada’s Western University and former president of the World Federation of Neurology. He has made major contributions to the understanding, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of stroke and dementia, and leads a dementia prevention/brain health initiative.

RYOSUKE TAKAHASHI

Ryosuke Takahashi is chair of the Department of Neurology at the Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine. He is the past president of the Japanese Society of Neurology and the vice president of the Asian-Oceanian Association of Neurology. His major research interests are in the diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson’s disease and its related disorders.

significant health benefits. Doing it with someone else adds the benefit of socialising and doubles the chance that the person will continue to walk. Walking in greenery adds yet another benefit –long recognised in Japan as shinrin-yoku (forest bathing).

But how can health professionals expand their horizons when they are trained to focus on individual patients? The pandemic taught acute care doctors the importance of prevention so that they would not be overwhelmed by cases, and fostered unprecedented collaboration between public health officers and acute care professionals. Similar cooperation is needed to prevent brain disorders before the painful lessons of the pandemic fade.

Integral brain health concerns everyone. Small efforts by many produce big changes overall. If about 10% of the population adopts a new view, change follows rapidly. The pandemic is still transforming lifestyles, work and education – now is a propitious time to introduce fundamental changes. Exhausted by the pandemic and crises, we may ask if this is the best time to ramp up prevention. But there seldom is an ideal time to innovate. If we do not begin to slow the pandemic of neurological disorders, we face an even greater, more relentless pandemic driven by ageing populations. Infectious pandemics subside, ageing epidemics do not. If we do not act now, then when? If not we, then who? It is for us, and it is now that we need to act.

If about 10% of the population adopts a new view, change follows rapidly ”

G7 performance on macroeconomic policy

Macroeconomic policy has been a key subject for the G7 since its first summit in 1975. However, there has been a gradual decline in the G7’s deliberation and decision-making on it. At Hiroshima, G7 leaders must reinvigorate their efforts to make politically binding decisions on macroeconomic policy and continue ensuring a high level of members’ compliance with them.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1975, G7 leaders have devoted 28,041 words to macroeconomic policy in their summit communiqués. However, this deliberation has generally declined over time. In 1975 they devoted 52% of their communiqué to the issue – the all-time peak. There was a gradual decline to 1981, a spike to 48% in 1982, a decline in 1983 and 1984, a spike to 33% in 1985, then a long decline until 1992. New spikes came with 21% in 1993 and 18% in 1998. After a

ALISSA WANG

Alissa Wang is a senior researcher with the G7 and G20 Research Groups and co-chair of summit studies for the BRICS Research Group, all based at the University of Toronto. She is pursuing a combined JD/PhD in political science with a focus on international relations and comparative politics.

Twitter @alissawang  www.g7.utoronto.ca

long decline to 2019, deliberation spiked to 30% in 2020, then dropped to 6% in 2021 and 2022.

There were thus four phases. First, from 1975 to 1982, G7 leaders gave an average of 32% of their communiqués to macroeconomics. Second, from 1983 to 1993, this dropped to 15%. Third, from 1994 to 2019, it plunged to only 5%. Fourth, since 2020, it increased to 14%.

COMMITMENTS

Between 1975 and 2022, G7 leaders made 316 public, collective, precise, future-oriented, politically binding commitments on macroeconomic policy, as identified by the G7 Research Group. They accounted for 5% of the 6,626 commitments made on all subjects. Macroeconomic policy ranked tenth, after development, health, environment, gender, climate change, energy, trade, terrorism and regional security. It ranked higher than the other 24 subjects G7 leaders made commitments on.

G7 decision-making on macroeconomic policy saw a dramatic decrease over time. Macroeconomics accounted for 20% of the total commitments at the first summit in 1975 and remained high until 1987, with the exception of two dips in performance in 1979 and 1984. However, starting in 1988, the percentage of macroeconomics commitments dropped significantly, first to 4% at the 1988 summit, and then to zero at the 1990 summit. Decision-making remained low, except for the 1993 Tokyo Summit at 17% and the 2020 US virtual summit at 32%. Subsequently, decision-making again plunged to 4% in 2021 and 3% in 2022.

There are key measures the G7 can take to reverse the long-term decline in macroeconomic policy deliberation and decision-making

Alissa Wang, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

COMPLIANCE

According to G7 Research Group assessments, G7 members have complied with the 23 priority macroeconomic policy commitments at a high level of 83%. This is substantially higher than the G7’s all-time average of 76% across all subjects.

Macroeconomic policy compliance has been relatively stable at this high level. The first three assessed commitments, from 1996 to 1999, had compliance of 100%. There were subsequently only three dips –to 63% in 2003 and 61% in 2004, and 63% in 2016. This increased to 82% in 2017 and 100% in 2018. Compliance with the 2020 summit averaged 75%. It increased to 88% in 2021. By January 2022, compliance on macroeconomic policy from the Elmau Summit was already 100%.

By member, the highest compliance comes from the United States, Canada and France, each with 87%. During the G8 years from 1998 to 2013, Russia led with 95%.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

To improve compliance on their macroeconomic policy commitments, G7 leaders can use two low-cost accountability measures that have historically coincided with higher compliance.

316 commitments made on macroeconomic policy since summits began 83% average compliance on assessed commitments in this area

First, a reference to the private sector coincides with higher compliance. The two assessed commitments with such references averaged 97% compliance; those without averaged only 81%.

Second, a higher number of companion commitments on the same subject at a summit coincides with higher compliance on each assessed commitment from that summit. For summits with more than 10 commitments on macroeconomics, compliance averaged 87%, and those with fewer than 10 averaged only 75%.

A third possible cause and correction is holding more G7 finance ministerial meetings. While there is no strong correlation between the number of finance ministerial meetings each year and compliance with macroeconomic policy commitments, the top-performing summits had at least three pre-summit meetings of finance ministers.

More generally, G7 leaders at the Hiroshima Summit should reverse the long-term decline in macroeconomic policy deliberation and decision-making, as they did in 2020, and craft their commitments to help ensure the complete compliance that their 2022 Elmau Summit has already achieved.

While there is no strong correlation between the number of finance ministerial meetings each year and compliance with macroeconomic policy commitments, the top-performing summits had at least three pre-summit meetings of finance ministers”

Lessons in resilience

digitalisation, and which will be an important input for the sustainable transformation of our economies. High degrees of geographical concentration in the extraction and production cycles of these minerals may result in vulnerabilities or export restrictionrelated disruptions. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has informed G7 discussions on systemic vulnerabilities to chronic risks and acute supply chain shocks, and is providing policy analysis on promoting the sustainability and resilience of supply chains through national and collective action to anticipate risks, minimise exposure, build public-private trust, and strengthen open markets and rules-based trade.

Second, we need to ensure the digital transformation supports stronger productivity and economic growth, while promoting a fair distribution of its benefits. Digital technologies remain a critical and growing area of global markets. Cross-border data flows alone are expected to contribute $11 trillion to global gross domestic product by 2025, compared to $2.8 trillion in 2014. The OECD is working with the G7 to address the challenges and seize the opportunities of the metaverse and other emerging technologies, as well as designing practical approaches to facilitate trusted data flows across borders, promoting human-centric and rights-oriented policy settings for the digital transformation, and closing digital divides, including gender inequalities.

In May 2023, G7 leaders will gather in Hiroshima – a city once decimated by nuclear conflict, war and violence. Today, Hiroshima and its Peace Memorial, the Genbaku Dome, are a symbol of resilience and hope, and a powerful reminder of the importance of multilateral dialogue and international cooperation.

The global economic outlook has been materially affected by Russia’s unprovoked, unjustifiable and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. That war has imposed a heavy price, tragically first and foremost on the people of Ukraine, but also on the entire world. It has had, and continues to have, deep social and economic repercussions.

Energy supply and security concerns are putting the energy transition and climate change mitigation goals at risk across the world. Economic fragmentation and deepening geopolitical tensions are also challenging the rules-based international order and are continuing to put pressure on the global governance architecture.

To be as globally effective as we can be, and as we need to be to overcome our shared challenges, we need to work closely together. With its capacity to mobilise action by like-minded countries based on common values, the G7 must play a key role.

ON ECONOMIC SECURITY

First, it must address questions of economic security, including those related to the supply of critical minerals, which we will need in order to fully realise the social and growth benefits of

Third, the G7 needs to support the green energy transition. Coordinated G7 actions can and must tackle the triple challenge of ensuring energy security and affordability while staying the course for transformative environmental policy and achieving

MATHIAS

CORMANN

Mathias Cormann was appointed secretary-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2021. Previously, he served as Australia’s finance minister, leader of the government in the Australian Senate and federal senator representing the State of Western Australia. He also worked as chief of staff and senior adviser to various state and federal ministers in Australia and for the premier of Western Australia. Born in Belgium, he graduated in law from the Flemish Catholic University of Louvain (Leuven), following studies at the University of Namur and the University of East Anglia.

Twitter @MathiasCormann @oecd  oecd.org

As G7 leaders gather in Hiroshima, a geographic symbol of hope and resilience, the city offers a powerful reminder of what can be achieved through dialogue and cooperation

Mathias Cormann, secretarygeneral, OECD

carbon neutrality by 2050. The OECD is supporting the G7 on biodiversity-positive economic policies, on behavioural and demand-side measures to reduce emissions, and on decarbonising cities. Moreover, through the new OECD Inclusive Forum on Carbon Mitigation Approaches, the OECD is helping to optimise the combined global impact of emissions reduction efforts around the world – by facilitating better data and information sharing, enabling evidence-based mutual learning and providing a platform for inclusive multilateral dialogue. This will contribute to a globally more coherent and better coordinated approach to carbon mitigation, while

ensuring that emissions reduction efforts do not just shift emissions to other parts of the world.

INSIGHTS ON GENDER INEQUITIES

Finally, we must champion gender equality. At their 2022 Elmau Summit, G7 leaders endorsed the Gender Gaps Dashboard, which has provided new data and insights on gender inequalities. The dashboard shows, for example, that the gender wage gap remains at 14.6% in G7 economies, while the gap in unpaid care and housework stands just shy of two hours every day. The OECD will compile best practice policy examples in areas such as gender pay gaps, entrepreneurship, parental leave and childcare policies for consideration by the G7 in producing an implementation report on selected G7 commitments related to advancing gender equality.

The scale of today’s challenges is significant. Responding to them with sensible, well-considered policy action is the way towards a better and brighter future. As the international organisation bringing together market-based democracies from around the world, the OECD will continue to support our members and the global community with our data and policy analysis, and our best practice policy advice, while facilitating dialogue and evidence-based problem solving.

The scale of today’s challenges is significant. Responding to them with sensible, well-considered policy action is the way towards a better and brighter future”

The gender wage gap in G7 economies

A view of the Genbaku Dome from the Hiroshima Peace Park

BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two and ESG incentives: charting the path forward

Multinational companies are facing duelling pressures as around the world, BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two implementation is changing the framework of tax incentives and, at the same time, company stakeholders are demanding progress on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors.

Tax has been a nimble and historically successful way for governments to provide incentives to promote sustainable business processes and social responsibility. However, plans are taking shape in many countries for the implementation of global minimum tax rules designed to reduce tax competition among countries that will make it harder to use such incentives. How companies and governments balance these competing policies will have significant and long-term impacts.

Pillar Two and ESG incentives each have their own sets of objectives, implications and reporting criteria – and their intersection creates a challenge. It is important for companies and tax policymakers to fully appreciate the potential impact that global minimum rules will have on existing tax incentives.

Pillar Two was designed by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework to eliminate rate-based tax competition among countries. The rules that have been agreed are complex and represent a significant change in the global international tax architecture. Governments that choose to adopt Pillar Two must implement the agreed rules into their domestic

Hamad Buamim

Around the world, multinational companies and governments are taking a proactive approach to adapting to the new tax and environmental, social and governance landscape – and an open dialogue is key to success

laws and integrate them into their existing tax systems. Important government policy goals that are currently achieved through the tax code, including encouraging sustainable behaviours, may need to be reimagined.

Under the Inclusive Framework’s Global Anti-Base Erosion (GLoBE) rules, the financial benefit of tax incentives could be significantly diluted by a top-up tax imposed by a country should a tax incentive offered in another country take a company’s effective tax rate (ETR) below 15% in that other country. This interaction creates a challenge for companies and governments that – faced with a climate emergency and focused

BARBARA ANGUS

emissions targets – have relied on tax incentives to catalyse their ESG goals. While tax incentives will not necessarily take a company below the 15% ETR, Pillar Two introduces a significant level of uncertainty and complexity for both companies and governments. As a result, governments may need to revisit their programmes related to ESG initiatives to make sure they will remain effective in promoting sustainable development once global minimum tax rules are in place; the same is true for other vital incentive progammes, including incentives for investment in research and innovation. Governments may also need to explore new ways of encouraging corporations to engage in ESG initiatives and to invest in their jurisdictions. It will be important for companies and governments to work together on these shared objectives.

BEYOND INCENTIVES

The impact on important policy incentives is just one example of the complexity created by Pillar Two for jurisdictions. As governments enact global minimum tax rules and make other changes to their corporate income tax laws, they need to consider the cost of compliance and administration for both companies and tax authorities. An incredible amount of data will be necessary to calculate the global minimum tax liability, if any, and fulfil the associated information reporting requirements. Companies will need to confirm they have all the data available and accessible. Tax authorities must prepare for this influx of new data. New processing systems and automation may be necessary for all parties. Looking ahead, it will be important to put in

Barbara Angus is a principal with Ernst & Young LLP and is EY’s global tax policy leader. In this role, her focus is engaging with clients and governments on tax policy development and implementation across the globe. She was previously chief tax counsel for the Committee on Ways and Means of the United States House of Representatives and earlier international tax counsel for the Office of Tax Policy, United States Department of the Treasury. She has extensive private-sector experience. She received the Pillar of Excellence Award from the Tax Council Policy Institute in 2022 and a Distinguished Service Award from the Tax Foundation in 2018, and in 2016 she was included in the list of 10 Outstanding Women in Tax, published by Tax Analysts.

Twitter @EYNews  ey.com/tax

place robust mechanisms for cross-border dispute prevention and resolution.

Now is the time to prepare for Pillar Two, including evaluating how to balance the requirements of new global minimum tax rules while also meeting ESG expectations. Companies and governments need to assess the impact on the global tax environment, identifying risks and charting a path forward with competitiveness and sustainable development in mind.

Overall, both companies and governments will need to be proactive in adapting to the new landscape. As jurisdictions implement these sweeping multilateral tax reforms while also advancing their own tax priorities, it is essential for companies and governments to communicate. It will be valuable for companies to model the impact of the new rules and discuss the potential implications with government policymakers. An open and constructive dialogue among all stakeholders is key to achieving the goals underlying the global minimum tax, while also supporting global economic growth and a more sustainable world.

Now is the time for companies and governments to assess the impact on the global tax environment, identify risks and chart a path forward with competitiveness and sustainable development in mind”

The power of cohesiveness

The G7 leaders’ summit in Hiroshima is shaping up to be one of the most important in years.

G7 summits, born amid the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, turned into photo ops over the ensuing decades. Their importance was further demoted in the immediate wake of the global financial crisis in 2008, as the G20 rose to the fore.

Not today.

The G7 no longer acts alone as the main driver for the global economy, given

Mark Sobel, US chair, Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum

the growing role of emerging markets, especially that of China.

But on top of its still considerable economic clout, the underlying strength of the G7 has remained its general cohesiveness as a democratic grouping, supporting openness, the rule of law and the international order. With Russia’s Vladimir Putin’s barbaric behaviour against Ukraine and the rise of a more assertive China under Xi Jinping, the importance of reaffirming, underscoring and putting G7 cohesiveness into action is more critical than ever.

The G7’s power lies in its united economic diplomacy and shared dilemmas. In the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a more assertive China, putting this cohesiveness into action is more critical than ever

Three issues, epitomising this cohesiveness, may dominate the Hiroshima Summit’s headlines.

THREE KEY ISSUES

First, Russia’s heinous invasion of Ukraine has united the G7 and the West against Putin. Not only have these countries come together in providing Ukraine with the weaponry to fight Russia, but they have also joined on the economic front. Massive budget support has been disbursed to keep the Ukrainian government functioning without recourse to more money printing and inflation. The assets of Russia’s central bank and oligarchs have been frozen in a remarkable show of unity, and other financial sanctions have been deployed multilaterally. Europe is liberating itself from dependence on Russian energy, a perennial US/European sore spot.

The G7 should proudly tout these outstanding accomplishments and further pledge unity to counter Putin’s aggression. The leaders should discuss what more can be done on financial sanctions and the G7 oil price cap. They also need to intensify discussions about Ukraine’s reconstruction: How will it be organised? Who should lead? Should seized Russian assets be used? Given America’s dominance on military support, how will Europe lead on financing? And how can the private sector best be incentivised to help?

Second, the G7 and China. Xi’s growing statism, authoritarianism, greater bellicosity towards Taiwan and in the South China Sea, and his no-limits friendship with Putin, inter alia, underscore the strategic and national security challenges China poses. Despite US emphasis on seeing China as a strategic competitor, friend-shoring and so on, the US continues to import massively from China. Europe – especially Germany – has seen China as a source of demand and has been somewhat wary of following the United States. Meanwhile, the recent US cajoling of Japan and the Netherlands to restrict exports of advanced chip manufacturing equipment to China highlights growing western concerns.

Japan’s G7 presidency will certainly want an extensive dialogue about the threats China poses, how the G7 should balance strategic and economic considerations towards China, and how to further unite the G7. The Biden administration should strongly welcome this discussion.

Third, the global economy. G7 leaders must guard against optimism. Prospects are better than they were several months ago, given lower energy prices and declining inflation. Yet Russia’s war continues to weigh heavily on the global economy, especially poor countries, and global activity will be lower in the advanced economies this year relative to 2022. The outlook faces unknowns in how the US and European economies will respond to recent large central bank rate hikes, and although headline inflation is coming down, bringing it durably to central bank targets of 2% may be a protracted exercise. Geopolitical risks remain high. The leaders should focus on growing debt distress in low-income

MARK SOBEL

countries and selected emerging market economies, and what can be done to help them and how to bring China and the private sector to the table to provide debt relief. They will also focus on the transition to the green economy, which may cause some minor US/European hiccoughs about discriminatory features of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

The G7 leaders’ plates will be full in Hiroshima, not just with sushi. They can be enormously proud of the G7’s renewed unity. But the road ahead is not any easier.

Mark Sobel is US chair at the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. He represented the United States on the International Monetary Fund executive board between 2015 and 2018, and was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy at the US Treasury between 2000 and 2015. He helped lead Treasury preparations for meetings of G7 and G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, formulated US positions at the IMF, and coordinated the work of Treasury and regulatory agencies in the Financial Stability Board. He played a key role in US foreign exchange policy including coordinating the Treasury’s semi-annual foreign exchange report on China and other countries. Twitter @sobel_mark  omfif.org

Russia’s war continues to weigh heavily on the global economy, especially poor countries, and global activity will be lower in the advanced economies this year relative to 2022”

The G7 leaders at their Hiroshima Summit are positioned to strengthen the evolution of decentralised finance based on the blockchain through coordinated action

The dark side of digital money

Decentralised finance is the most recent technological evolution of the financial industry. It relies on blockchain technology, which is a distributed ledger where encrypted, anonymous, peer-to-peer trades are registered. Fungible and non-fungible tokens are traded globally on blockchains, and cryptocurrencies are among the most popular fungible ones. Cryptos are means of exchange in the blockchain, and are not legal money. Their main benefits are to democratise trades and reduce the costs of trading. However, blockchain trades are anonymous, unregulated and thus very risky – speculation and money laundering fuel crypto exchanges, with no supervision or insurance system of any sort.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the market value of crypto transactions reached $3 trillion in 2021, thanks to substantial improvements in blockchain technology, but fell far below $1 trillion in

2022, due to the collapse of large intermediaries. The blockchain has certain technological barriers to entry that force most (unsophisticated) users to trade via intermediaries and exchanges, which are unregulated. The concentration of trades in these intermediaries exacerbated the speed of the fall in 2022. According to most authorities, such collapses do not harm financial stability, because they are limited to the crypto trading system. Nonetheless, they cannot be ignored.

CHIARA OLDANI

Chiara Oldani is a professor of monetary economics at the University of Viterbo ‘La Tuscia’ and the director of the Rome office of the G7 and G20 Research Groups. Her research focuses on financial innovation and stability.

Twitter @ChiaraOldani

Chiara Oldani, professor of monetary economics, University of Viterbo ‘La Tuscia’

WHO IS TRADING CRYPTO?

There is one question that G7 leaders should ask when they meet at their Hiroshima Summit: Who trades crypto and other tokens in the blockchain? According to surveys of crypto users, the typical investor is male, born between 1989 and 2000, interested in information technology, seeking high risk and high returns in his investment decisions, and with a mid to low degree of financial literacy.

Crypto investors tend to be overconfident in their investment strategies and overestimate the returns and underestimate the risks. There is no consumer or investor protection in the blockchain system, which constitutes a weakness for policymakers and regulators. Young investors who concentrate their wealth in high-risk assets and do not differentiate their portfolios can suffer disproportionately in the long run.

Although the size of losses in crypto might appear small in relative terms, the consequent loss of confidence in the public system and the absence of ordered market conditions can destabilise the financial system in the long run. Japan’s 2023 G7 presidency can thus be a valuable opportunity, as Prime Minister Fumio Kishida says, for “the next

$3trn

generation and beyond, the youth and children, to turn their attention to global issues and take action”.

Philosophically, the blockchain revolution, pushed forward by the so-called cypherpunk movement, was based on individual freedom, no state control and decentralised trading. This last part of the story has failed to come true: today, most trades are centralised via intermediaries, stifling the free spirit of blockchain.

Some central banks are introducing digital currencies, which will work together with the legal money they already issue. The central bank digital currency is a counterpart to their legal money – not a cryptocurrency – and it can help to restore the confidence of crypto investors, who might prefer buying legal money, guaranteed by a large institution, instead of private money with no guarantee.

COORDINATION AMONG G7 MEMBERS

1trn

G7 leaders in Hiroshima should strengthen the technological evolution based on the blockchain, and coordinate their actions. Financial stability in the global system can be achieved by sound regulation, supervision and oversight of the intermediaries and exchanges of fungible and non-fungible tokens, in line with the principle ‘same activity, same risk, same regulation’. The comparative advantages of regulating intermediaries and exchanges exceed the costs of failures; most G7 members are converging on this approach, following the 2022 recommendations of the Financial Stability Board.

Italy is home to the first bank, founded in 1492. Its historical leadership should be confirmed in 2024, when Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni will hold the G7 presidency. After years of global political crises, cooperation needs to be strengthened, in particular, by reducing the sources of financial instability such as uncontrolled trades via large intermediaries.

The blockchain has certain technological barriers to entry that force most (unsophisticated) users to trade via intermediaries and exchanges, which are unregulated”

The market value of crypto transactions in 2021, but this fell to $

in 2022

Finance in the digital age

The global payments system has continued to function smoothly despite the turmoil created by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine over a year ago. Its stability and smooth functioning are due to the fact that national and international payments have evolved to be able to withstand all manner of shocks and disruptions to the smooth transfer of global payments. Meanwhile, certain groups of countries have created payments mechanisms for the significant amounts of payments among themselves. One notable case is India’s UPI system, which Singapore uses for its trade with India, as the widely touted alternative to SWIFT (Society for Worldwide International Financial Transfers).

But these systems remain insignificant. The US dollar and the euro continue to be the dominant global currencies without any real challengers, as their share of use in global trade continues to dwarf that of other currencies and countries. Indeed, Larry Summers, former US treasury secretary, expects the dollar to remain the hegemonic currency, and his view of Europe as a museum, Japan a nursing home and China a jail is frequently quoted.

Moreover, the G7 price cap on Russian oil, announced at the G7’s Elmau Summit in June 2022, has been effective in reducing Russia’s revenue from that income source. By April 2023, the price cap was meeting its objectives and was unlikely to be terminated in the near future.

Jennifer Jeffs, senior research associate in global finance, G7 Research Group

DIFFICULTIES IN THE G20

Nor has the broader, more diverse G20 offered an alternative to the existing G7-centred international payments system. Although the purview of the G20 is primarily economic and financial governance and this group of the world’s largest economies includes both Russia and China, their cooperation on core economic and financial matters is now severely constrained. G20 finance ministers could not produce a collectively agreed communiqué in Bengaluru in February 2023, due to the desire of G7 members to have such a declaration condemn Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine. To the frustration of several G7 leaders, both Russia and China refused to agree to condemn Russia’s aggression, even in the way all G20 leaders did at their summit in Bali in November 2022. Indeed, the G20 Chair’s Summary and Outcome Document of the First G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting provided no direction on the international payments system, even within the many paragraphs on which all G20 members agreed.

Unless G20 leaders agree to change the fact that the group’s focus on economic governance differs from the social and political concerns of the smaller and arguably more politically cohesive G7, unanimity within the G20 will remain difficult to achieve.

It is thus left to the smaller, more cohesive G7 to ensure the essential stability and required

The Hiroshima Summit presents an opportunity for G7 leaders to work on stabilising the international payments system amid financial digitalisation

strengthening of the international payments system, especially as the pace and path of financial digitalisation expand and even though G7 leaders and finance ministers remain focused on using financial instruments to counter Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

DIGITALISATION INTENSIFYING

As financial digitalisation intensifies, the Hiroshima Summit presents G7 leaders with an opportunity to mitigate the risks inherent in potentially unstable and unreliable digital currencies and payments that are not backed by central banks. They can do so by promoting an understanding of central bank digital currencies and encouraging their development and spread as the best option for digital finance. Most G7

80%

of the world’s central banks were seriously considering the use of a central bank digital currency in 2020

members have at least pilot projects underway in this regard, as do many G20 countries. According to the Bank for International Settlements, in 2020 80% of the world’s central banks were seriously considering the use of a CBDC. More recently, the BIS said that most central banks are exploring CBDCs, and more than a quarter are now developing or running concrete pilots. In fact, a BIS survey of 81 central banks found that the Covid-19 pandemic and the emergence of cryptocurrencies accelerated central bank work on CBDCs. In addition, the survey showed that more than two thirds of central banks were likely to issue a retail CBDC in the short or medium term.

GLOBALISATION THAT WORKS FOR ALL

The G7’s encouragement of CBDCs would bring the benefits of economic and financial stability to a potentially ungovernable and certainly less stable digital finance world populated by private digital currencies that carry no government backing. This would also respect and reinforce the G20’s core mission to make globalisation work for all.

JENNIFER JEFFS

Jennifer Jeffs is a senior research associate in global finance with the G7 and G20 Research Groups, and former president of the Canadian International Council and deputy executive director of the Centre for International Governance Innovation. She was the founding director of the Center for Inter-American Studies and Programs in Mexico and taught economics at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México La Blanquerna University.

Twitter @jenjeffs

The G7’s encouragement of central bank digital currencies would bring the benefits of economic and financial stability to a potentially ungovernable and certainly less stable digital finance world”

G7 performance on trade

At its 2023 Hiroshima Summit, the G7 faces significant security, economic, environmental, social and health challenges. With the world in the grip of polycrises, the threat of trade fragmentation and protectionism is rising. G7 leaders are looking towards trade diversification and building new alliances with like-minded partners. With staggering inflation and looming recession in many countries, trade should be given more prominence as a solution. Thus Japan has put trade on the G7’s agenda as a priority. Supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic and labour shortages persist. Security tensions between the United States and China plus geopolitical shocks, such as the war in Ukraine, exacerbate an already unstable environment. At Hiroshima it is important that the G7 leaders commit to keeping trade channels open and fostering free and fair trade as important instruments for global economic recovery and stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Maria Marchyshyn, lead researcher on trade, G7 Research Group

Since G7 leaders first met in 1975, trade has appeared in their statements from every summit. On average, 1,120 words, or 15% at each summit, have been dedicated to trade. Throughout, G7 leaders have consistently supported free, open and fair trade. This started in 1975, with 39% of the communiqué on trade. The highest portion on trade came in these early years – in 1979 with 45%. But the highest number of words on trade came later, in 2009 with 3,122 words, but taking only 10%. It has since declined to its lowest levels: 2% in 2017 and 1% in 2018.

However, a new phase of significant increase began in 2021 with 14% (2,895 words) and 2022 with 16% (3,099 words).

COMMITMENTS

From 1975 to 2022, G7 leaders made 382 trade commitments, accounting for 6% of all commitments. The highest number of trade commitments was 24 (11%) in 2013. The second highest was 21 (38%) in 1977 and 21 again in 2021 (5%). The period between 2013 and 2017 produced numbers of commitments in the double digits (between 3% and 11% per summit), spurring great strides in trade liberalisation.

The number fell to five each in 2018 (2%) and 2019 (7%), as the United States opposed any anti-protectionist promises. In 2020, the G7 made three trade commitments (12%). However, as the leaders met again in person and there was a change in US leadership, the number jumped back to 21 in 2021 (5%) and 18 (3%) in 2022.

The G7 leaders are performing well below average on their trade commitments, but implementing low-cost accountability measures could help to get them back on track

COMPLIANCE

The G7 Research Group has assessed compliance with 52 trade commitments made between 1975 and 2022. G7 compliance averaged 68%, well below the 76% average across all subjects. The highest compliance of 100% came on commitments made at the 2000 and 2020 summits.

The first phase, from 1975 until 2003, saw low average compliance of 49%. The lowest compliance came on a 1983 commitment on resolving current trade issues, which saw no country even partially comply. However, the highest was 100% from 2000.

In the second phase, from 2004 to 2020, average trade compliance increased to 74%. A commitment made in 2021 had 88%. But by January 2023, compliance on a trade commitment made at the 2022 summit averaged 69%.

Compliance through to 2020 was led by the European Union with 86%, followed by Canada at 78% and the United Kingdom at 74%.

CORRECTIONS

G7 leaders can use low-cost accountability measures to improve compliance with their trade commitments.

G7 performance on trade, 1975–2022

MARIA MARCHYSHYN

Maria Marchyshyn is the lead researcher on trade with the G7 and G20 Research Groups and the BRICS Research Group. Her work focuses on macroeconomic issues, including international trade and finance and topics regarding the European Union. She serves on the Board of Directors of the UN Association of Canada (Toronto). She currently sits on the Trade and Gender Advisory Group for Global Affairs Canada. She also served as vice president of finance on the board of directors of the Organization of Women in International Trade for five years until 2018 and is co-chair of their Trade Policy Committee. Previously, she worked as a researcher at the European Parliament with the Committee on International Trade in Brussels and in the financial sector. Twitter @MariaMarch31  www.g7.utoronto.ca

First, a trade ministerial held during the summit year decreases compliance with the leaders’ trade commitments. Between 1982 and 1999, when the trade ministers of the United States, Japan, Canada and the EU met annually, average trade compliance was only 38%. Most recently, however, the UK and Germany, during their 2021 and 2022 presidencies, held four G7 trade ministerial meetings each. The 2021 summit had 88% compliance on trade.

Second, through to 2019, commitments that referred to the World Trade Organization had higher compliance, at 73%, than those that did not, which averaged 64%.

Third, through to 2019, setting a one-year timeline in commitments coincided with increased compliance averaging 74%, while including a multi-year timeline averaged only 58%, decreasing compliance by 16%.

G7 performance on infrastructure

When G7 leaders meet in Hiroshima in May, infrastructure may contribute more prominently than it has before by building on Germany’s 2022 presidency, which advanced the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment and gave the most attention to infrastructure to date. Although Japan has not set infrastructure as a core 2023 priority, it is the only G7 host to publish an infrastructurespecific summit document: the 2016 G7 Ise-Shima Principles for Promoting Quality Infrastructure Investment. Moreover, infrastructure will be reflected in ongoing talks on the reconstruction of Ukraine. Addressing infrastructure and its financing is critical for sustainable, inclusive, resilient development.

CONCLUSIONS

G7 leaders first addressed infrastructure in 1980, dedicating 105 words (3%) of their communiqué. It disappeared until 1990, but for only 0.6% of that communiqué. From 1991 to 1996, it stayed below 2%. In 1997 it rose to 4%, dipped to 1% in 1998, then hit a

new high of 6% in 1999. Between 2000 and 2008, infrastructure took 3%–5% of the communiqués.

In 2008, a new phase began, with 8%, and 7% in 2009. In 2010, this dipped to 4%, followed by 7% in 2011 and 6% in

2012. Between 2013 and 2015, it fluctuated between 1% and 5%.

Since then, there has been an upward trend: 9% in 2016, 12% in 2017 and 13% in 2018. It then dropped to 7% in 2019, but increased to 12% in 2021. The 2022 summit reached 15%, the highest to date.

COMMITMENTS

The G7 has made 98 core and related commitments on infrastructure. The first came in 1980, accounting for 2% of all commitments made that year. Between 1991 and 2005, the G7 made between 1% and 2% of its commitments on infrastructure. In 2006, there was a high of 4%. Between 2007 and 2017, it hovered between 1% and 3%. It hit 4% again in 2018, but fell to 1% in 2019 and 2% in 2021. The 2022 summit produced a new high of 6%.

COMPLIANCE

Of the 98 infrastructure commitments, 13 have been assessed for compliance by the G7 Research Group. Members’ compliance with them averaged 81%, above the 76% average across all subjects.

Infrastructure compliance started low, at 50% from the 1997 summit. It rose to

The G7’s performance on its infrastructure commitments has gone from strength to strength, but there is still room for improvement, and there are several measures available to help

Julia Tops, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

G7 performance on infrastructure, 1975–2022

84% on commitments made in 2002, but again fell to 67% for 2005. For 2006 it was 78%, rising again to 89% for 2009. For 2013 it was 84% and for 2014 it was 88%.

JULIA TOPS

Julia Tops is a senior researcher with the G7 and G20 Research Groups. She has served as co-chair of summit studies for the G7 Research Group as well as a lead analyst and compliance director of the G7 Research Group. She holds a master of science in development studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her research interest focuses on development, specifically that of infrastructure and infrastructure financing. Twitter @g7_rg  www.g7.utoronto.ca

Keeping the upward trend, the 2015 and 2017 commitments both had 88%. For 2018, it was 82%, then it dropped to 75% for 2019, before rising to its historical peak of 100% for the 2021 summit. By January 2023, G7 compliance with the infrastructure commitment assessed from the 2022 summit was already at 94%.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

How can the G7 improve its infrastructure compliance?

First, the G7 should focus on the private sector. Commitments that refer to the private sector averaged 87% compliance; those that did not averaged 79%.

Second, the G7 should consider adding particular forms of specificity to commitments. Commitments that referenced a specific country or region averaged 76% compliance. Furthermore, three of the five highest-scoring commitments included regional specification, averaging 88%; however, commitments without this reference averaged 90%. The four lowest-scoring commitments, averaging 67%, also referenced a specific country or region. This discrepancy could be attributed to the level of specificity in the

commitment, reflecting the ambition of G7 leaders. Overall, the lowest complying commitments encompassed a long list of topics. The lowest-scoring commitment, with 50%, referenced Africa and used very politically binding language, but attempted to address several core subjects alongside infrastructure. In contrast, the high-scoring infrastructure commitments typically targeted one specific area. This catalyst calls for future research and attention.

Third, the G7 should use highly binding language in its infrastructure commitments. Commitments with highly binding language, such as “commit”, averaged 83%. Those with low binding language, such as “reaffirm”, averaged 77%.

Finally, the G7 should launch – for the first time – a regular infrastructure ministerial meeting. Infrastructure is naturally interconnected with other issues and could benefit from an agenda-specific discussion that outlines infrastructure-specific priorities. Research shows a positive correlation between same-subject ministerial meetings and higher compliance with summit commitments on other G7 subjects.

Note: blank space means no data

Borderlands are prone to armed violence caused by internal state conflicts, transnational terrorism, organised crime and inter-state conflicts. Approximately 30% of armed incidents occur within 50 kilometres of the border.

In fragile and conflict-affected situations, both state and non-state actors recognise the economic potential of the border. They compete to organise the circulation of people and goods and impose taxes on cross-border movements as the easiest, most effective form of collecting revenue. The difficulties inherent in cooperation among government agencies inside

The first line of defence

the country and across borders benefit non-state armed groups economically, tactically and strategically: armed groups can install new forms of governance based on violence and sometimes extreme ideologies, and can delineate new spaces of governance or even new – official and unofficial – borders, as happened in the Sahel belt and in Latin America. The border also plays a social role in the local community. Cross-border trade is a liberal activity and provides easier access to economic opportunities. In addition to supplying goods, smugglers create job opportunities and may enjoy strong social recognition. Informal trade

At the nexus of economic and security at borders exists the potential to change the paradigm in fragile and conflict-affected situations

Kunio Mikuriya, secretary-general, World Customs Organization

and smuggling are therefore deeply embedded in border communities.

Some borders have become more fragile than others. For decades, states, along with donors, have focused their investments on major points of entry or regional corridors and neglected remote border areas where cross-border flows are relatively minor. However, neglecting the serious political and economic impacts of these distant borderlands on the security of countries and regions may lead to the resurgence of grievances of the local population, instability and the use of violence, making them fertile ground for non-state armed groups. The local wealth circulation in remote borderlands, no matter how small on a national scale, is still important for those local communities and can generate a national and regional security crisis in the medium term.

INADEQUATE STATE RESPONSES

Current state security responses are often inadequate. Securing borderlands in fragile and conflict-affected situations while ignoring the economic rationale underpinning them often leads to failure. The border economy and the role of taxation must be fully embedded in national security policy at fragile borders.

Borders should remain open to maintain the livelihood of border communities and build trust between them and the state in order to counter insurgencies and encourage the local communities to cooperate with the government in the fight against terrorism. Governments should support customs to operate in fragile borderlands with a view to ensuring a state presence that is not purely coercive but that also fulfils an economic mission.

As the first line of defence at borders, customs administrations function as an interface between border security and the border economy. In addition to preventing the illicit trafficking of prohibited and restricted commodities that may serve the activities of armed groups, such as weapons, explosives and their precursors, customs ensures the deployment of economic missions that are critical in fragile borderlands. Customs facilitates cross-border trade, implements fair revenue collection and adapts anti-smuggling policies to reflect local conditions and needs. Through locally tailored measures based on its deep local knowledge, customs facilitates equal access to economic opportunities for all, preventing rent-seeking behaviours and the concentration of trade by a local elite, which often leads to local grievances.

In fragile and conflict-affected situations, customs should therefore operate under safe and secure conditions. In conflicts, customs border crossing points are often attacked first because of their location, as well as their political and economic functions. Border crossing points and customs offices should be recognised as critical state infrastructure and protected accordingly. Customs personnel should be trained and equipped to be interoperable with other security forces.

≈ 30%

of armed incidents occur within 50km of a country’s border

20–50%

of the national budget in many developing countries is composed of customs revenues

Another important mission for customs administrations during the active phase of any conflict is to facilitate the export and import of humanitarian aid in the affected areas, while monitoring potential leakages of exempted goods on the market as well as fighting revenue fraud.

AN EFFECTIVE PRESENCE

An effective customs presence at fragile borders sends a strong political message regarding the visibility of the civilian state despite insecurity. In many developing countries, customs revenues still amount to between 20% and 50% of the national budget. Keeping fragile borders open and maintaining a customs presence to ensure social peace and prevent the diversion to illicit trade and recruitment of the local population by non-state actors are critical. Thus, embedding the border economy dimension and the work of customs in security policy is an important shift, without which the (re-)establishment of peace and security at borders remains at risk.

Dr Kunio Mikuriya has been secretary-general of the World Customs Organization since 2009. He provides leadership and executive management for the global customs community, focusing on developing international customs standards to secure and facilitate global trade and safeguard revenue collection, and on delivering capacity building in support of customs reform and modernisation. He previously spent 25 years working for Japan’s Ministry of Finance in senior-level positions.

Twitter @WCO_OMD

Neglecting the serious political and economic impacts of distant borderlands on the security of countries and regions may lead to the resurgence of grievances of the local population, instability and the use of violence, making them fertile ground for non-state armed groups”

KUNIO MIKURIYA

Climate engagement in the WASH sector

Much greater government investment in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) organisations is required if we are to protect the world’s communities from the effects of climate change – and the G7 summit in Hiroshima is the place to start

As the G7 prepares to meet in Hiroshima, the global pandemic, war in Ukraine, and the energy and cost of living crises continue to focus global leaders’ minds and actions. However, noticeably, one item needs much greater prominence, and it is the greatest threat to our world: climate change.

We’ve already seen over recent years that the world has been ravaged by widespread fires, floods, droughts, and coral reef and rainforest destruction, and if we are to carry on with “business as usual”, things will only get worse. We will miss the 1.5°C target and are likely to hit 2°C within the next 10 years. We’re also at risk of hitting 3°C due to “tipping points”, such as an ice-free Arctic in the summer and melting mountain glaciers.

The way we are going, we’ll see global temperatures rise 3°C in the next generation – hotter than any time that humanity has known. If we hit 4°C, it will lead to the worst mass extinction in 10 million years. Unless the international community steps up and demonstrates collective leadership and responsibility, we will sleepwalk towards our own destruction.

Governments, businesses and the third sector must collaborate much more effectively to create a greater and wider impact, with civil society and communities at its centre. This is what I call the Transformational Triangle and it’s about demonstrating collective partnership, leadership and collaboration across organisations, harnessing the strengths of all three disciplines to increase and improve

Fiona Jeffery, founder and chair, Just a Drop

the positive outcomes, impact and influence we can individually, but also collectively, have on the world.

The Transformational Triangle is made up of three parts:

Governments need to create viable frameworks for businesses and the third sector to operate effectively and efficiently (for example, legislating and incentivising reductions in fossil fuel consumption and investment into renewable energies and water and sanitation programmes).

Businesses driving change using their valuable commercial expertise, resources and investment capability, while recognising that in the sustainability model there are three pillars to be valued: social, environmental and economic.

The third sector must underpin delivery on the ground, because to be effective on the ground you need specialised organisations creating the right engagement, and with the expertise to deliver sustainable, long-term and impactful outcomes, ensuring support for the most vulnerable in society.

This type of cooperation, with a shared vision and collaborative mindset, is limitless in its potential. Increasingly in the 21st century, international humanitarian and development organisations are moving towards public-private partnerships in order to achieve social change.

International water charity Just a Drop puts this mantra into practice. In parallel with the most severe drought on record, currently devastating the Horn of Africa, Just a Drop is continually building partnerships to help rural communities deal with lack of access to water as a direct result of climate change.

At Just a Drop we have seen first hand the effects that successive failed rainy seasons have had on our programmes in East Africa. We have witnessed the impact that higher temperatures have had on communities without access to water, and we experience the hardships of communities whose boreholes and wells have dried up due to extreme temperatures.

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS

This is why Just a Drop installs innovative and effective water and sanitation solutions in partnership with communities. These solutions are built to last and many mitigate

the effects of climate change. Women and girls in particular often make dangerous and long journeys to collect water, which is often dirty and sourced from a river, which massively holds back their development. By establishing the best solution for a community, projects are immediately more sustainable, long-lasting and high impact. For example, our sand dams are funded by corporate sustainable initiatives such as towel reuse programmes – reducing water consumption in the UK and other parts of the world. The sand dam is then built in line with national government plans and as a result the programme aligns with priority areas within the national and county government agendas. The current Kenyan government has an ambitious plan

Just a Drop

FIONA JEFFERY

In 1998, Fiona Jeffery founded, and is chair of, the international water development charity Just a Drop, which brings sustainable safe water, sanitation and hygiene education to communities across the world, transforming lives.

Twitter @just_a_drop  justadrop.org

to plant 15 billion trees by engaging with stakeholders, so our work supports this, and government bodies help with authorisations and permits. These are examples of cooperation among all three disciplines within the Transformational Triangle.

Access to safe water and sanitation is not only a human right; it is also transformational, supporting 12 of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals including poverty reduction, improved health and well-being, reduced hunger, access to better education, gender equality, improved livelihoods, economic growth, reduced inequalities, climate mitigation and of course partnership for the goals.

The World Health Organization estimates that an investment of $1 in water and sanitation programmes yields $4.30–$5.50 of benefit due to reduced healthcare costs, disease prevention and increased productivity. Research has shown that a national handwashing behavioural health change programme would reap a 35-fold return on investment in China and 92-fold benefit in India.

The time is now to recognise that much greater government investment in WASH organisations is required if we are to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the world’s communities and enhance social and environmental development. We all have a role to play, but to generate the greatest return on investments, collaboration, accountable leadership and investment into the grassroots impacts of climate change are essential. Investing in the provision of WASH infrastructure at all levels of the Transformational Triangle is key to achieving this.

Bharat Masrani

Unless the international community steps up and demonstrates collective leadership and responsibility, we will sleepwalk towards our own destruction”

Trust in tourism to build a better future for all

The G7 summit in Hiroshima comes at a pivotal point for the international community. I have every confidence that, as leaders and as societies, we will choose the right path.

The vulnerabilities of our economies were exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic and its social and economic fallout, and exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The consequences will continue to be felt over the coming years, even decades. If we are to learn the lessons of the past three years and make good on the rhetoric to ‘build back better’, we need to deliver greater resilience and inclusivity. For tourism, that means – before anything else – making ours a sector that provides opportunity for all.

The World Tourism Organization has identified investing in people – including

through education and jobs – as among our most important, immediate priorities, where the benefits will be felt far beyond tourism. Without the right people, even the best plans for transforming tourism and our societies will fail. And without providing the right education and professional training, our sector will not deliver on its potential to provide empowerment, including for the world’s women, youth and global communities. We are on the right path. UNWTO continues to expand our tourism education and training programmes. With Saudi Arabia, we have developed a joint plan to train 100,000 tourism workers by 2030. We have also joined forces with some of the world’s leading education institutions to bridge the gap between what tourism employers need and what employees can offer. In many

Tourism is a powerful thing. From job creation to cultural connection, it’s a uniting force, and G7 leaders would be wise to harness its power for the benefit of everyone

Zurab Pololikashvili, secretary-general, United Nations World Tourism Organization

cases, through UNWTO, people – notably women in developing economies – can take their first steps towards economic independence. Through our Best Tourism Villages Network, we will train 5,000 workers a year in rural communities everywhere, spreading the benefits of tourism wider than ever before.

ESSENTIAL INVESTMENT

From governments to businesses and destinations themselves, every part of the diverse tourism sector plays a vital part in creating more and better jobs. Investment in tourism infrastructure and projects is just as essential as investing in people. This year, UNWTO will celebrate World Tourism Day on the theme of ‘Green Investments’. The day will be a call to action for governments and the private sector alike to rethink the entire investment and financing infrastructure so that more money is directed where it can make a difference. Adequate, well-targeted investments can be a game-changer for tourism. They can enable start-ups and entrepreneurs, especially numerous in the tourism sectors of developing economies, to scale up and have a bigger impact. Investments are also vital for accelerating climate ambitions, including progress towards the net-zero sector that UNWTO envisioned when we launched the Glasgow Declaration on Climate Action in Tourism.

Investing in tourism, whether in its people or projects that build resilience or achieve greater sustainability, is a sure bet. This is especially the case for the G7. In 2019, before the pandemic brought the world to a standstill, G7 countries welcomed 368 million international tourists: one in four international tourists visited a G7 country, earning a combined $558 billion in export revenues, or 32% of the world’s total revenues from international travel. However, the huge potential of tourism to drive growth and transformation is not even close to being fulfilled. Encouragingly, tourism is now

368m

ZURAB POLOLIKASHVILI

Z urab Pololikashvili has been secretary-general of the World Tourism Organization since 2018. He was previously Georgia’s ambassador to Spain, Andorra, Algeria and Morocco and its permanent representative to the UNWTO up to 2017. He has also served as Georgia’s minister of economic development and deputy foreign minister, among other posts, and has a background in the private sector in finance and business.

$558b

firmly on the G7 agenda. Now is the time for the world’s leading economies to demonstrate their belief in the power of our sector and provide it with the political and economic support it needs to thrive.

BETTER METRICS

Hand in hand with investing in people and in tourism projects must be a shared commitment to greater transparency and accountability. To manage tourism better, we first need to measure the sector, its impacts and its progress better. UNWTO is again leading the way here. The elaboration of a UN Statistical Framework for Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism will help measure the role of the sector in sustainable development, including in social, environmental and economic areas. MST is among the first global frameworks to measure progress beyond gross domestic product. Robust data enable us to ensure that action on the ground really responds to our broader growth ambitions, allowing us to shape the right policies and inspire innovative business models for better tourism governance.

Japan’s G7 presidency also comes at a pivotal time for the international order. We are all committed to upholding the values that serve as the foundations of this order – freedom, democracy, human rights and, above all, peace. Hiroshima is a poignant, powerful reminder of what is at stake if we fail to stand up for peace. Our sense of solidarity must prevail. When peace does return to Europe, as it surely will, tourism will play an important part as we rebuild those cities, communities and economies devastated by war and foster friendship and understanding among peoples.

Twitter @pololikashvili  unwto.org

The huge potential of tourism to drive growth and transformation is not even close to being fulfilled”

international tourists visited G7 countries in 2019

1/4 international tourists visited a G7 country that year

earnt in export revenues from these visits

Travel and tourism, along with the world, face the greatest challenge of our time: climate change. But there is hope on the horizon – and even opportunity

Julia Simpson, president and CEO, World Travel and Tourism Council

Despite the global shutdown in 2020, travel and tourism are recovering. Our 10-year forecast shows our sector will once more outpace global growth at a rate of 5.8% annually, while global gross domestic product, by comparison, is set to grow at 2.7%. Let me put that in human terms. By 2032 our sector will create 126 million new jobs, to reach a total of 425 million

Take-off for greener travel

globally. Almost 8% of all the new jobs will be created in the G7 countries. That is 9.6 million new jobs created by the travel and tourism sector in the G7 alone, by 2032.

But nothing is inevitable. We know that the global economy is at a precarious point. The war in Ukraine is devastating. We face new geopolitical threats and cross-border conflicts. Inflation is a very serious concern. And although a deep recession might be avoided, the global economy is fragile. So, I appeal to governments all over the world: take travel and tourism seriously. Because we can help.

Too often our sector is neglected. We saw it starkly during the pandemic, when international coordination to safely reopen borders was non-existent and frankly shambolic. Back then, few lone voices were calling for international alignment. And now we face the greatest crisis of our times: climate change. Our sector sees it first hand: extreme temperatures creating unliveable cities, forest fires destroying flora and fauna, rising seas swallowing up coastlines.

As the World Travel and Tourism Council’s Nature Positive Travel & Tourism report shows, tourism from nature generates over $600 billion, which provides opportunities for some of the world’s poorest countries to protect biodiversity and their communities.

A WORLD FIRST

Until now it has not been possible to quantify our climate impact. We have our renowned Economic Impact Report, which shows the value of travel and tourism. But measuring all the emissions across our businesses and supply chains is difficult. We can measure the

energy to fly a plane, but what about the energy it takes to make and deliver millions of bottles of water? And how many of those bottles would have been consumed regardless? Well, now we can measure that. With our partners Oxford Economics and the Saudi-based Sustainable Tourism Global Center, we have launched the world’s first ever environmental and social impact methodology for travel and tourism.

We now know our carbon impact, both globally and for 185 countries across all regions. We can compare where we are today to 10 years ago. And we can track it. And not just greenhouse gases, but everything from energy consumption to water use. This will give businesses within the sector the data they need and it will give governments hard facts on how to meet the Sustainable Development Goals.

The great promise in this information is that there is a divergence of the sector’s economic growth from its climate footprint between 2010 and 2019. This

indicates that travel and tourism’s economic growth is decoupling from its greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions per dollar generated are decreasing. This is critical. Although our total emissions are at the lower range of previous estimates, we need to decarbonise aggressively. But we absolutely cannot do it alone.

Here are our three top priorities:

1. Energy grid: Around one quarter of our emissions come from the electricity we use. While we look to our own energy efficiency, we need governments to switch to renewables for the energy we use from the grid.

2. Sustainable aviation fuels: Transport accounts for more than one third of emissions. Our business is, after all, travel!

3. Electric and hydrogen: Planes will arrive in the future but if we want to meet the Paris Agreement targets, it is critical we have wide-scale availability of sustainable aviation fuels.

We need a commitment by fuel producers to produce sustainable aviation fuels, and we need government policies to incentivise its production. The model for governments already exists – we have had incentives for electric vehicles. And the technology already exists for sustainable aviation fuels, but we need governments to make this a priority.

Lastly – more than anything we need courage. We have survived the greatest crisis in our history, and we will come back even stronger. You are the leaders who recovered this resilient sector after the pandemic. Climate change might be a problem on a planetary scale, but it is also an opportunity.

new travel and tourism jobs will be created by 2032

8%

126m of these jobs will be created in G7 countries

Julia Simpson is president and CEO of the World Travel and Tourism Council. She spent 14 years in the aviation sector on the board of British Airways and Iberia and as chief of staff at International Airlines Group. Before joining British Airways, Julia was senior adviser to the UK prime minister. She held several key positions in the UK government and public sector, including director at the Home Office and Department for Education and Employment, assistant chief executive at the London Borough of Camden, and head of communications at the Communication Workers Union. She is on the board of the London Chamber of Commerce.

Travel and tourism’s economic growth is decoupling from its greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions per dollar generated are decreasing”

JULIA SIMPSON

G7 performance on development

The significance of holding the G7 summit in Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s home town of Hiroshima – a city that had to rebuild itself after an atomic bomb attack in 1945, with threats from nuclear weapons arising in 2023 – is clear. This summit is dedicated to peace. Without peace, development lags.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1975, G7 leaders have dedicated an average of 17% of words in their communiqués to development. At Rambouillet in 1975, 15% were on development. Lows came in 1984 with 3%, in 2003 with 4% and in 2004 with 1%. Highs came in 1994 with 22%, in 1996 with 20%, in 2002 with an all-time high of 56%, in 2005 with 27%, in 2009 with 23% and in 2011 with 36%. A string of highs started in 2012 with 45%, and continued in 2013 with 39%, and 2014 with 36%, dropping a bit but still relatively high over the next four summits, and completing this phase in 2019 with 38%. Then there was a steep dip to 2% in 2020. But this was followed by a rise to 17% in 2021 and 36% in 2022.

COMMITMENTS

G7 leaders have made 732 commitments on development since 1975, the most on any subject, with an average of 16 commitments per summit. In 1975, they made just four commitments on development, but this accounted for 27% of the total. The next year, they made only one (10%). The most commitments on development came in 2004 with 53, for 21%.

At the summits Japan hosted there was a general rise in the number of development commitments. At Japan’s three Tokyo summits, the G7 produced seven (13%) in 1979, eight (21%) in 1986 and eight again (28%) in 1993. The 2000 Okinawa Summit made 19 (18%), the 2008 Hokkaido Summit 35 (12%) and the 2016 Ise-Shima Summit 23 (7%).

Most recently, the G7 made eight (11%) development commitments in 2019, none in 2020, 15 (4%) in 2021 and 14 (3%) in 2022.

COMPLIANCE

G7 members complied with their leaders’ development commitments at an average of 74%, based on the 59 commitments assessed for compliance by the G7 Research Group since 1996. This is just below the G7’s all-subject, all-year compliance average of 76%.

Without peace, development lags – and at a summit dedicated to peace, development is in the spotlight

Sonja Dobson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

G7 development compliance gradually rose, but with much variation each year. It had a slow start — with all-time lows of 50% in 1996, 1997 and 1998.

Compliance soared to 93% from 1999, but plummeted again to 50% from 2000. It again rose to 75% from 2001, declined to 55% from 2002, and then rose to 80% from 2003. After a decline to 75% from 2004, it rose to 85% from 2005 and to 94% from 2006.

After this high, compliance again fluctuated between 2007 with 65% to 2015 in the mid-range with 75%. Then came a continued high: 2016 and 2017 had 81%, 2018 had 92%, 2019 had 84%, and 2021 had 100%. By January 2023, the G7 already had 81% compliance with the development commitments made in 2022.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

Higher development compliance is linked to some easy-to-implement measures.

The highest compliance (92%) came with development commitments that reference the World Bank at 92%. Those referencing one-year timetables had 90%, those referencing finance ministers 87%, and those identifying a specific country 77%. Commitments on debt relief averaged

SONJA DOBSON

Sonja Dobson is pursuing a PhD in peace and conflict studies at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago. She holds a master’s degree in conflict studies and human rights from Utrecht University and a bachelor of arts and science in African studies and political science from the University of Toronto. She has worked with the G7, G20 and BRICS Research Groups since 2015, and served as co-chair of summit studies for the G20 Research Group in 2022. She is also the lead researcher on development for the G7 Research Group.

Twitter @SAT_Dobson  www.g7.utoronto.ca

G7 performance on development, 1975–2022

compliance of 76%; the 31 commitments on official development assistance averaged 74%.

Higher compliance also came after development ministers’ meetings were held before the summit. Of the 11 years with development ministers’ meetings, nine were held before the summit, which averaged 81% compliance. Two were held after the summit, which averaged only 65%. Those 11 years when development ministers met averaged 78%, higher than the 74% overall average for development commitments. No development ministers meeting has been scheduled under Japan’s presidency.

Development working groups were created by at least six G7 summits. The three years with the highest compliance – 82% – established working groups on financing and sustainable development. The three years with the lowest compliance, averaging 72%, focused on Africa.

At Hiroshima, therefore, G7 leaders should structure their development commitments to refer to the World Bank, set a one-year timetable and include the finance ministers in discussions on financing and sustainable development.

Interview with Achim Steiner, administrator, United Nations Development Programme

Realising a better world

Is the world progressing towards meeting the Sustainable Development Goals?

On the macro level, the world is simply not moving fast enough on many of the SDGs, while hard-won progress on some goals is even regressing in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and increasingly strained economic and financial conditions. Therefore, the SDG Summit in September 2023 has added significance. In a world riven by the impacts of climate change and geopolitical tensions, we need the SDGs more than ever as they represent one of the

only platforms on which all countries still agree on to realise a better world.

Which SDGs have advanced the most or least?

Poverty has increased. Life expectancy is backsliding even in some high-income countries. However, Goal 13, on climate action, and Goal 7, on clean, affordable energy, may surprise us. Energy security has become a driver of energy independence and bold investments in renewable energy infrastructure. Or consider Goal 17, on

If the G7 can demonstrate decisive leadership to address strained economic and financial conditions worldwide, it could reduce or even eliminate the damage from future socio-economic shockwaves

partnerships, where enhancing access to technology is on target and exceeding expectations in some cases.

Which crises have had the greatest impacts?

The Covid-19 pandemic has had profound ramifications in physical, social, economic and psychological terms that will constrain development, especially in low-income economies, for years to come. Extreme weather and climate events are now increasing in frequency, intensity and severity. Not since 1945 have there been as many violent conflicts, while the global number of people forcibly displaced from their homes has passed 100 million for the first time ever. Indeed, recent analysis by the United Nations Development Programme highlighted that 52 low- and middle-income developing economies are currently either in debt distress or at high risk of debt distress. If this situation is not tackled, many countries will simply be unable to invest in the future – everything from tackling poverty to promoting gender equality to rolling out clean energies. Key institutions including the G7, the G20 and the United Nations that were established to act in times of crisis are struggling to respond.

How will the need to reconstruct Ukraine affect progress towards meeting the SDGs?

When the Berlin Wall fell, West Germany was confronted with reunification and mobilised close to $100 billion annually to invest in East Germany. In some ways, this demonstrates the contradiction of a world today where developed countries have still not fulfilled their promise to coinvest $100 billion per annum to support critical climate action in developing countries. Indeed, if wealthy countries’ investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction and recovery comes at the expense of investing in developing countries, poverty reduction and energy transitions, it could cause deeper geopolitical rifts. G7 members face difficult decisions in the face of multiple crises. However, the choices they have made, such as recent banking sector bailouts, have proven once more that they can mobilise the significant financing needed to strategically respond to crises.

How have the UN and UNDP been working to restore progress?

The secretary-general’s SDG Stimulus Plan has laid out a clear methodology to address the critical needs of developing countries, including new measures to inject liquidity, reschedule and restructure debt,

ACHIM STEINER

Achim Steiner has been the administrator of the United Nations Development Programme since 2017. He is also the vice-chair of the UN Sustainable Development Group, which unites 40 entities of the UN system that work to support sustainable development. Prior to joining UNDP, he was director of the Oxford Martin School and professorial fellow of Balliol College, University of Oxford. He led the UN Environment Programme (2006–2016) and was also director-general of the United Nations Office at Nairobi. He previously held other notable positions including director-general of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and secretary-general of the World Commission on Dams.

Twitter @Asteiner  undp.org

and leverage private finance. Or consider UNDP’s SDG Push analysis that outlines how deliberate policies and strategic investments, designed by countries for their individual context, can get the SDGs back on track.

Poverty and inequalities are perhaps the most corrosive forces that can tear societies apart. UNDP’s approach has been to identify those most at risk, helping governments to extend key supports such as social protection and tailored assistance to women-led small businesses, the backbone of many economies. We are also facilitating developing countries’ issuing of SDG-aligned bonds to raise capital according to their

national priorities, raising over $11 billion in the past 18 months alone. Or consider UNDP’s Insurance and Risk Finance Facility, which will enable the rollout of new insurance products to millions of people, protecting lives, livelihoods and assets from the impact of crises.

How have G7 summits spurred progress for reaching the SDGs?

Despite differences among its members, the G7 has always been very supportive of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs from climate action and poverty eradication to debt, energy transitions and the green economy. Japan, for instance, created a dedicated SDGs Promotion Headquarters headed by its prime minister.

How can the Hiroshima Summit help?

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is hosting the G7 summit in his hometown of Hiroshima, a most appropriate location to emphasise the preciousness of peace. The gathering must be a moment to reflect on how to return to peace and dialogue, and G7 members must embrace their responsibility to resolve conflicts. The Hiroshima Summit will put forward a view of human security and health, which argues that the threats to the well-being of people and planet must be tackled in a more cohesive and sophisticated manner. A corollary is the G7’s ability to signal more engaged and deliberate strategies to engage the Global South. There is optimism that the G7 will emerge with an unequivocal indication that it is ready to take groundbreaking measures to directly address the current global financial turmoil, including the debt and development financing crises. In short, G7 members can demonstrate decisive leadership now to nip potentially even more damaging global socio-economic shockwaves in the bud.

Poverty and inequalities are perhaps the most corrosive forces that can tear societies apart”

G7 performance on the digital economy

3% of the total. Commitments on the digital economy first appeared at the Japanese-hosted 2000 summit, but became dominant in 2019.

The 2009 summit made three digital economy commitments, for 1% of the total. In 2010, none were made. The 2011 summit made five (3%), followed again by none in 2012. At the 2013 summit, the number spiked to 18 (8%), but flatlined at zero again in 2014 and 2015.

Japan was the first member to bring digitalisation to the G7’s agenda, when it hosted the 2000 summit and created the Okinawa Charter on the Global Information Society. Digitalisation has taken on new, now central importance with the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic that forced many people to work from home and revealed existing inequities in the digital divide. The 2023 Hiroshima Summit will continue to advance a range of issues related to the digital economy, from digital inequality to online safety to employment impacts, and more.

CONCLUSIONS

The digital economy – as distinct from information and communication technologies – first emerged in G7 discussions in 2000. Since then the subject averaged 262 words per summit, or 2% of G7 communiqués.

The 2000 summit gave the digital economy 113 words, or 0.8% of its total. But the subject fell off the agenda until the 2009 summit, where it received 169 words for 0.5%. In 2010 it had none. In 2011 it had 263 for 0.9%, but dropped to zero in 2012.

The digital economy has appeared in every communiqué since 2013, except for 2020 due to the onset of Covid-19. Its highest peak was in 2013 with 2,395 words (18%). Attention varied after that, with 487 words (10%) in 2014, rising to 1,626 words (13%) in 2015, dipping back to 876 words (4%) in 2016 and dropping further to 359 (4%) in 2017.

At the 2018 summit, it rose to 964 words (9%), followed by 26% (1,868 words) – the highest percentage ever on the digital economy – at the 2019 summit.

After producing no words in 2020, the 2021 summit had 2,175 words (11%). The 2022 summit dedicated 1,385 words (7%) to the digital economy.

COMMITMENTS

From 1975 to 2022, ICT and the digital economy together comprised 202 of the G7’s commitments, for

Only with the Japanese-hosted 2016 summit did the trend become more stable, with 23 (7%) digital commitments, followed by five (3%) in 2017, 23 (7%) in 2018 and 22 (for a high of 31%) in 2019.

No commitments were made in 2020. The 2021 summit produced the most digital commitments ever with 33 (8%). The 2022 summit came close, with 25 (5%).

COMPLIANCE

The G7 Research Group has assessed 11 digital economy commitments, excluding those on ICT, for compliance by G7 members. Compliance averages 76%, the same as the overall average on all issues.

The commitment made in 2000 had the highest compliance of 100%. The next, made in 2009, plunged to 50%. Compliance then rose to 89% from 2011, 84% from 2013 and 94% from 2016.

KAYLIN DAWE

Kaylin Dawe has been a member of the G7 and G20 Research Groups since 2018, and was co-chair of summit studies for the G20 Research Group for the 2022 Indonesian G20 presidency. She holds an honours bachelor of arts from the University of Toronto, with a specialisation in political science and a major in history. Her research focuses on climate change, human rights and gender equality.

Twitter @KaylinMDawe  www.g7.utoronto.ca

Despite notable accomplishments on the digital economy, there are several ways the G7 can improve its performance, with equity at the heart of action in this area

Kaylin Dawe, researcher, G7 Research Group

It plunged again from 2018 to 50%, before starting to rise again to 63% from 2019 and jumping to 91% from 2021.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

The G7 has had some notable accomplishments, but there are nonetheless ways it can improve its performance on the digital economy, with equity at the core.

First, the G7 can utilise multilateral institutions and international cooperation to increase compliance. Among the assessed commitments, the ones that emphasise cooperation and institutions tended to have higher compliance. The two summits with the highest compliance focused on international cooperation and partnerships. In 2000 compliance was 100% on digitising cultural heritage by fostering international links among national museum systems. In 2021 compliance averaged 91% on an open, unfragmented internet and the Global Partnership for Artificial Intelligence.

Second, an opportunity to improve compliance lies within the social and environmental realm of the digital economy. The summits with the lowest complying commitments were 2009 with 50% on the digital divide, 2018 with 50% on the link between digitalisation and sexual and gender-based violence, and 2019 with 63% with commitments linking digitalisation with inequality and with the environment and sustainability.

Thus, as the economy continues to shift to digital, the G7 at Hiroshima and beyond needs to ensure that this shift is equitable and fair to marginalised groups and the environment.

Compliance with the commitment assessed from the 2022 summit was already high, at 88%, by January 2023.

An opportunity to improve compliance lies within the social and environmental realm of the digital economy”

Delivering digital for all this decade

Technology features high on the agenda of this year’s G7 summit in Hiroshima, bringing into focus the reach and scope of digital technology across economies in G7 members and the developed world.

But for low- and middle-income countries in the Global South, it’s a different story – and the picture changes completely in least developed countries, where about two-thirds of the population are still offline.

I told my counterparts in other agencies at the fifth United Nations

Despite

Conference on the Least Developed Countries in Doha in March that these countries’ journey from potential to prosperity starts with digital development. The G7 should approach this not just as a moral imperative, but as an opportunity to address the world’s most pressing challenges by advancing the UN Sustainable Development Goals. With only a few years left to deliver on the SDGs by 2030, success depends on the ability to make progress on the two clear strategic goals identified by the member states of the International

technology featuring as a high priority among the G7, many countries around the world are on the sidelines of the digital revolution. But with bold thinking and action, together we can create a more equal and sustainable digital world

Doreen Bogdan-Martin, secretary-general, International Telecommunication Union

Telecommunication Union – namely, universal connectivity and sustainable digital transformation.

As the head of ITU, the UN agency for digital technologies, I have made delivering digital for all in this decade my top priority by focusing our efforts in three key areas.

The first is recognising that finite resources such as the radio-frequency spectrum and associate satellite orbits are the building blocks of our advanced global communication systems for all humanity. As such, they need to be shared equitably and responsibly while avoiding harmful interference.

SHAPING DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT

ITU’s role is critical in providing a stable regulatory environment for this to happen, most notably through our World Radiocommunication Conferences. The next one, set to take place in the United Arab Emirates in late 2023, will shape digital development for this decade and well into the future.

New frontiers such as space are opening up opportunities for new sustainable business and growth prospects – and here, too, ITU will work to address the spectrum needs of new space systems while maintaining the reliable and sustainable space services of existing systems. Developing countries must not be left behind in the development of the space economy.

The second area is to help different actors in the digital ecosystem speak the same language through the development of global technical standards.

Standards are the threads that weave together new technologies like artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things into critical infrastructure networks, to make them more connected, performant, efficient, accessible and sustainable.

For the first time, energy efficiency and environmental sustainability are being considered as part of the technical specifications for 6G – what we at ITU call ‘IMT-2030’.

Our third focus is to use digital development, especially in the Global South, as a catalyst for the SDGs.

That means, as UN secretary-general António Guterres said, “making the Sustainable Development Goals real in the lives of people everywhere”. If people cannot afford a digital device or service, or lack the skills to use either, if they do not find content useful or feel safe online, how can they leverage technology for health care, innovation, education or employment?

Yes, this comes with its fair share of risks. But the consequences of inaction far outweigh the benefits of staying still.

Tackling these challenges head on requires us all to think big and act boldly – together.

This is the idea behind the ITU-led Partner2Connect Digital Coalition. Most global challenges – like connecting the world – are too big for any single entity to face alone.

A little over a year after ITU called on all stakeholders to connect the communities that are still left behind, Partner2Connect counts more than

2/3

600 pledges worth $30 billion, covering areas ranging from infrastructure to cybersecurity to digital skills. It is a promising start, but only a fraction of what is needed to close the digital divide once and for all.

COMMON PRIORITIES

ITU and the G7 have common priorities. When G7 leaders meet in Hiroshima in May, I call on them to rise to the occasion – to choose to create a more equal, just, safe and sustainable digital world in this decade for generations to come.

DOREEN BOGDAN-MARTIN

Doreen Bogdan-Martin took office as secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union on 1 January 2023. She was director of ITU’s Telecommunication Development Bureau from 2018 to 2022, and previously served as executive director of the ITU-UNESCO Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development for more than a decade. She also led ITU’s Strategic Planning and Membership Department and the ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau’s Regulatory and Market Environment Division and Regulatory Reform Unit. Before joining ITU in 1994, she worked in the National Telecommunication and Information Administration of the US Department of Commerce. Twitter @ITUSecGen  itu.int

Most global challenges – like connecting the world – are too big for any single entity to face alone”

of the population in least developed countries are still offline

Beneath the digital surface

THE ROLE OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM

What exactly is the DNS? The DNS enables people to navigate the internet in a human-centric way. Every time a user visits a web page, sends an email message or contributes to the global flow of data, the DNS helps them get around the internet by translating domain names (such as icann.org) to the IP addresses (such as 192.0.43.7) needed by servers, routers and other network devices to move traffic efficiently to the proper destination.

David Olive, senior vice president, ICANN

The internet today connects more than 5.1 billion people and is a shared resource on which government, business, technology and civil society depend. It was created on the premise that free and open access to information supports the greater good. The importance of the internet to the world’s economic, social and political systems continues to grow as its user base, content and applications expand. In digital transformation, the role of a stable and secure domain name system is recognised as a critical requirement for the infrastructure that supports the functioning of the internet. Due to the increasing interest from global policymakers, the DNS has been elevated from a technical issue to a global public policy issue included in national cybersecurity strategies.

One organisation – the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – ensures the stable and secure operation of the internet’s unique identifier systems and coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the DNS. ICANN operates using a multi-stakeholder model of policymaking in which individuals, non-commercial stakeholder groups, industry, civil society and governments all have an equal voice in consensus-driven policymaking. Through advisory committees and supporting organisations, ICANN creates and implements policy that governs the complex management of the global DNS. Together with this multi-stakeholder community, ICANN works to develop effective means to mitigate security risks to ensure the stability and resilience of the DNS.

Digital transformation is shaping the world in which we live, but without domain name system security, the internet as a secure, trusted and safe resource is under threat

DAVID OLIVE

Digital transformation depends on a secure and stable internet. This is increasingly the case given recent serious security threats to the DNS. Such threats include incidents that affect the availability, integrity and confidentiality of parts of the DNS ecosystem through such harmful activities as botnets, malware, pharming, phishing and spam. ICANN’s DNS Security Threat Mitigation Program works to make the internet a safer place for governments, businesses and end users by reducing the prevalence of these threats.

MITIGATING SYSTEM SECURITY RISKS

Most recently, ICANN launched the Knowledge-sharing and Instantiation Norms for DNS and Naming Security initiative. The goal of KINDNS is to engage the DNS technical community, DNS service providers, software vendors, registrants and others to catalogue, document and develop a programme to promote DNS operational best practices within various communities and ecosystems. Through KINDNS, a framework for the most critical security norms for DNS operations, such as for authoritative, recursive resolvers and software has been

developed. DNS operators are encouraged to commit to their implementation voluntarily. The Declaration for the Future of the Internet, signed in April 2022, recommits the United States and 60 other countries to a single, global internet based on a shared belief in the potential of digital technologies. It sets out the expectation for signatories to contribute to the “existing processes” of international organisations addressing internet governance issues, the G7, the G20 and ICANN. The declaration notes the support of the signatories for the multi-stakeholder model and exhorts them to offer “opportunities for innovation in the digital ecosystem, including businesses large and small” and to “maintain a high level of security, privacy protection, stability and resilience of the technical infrastructure of the Internet”.

The single, stable and interoperable internet has been the basis for unparalleled innovation, economic growth and an engine for development for more than 35 years. As digital transformation continues to shape the world in which we live, our collective challenge is to ensure that the internet remains a secure, trusted and safe resource in the future.

The domain name system has been elevated from a technical issue to a global public policy issue included in national cybersecurity strategies”

David Olive is senior vice president of policy development support and managing director of ICANN. Before joining ICANN in 2010, he spent 20 years at Fujitsu Limited, most recently as general manager and chief corporate representative in Washington DC. He was a member of the Commercial Board of Directors of TechAmerica and the board of the Computer and Communications Industry Association in Washington DC. He also works with the Global Information Infrastructure Commission, the US-Japan Business Council and the International Chamber of Commerce. He was previously a US foreign service officer specialising in trade, investment and technology policy.

Twitter @dcolive  icann.org

The job ahead

Gilbert F Houngbo, director-general, International Labour Organization

Labour markets face enormous challenges. The ongoing effects of the Covid-19, cost-of-living and geopolitical crises weigh heavily on labour markets – while longer-term structural changes, such as climate change, population ageing and technological progress increasingly affect labour markets around the world as well.

Most countries have not yet returned to the levels of employment and hours worked seen at the end of 2019, before the outbreak of Covid-19. The global jobs gap, which consists of the 205 million unemployed and 268 million people who have an unmet need for employment but do not satisfy the criteria to be considered unemployed, was 473 million people in 2022, with 29.3 million in the G7 countries alone. As a share of people either employed or wanting a job, this corresponds to a jobs gap rate of 12.3%, with 7.2% for the G7 alone.

The jobs gap is particularly large for women. Although men and women currently face similar global unemployment rates, the global jobs gap rate for women is 15%, compared with 10.5% for men (see figure). Personal and family responsibilities, including unpaid care work, discouragement resulting from the lack of quality employment opportunities and scarcity of possibilities for (re)training can prevent many people from seeking employment or limit their availability to work at short notice.

Global employment is projected to expand by 1% in 2023, a significant deceleration from the 2.3% growth rate of 2022. The slowdown in employment growth means that the jobs gaps opened up by the

Covid-19 crisis, globally, are not projected to close in the next two years. At the same time, global labour supply growth will likely continue to decelerate, which will contribute to substantial labour shortages, particularly in advanced economies.

UNEQUAL LABOUR MARKET PROSPECTS

Women and young people fare significantly worse in labour markets, a fact indicative of large inequalities in the world of work in many countries. Globally, the labour force participation gap between men and women of 24.9 percentage points in 2022 means that for every economically inactive man there are two such women. This labour force participation gap stands at 13.8 percentage points in the G7.

People aged 15 to 24 face severe difficulties in securing decent work and have been hit particularly hard during the pandemic. Their employment rate was 34.5% in 2022, 0.7 percentage points below the level of 2019. Young workers also have different types of jobs from older workers, including a higher likelihood of a temporary contract. Their unemployment rate is three times as high as that of people aged 25 or more, the global youth unemployment rate being about 14% in 2022 and 9.3% in the G7. More than one

205m

people unemployed globally

7.2%

jobs gap rate in the G7

The G7’s support in overcoming the challenges of unequal labour markets will help to bring about action and investments in decent work for all –and help to drive shared economic growth

in five young people – 23.5% – globally are not in education, employment or training (NEET). In the G7 that rate is 9.8%.

The distribution of real incomes is also becoming more unequal. High inflation rates are deepening inequalities within countries, as many workers are unable to increase their income in line with inflation and hence suffer real income losses. Even among low-wage service workers in advanced economies, who have seen the fastest increase in wages in decades owing to a shortage of labour, wage growth is barely keeping pace with inflation. The ILO’s Global Wage Report 2022–23 shows that global real wages are estimated to have declined by 0.9% in 2022.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO OVERCOME THESE CHALLENGES?

Accelerated progress in reducing the global jobs gap, strengthening the quality of employment and protecting real incomes will entail:

• Investing in people’s capabilities to increase the labour force participation of women, people with disabilities and older workers, and to facilitate workers’ transitions to alternative sectors

Jobs gap rate, 2022

or occupations throughout their working lives;

• Closing the gender pay gap through higher minimum wages, more extensive and inclusive collective bargaining, measures to address the undervaluation of women’s work and extending obligations of employers to promote gender equality;

• Reaching out to the NEET youth through programmes offering a package of services, such as training, income support, counselling and intermediation;

• Addressing the decline of unionisation rates and collective bargaining coverage, so as to enhance the potential of social dialogue to achieve a fair sharing of the cost of inflation.

Furthermore, the G7’s support for initiatives, such as the UN’s Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection for Just Transitions and the Global Coalition for Social Justice that the ILO is launching in 2023, would strengthen global solidarity and improve policy coherence to bring about action and investments in decent work and broadly shared economic growth.

GILBERT HOUNGBO

Gilbert Houngbo started his term as director-general of the International Labour Organization on 1 October 2022. He was president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development from 2017 to 2022. He previously served as deputy director-general of the ILO where he led field operations in more than 100 countries. From 2008 to 2012, he was prime minister of the Republic of Togo. He has also held numerous leadership positions at the United Nations Development Programme. Twitter @GHoungbo  ilo.org

G7 performance on gender equality

Major gaps in gender equality persist – and some G7 summits have overlooked the area completely. Hiroshima is an opportunity to take stock and implement strategies to bridge the remaining chasms

Despite consistent attention to gender equality in G7 communiqués since 2001 and some significant commitments to take concrete action to improve gender equality, major gaps remain for all members. The gender wage gap is close to 15% in all G7 members. The G7 must now ensure that it keeps its commitments, and use the 2023 Hiroshima Summit to take stock of progress and implement strategies to close the remaining gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

G7 leaders first addressed gender equality at their 1990 summit, and then did so consistently since 2001. Attention steadily increased from 2013 until 2019. It was entirely absent in 2020 but reappeared in 2021 and 2022. G7 communiqués averaged 791 words on gender equality at each summit, for 6% of the total words.

The greatest attention

came in 2017 with 3,888 words (45%), then in 2018 with 5,086 words (45%).

Most recently, the 2022 summit gave 2,885 words (15%) to gender.

COMMITMENTS

Since their 1975 start, G7 summits have made 375 public, collective, precise, future-oriented, politically binding commitments on gender equality, accounting for almost 6% of the total. Between 1996, with the first gender commitment, and 2014, most of those commitments related gender to other issues such as health and education at the core.

Gender equality in its own right became the focus in 2015, peaking between 2015 and 2018. In 2015, the G7 made 34 gender commitments (9%). It made 8 (14%) in 2016, 71 (39%) in 2017 and a record 82 (26%) in 2018. In

Julia Kulik, director of research, G7 Research Group

2019 the number plunged to 17 (24%) and then to zero in 2020. In 2021 it rose to 30 (7%) and 32 (6%) in 2022.

COMPLIANCE

G7 members averaged 72% compliance with the 48 gender commitments assessed for compliance by the G7 Research Group. This is below the 76% average compliance across all subjects.

The highest compliance came with commitments made in 2002 and 2021 with 100% each, 2013 with 95%, 2018 with 93%, 1996 with 92%, 2014 with 86% and 2007 with 84%. The lowest compliance came with commitments made in 2011 with 45% and 2016 with 47%. By January 2023, compliance with the one assessed gender commitment from the 2022 summit was already 81%.

The highest complying G7 member has been Canada at 87%, followed by the United Kingdom at 85% and the European Union at 78%. In the middle are Germany and

the United States at 75% each, and France at 69%. The lowest compliers are Japan at 64% and Italy at 50%.

CAUSES AND CORRECTIONS

The highest complying summits, averaging 87%, had a high degree of internal G7 institutional support: they coincided with two ministerial meetings on gender equality and the creation of two of five gender-related official and multistakeholder bodies, councils, partnerships, forums and initiatives, including the Gender Equality Advisory Council. The lowest complying summits, averaging 60%, came with commitments made in years when only one such ministerial meeting took place.

The highest complying summits also dedicated a larger percentage of their communiqués – on average 16% – to gender equality. This compares to the 12% average for the lowest complying summits.

Core gender commitments averaged 69% compliance and gender-related commitments averaged 75%. Among the gender-related commitments, those with the highest compliance linked gender equality to health, specifically to maternal and newborn health, AIDS and reproductive health. Commitments with the lowest compliance lacked specificity, but committed to or supported gender equality and women’s empowerment broadly.

JULIA KULIK

Julia Kulik, MPP, is director of research for the G7 Research Group as well as for the G20 and BRICS Research Groups and the Global Health Diplomacy Program, all based at the University of Toronto. She has written on G7, G20 and BRICS performance, particularly on the issues of gender equality and regional security. She leads the groups’ work on gender, women’s health, higher education and summit performance.

Twitter @juliafkulik

 www.g7.utoronto.ca

The presence of compliance catalysts, such as text on how to implement a commitment, has generally improved compliance. Gender commitments with embedded catalysts averaged 75% compliance, while commitments with none averaged 70%. The catalysts that coincide with the highest compliance referred to an implementation target or a G7 body, invoked legal instruments or mobilised a certain amount of funding.

Digital rights are women’s rights

inequalities. This past year alone, 259 million more men than women were online. Digital technology is an important component of increased access and a catalyst for more possibilities. However, a significant access gap remains to be bridged: over 230 million fewer women than men have access to the internet via mobile technology and women are 18% less likely than men to own a smartphone. I ask the G7 to take concrete measures to ensure equal access to affordable mobile devices and to an open, affordable, accessible, safe and secure internet.

The Commission on the Status of Women urged a commitment to improved women’s financial inclusion, including through access to and quality of financial services, expanding the use of digital channels and adopting digital solutions to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances, and concrete actions to reduce transaction costs to less than 3% by 2030.

Findex data show the gender gap in account ownership across developing economies to have fallen to six percentage points from nine percentage points, where it had stalled since 2011. I ask the G7 to consider tools to reduce gender gaps in this area including adopting a national financial inclusion strategy with an explicit focus on women’s financial

How do we crack the barriers to economic recovery? A significant part of that answer lies in the equal role of women in the economy and what enables – or disables – their participation. In March this year, the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women set out in its Agreed Conclusions multiple actions to be taken across society to manage innovation and technology for women’s economic, social and political empowerment and to tackle the new and unique barriers presented by engagement in the digital space. It has become clear that we will not achieve gender equality without closing the gender digital divide. Digital rights are women’s rights, and both must be centre stage in all our plans for a digitalised society and a new economic order.

Digital inclusion and literacy are critical factors for the well-being and success of women and girls, opening new avenues for learning, earning and leading, at the same time as giving rise to profound new challenges and compounded gender

Gender equality – and long-term, sustainable economic recovery –cannot be achieved without first closing the gender digital divide

Sima Bahous, under-secretary-general, United Nations, and executive director, UN Women

inclusion; digitising government-to-person payments, social transfers and remittance flows that benefit women; developing financial and digital literacy programmes that build women’s confidence in using the services; and ensuring consumer protection mechanisms are in place and responsive to maintain customers’ trust in the service.

THROUGH A GENDER LENS

I ask that policymakers and central bankers apply a gender lens in their national financial inclusion policies, promote consumer protection principles and require sex-disaggregated data from regulated financial services providers.

We also need intentional regulatory approaches to improve transparency and accountability requirements with regard to the safety of women and girls. Generative artificial intelligence and other innovations have shown us that the industry is developing faster than we can keep up with its implications and applications. The gap in access to digital tools and opportunity is widest where women and girls are often most vulnerable, disproportionately affecting women

and girls with low literacy or low income, those living in rural or remote areas, migrants, women with disabilities and older women.

International human rights law applies more than ever to the sectors of our societies that are less robust than others and more vulnerable to being left behind or taken advantage of. We continue to see radical groups and some governments use social media to target women, particularly women human rights defenders in new forms of digital repression and oppression. I ask the G7 to lead in taking steps to prevent and eliminate technology-facilitated gender-based violence, to protect the rights of women and girls online, and to address challenges associated with the use of new and emerging digital technologies to incite violence, hatred, discrimination and hostility.

SIMA BAHOUS

Sima Bahous became UN Women’s executive director and UN undersecretary-general in 2021. She most recently served as Jordan’s permanent representative to the United Nations in New York. Previously, she served as assistant administrator and director of the Regional Bureau for Arab States at the United Nations Development Programme and assistant secretary-general and head of the Social Development Sector at the League of Arab States. She has also served in ministerial posts in Jordan and was director of communication for the Royal Hashemite Court.

Twitter @unwomenchief  unwomen.org

In 2023, we look to gather momentum and action on these issues, and others raised by the Commission on the Status of Women through the development of the Global Digital Compact, as part of the United Nations secretary-general’s Our Common Agenda, and towards the Summit of the Future. Together, through collectives such as the Generation Equality Action Coalition on Technology and Innovation for Gender Equality, we can shape a future that truly and comprehensively advances women’s rights and prosperity. Where women and girls have equal opportunities to safely and meaningfully access, use, lead and design technology and ensure that building inclusive digital economies is at the core of the Covid-19 recovery efforts. Where technology contributes to transforming social norms, amplifies women’s voices, pushes back against online harassment, prevents the perpetuation of algorithmic biases and distributes the benefits of digitalisation equally to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

It has become clear that we will not achieve gender equality without closing the gender digital divide”

more men than women were online in the past year alone

m

STRENGTHENING THE G7 SYSTEM

Predicting G7 performance on compliance

For almost 50 years, the G7 has served as an international forum for promoting the liberal and democratic ideals championed by its members. To do so, leaders at their annual summits have collectively made more than 6,000 commitments to tackle issues such as development, climate change, health and financial regulation. However, only 62% of these commitments have been met in full, according to G7 Research Group analysis. For the G7 to succeed in its mission, it is critically important that its members comply with the commitments that their leaders make. For the first time, research on commitment outcomes conducted by the G7 Research Group has made it possible to produce data-driven estimates of the probability that each member will fulfil the commitments made at G7

summits.

The G7 Compliance Simulator makes it possible to identify which G7 members are the least likely to fulfil their commitments – and commit the necessary resources to help them meet their obligations

Jessica Rapson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group

THE SIMULATOR

Research has shown that the underlying factors behind whether G7 members will comply with summit commitments primarily relate to immutable properties such as the economic position of the member or past compliance with similar commitments. These factors cannot be changed in the short term and thus

cannot be leveraged to improve the probability of compliance at the next summit. However, by building a model to predict compliance, it becomes possible to identify which members are least likely to meet their G7 commitments – enabling resources to be devoted to assisting them to fulfil their obligations. This could improve the overall effectiveness of the G7.

The G7 Compliance Simulator is such a model. The tool is freely accessible online (see below) so users can enter relevant information to identify which G7 members may need assistance in meeting their summit obligations.

HOW IT WORKS

Using each G7 member’s commitment outcomes for 655 individual commitments assessed for compliance (n = 5,994), the model fits the impact of various summit and commitment characteristics onto a binomial regression model.

This revealed that several key characteristics of summits and commitments were associated with a significant increase in the probability of a given member complying with a specific G7 commitment (see figure 1). Those characteristics are references to democracy or human rights, holding ministerial meetings before G7 summits, forming official G7 bodies on the relevant issue and hosting the summit.

Similarly, holding the presidency appeared to influence levels of compliance. Compliance levels were higher when the United Kingdom hosted the G7 summit and lower when France and Canada hosted (see figure 2). There was also variation in the probability of compliance across G7

Figure 2: Effect on probability of compliance by host

Figure 3: Effect of probability of compliance by member

The underlying factors behind whether G7 members will comply with summit commitments primarily relate to immutable properties such as the economic position of the member or past compliance with similar commitments”

Effect on probability of compliance by issue

Education

Trade

Terrorism

Environment

Health

Non-proliferation

Energy

Labour and employment

ICT and digitisation

International cooperation

Social policy

members. The European Union and United Kingdom were more likely to fulfil commitments; France, Japan, and Italy were less likely to do so (see figure 3). The probability of compliance varied by the area of focus as well. Compliance was more likely for commitments regarding social policy, international cooperation, information and communication technologies and digitalisation, labour and employment, and energy. Compliance was less likely for commitments on education and gender (see figure 4).

CAVEATS

Despite the many significant variables, the overall explanatory power of the model is very low. Even when all summit characteristics, members’ properties and commitment features are considered together, only 7.3% of the variance in G7 compliance could be explained (McFadden’s pseudo R2). This suggests that most G7 commitment outcomes may be determined by unknown factors or may be simply random.

Nonetheless, there is hope for increasing G7 effectiveness. All the significant variables examined can be combined into a model to predict

JESSICA RAPSON

Jessica Rapson is a senior researcher at the G7 and G20 Research Groups and a Master of Statistics candidate at the University of Oxford. She is also a graduate of the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Her work focuses on the usage of statistics in policy analysis. Twitter @g7_rg  www.g7.utoronto.ca

future compliance. The binomial logistic regression model can predict compliance in a holdout set with 67% accuracy, and a random forest classifier model trained on the same data can predict compliance with 70% accuracy. Although not perfect, this second model performs much better than chance, enabling potential compliance issues to be detected with the simulation tool as soon as commitments are made so that resources can be directed accordingly.

CONCLUSION

Increasing G7 effectiveness by leveraging factors associated with higher probabilities of compliance is extremely difficult, as most compliance is likely determined by factors outside the control of the G7. However, by using available data to predict future compliance, it may be possible to direct resources to assist members at higher risk of failing to meet their obligations –thus improving the overall ability of the G7 to achieve its goals.

Note: The compliance simulator can be accessed at https://g7-utoronto.shinyapps. io/compliance-tool. Full data and code are available at https://github.com/rapsoj/ g7-compliance.

Figure 4:

G7 Research Group

In the rapidly crisis-afflicted world of the 21st century, the Group of Seven major market democracies serves as an effective centre of comprehensive global governance. G7 members – the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada and the European Union – contain many of the world’s critical capabilities and are committed to democratic values. At its annual summit and through a web of G7-centred institutions at the ministerial, official and multi-stakeholder levels, the G7 does much to meet global challenges, especially in the fields of security, sustainable development and economics.

The G7 Research Group is a global network of scholars, students and professionals in the academic, research, media, business, non-governmental, governmental and intergovernmental communities who follow the work of the G7 and related institutions. The group’s mission is to serve as the world’s leading independent source of information, analysis and research on the G7. Founded in 1987, it is managed from Trinity College and the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. Professional Advisory Council members, Special Advisors, international affiliates and participating researchers together span the world. Through the G7 Research Group, Trinity’s John W. Graham Library has become the global repository of G7/8 documents, transcripts, media coverage, interviews, studies, essays, memorabilia and artifacts.

BOOKS ON THE G7 AND RELATED ISSUES FROM ROUTLEDGE

Reconfiguring the Global Governance of Climate Change

by John Kirton, Ella

Kokotsis and Brittaney Warren

Institutionalised

The online G7 Information Centre (www. g7.utoronto.ca) contains the world’s most comprehensive and authoritative collection of information and analysis on the G7. The G7 Research Group assembles, verifies and posts documents from the meetings leading up to and at each summit, the available official documentation of all past summits and ministerial meetings (in several G7 languages), scholarly writings and policy analyses, research studies, scholarship information, links to related sites and the “background books” for each summit now published by GT Media and the Global Governance Project (globalgovernanceproject.org). The website contains the G7 Research Group’s regular reports on G7 members’ compliance with their summit commitments, as well as other research reports.

Summits

in International Governance

by Daniel Odinius

Accountability for Effectiveness in Global Governance

edited by Marina

Larionova and John Kirton

The G7, Anti-Globalism and the Governance of Globalization

edited by Chiara Oldani and Jan Wouters

The New Economic Diplomacy

edited by Nicholas Bayne and Stephen Woolcock

Prospects for performance

At their summit in Elmau, Germany, in June 2022, G7 leaders made 545 commitments on a wide range of subjects, reflecting the transition to a post-pandemic and now war-scarred world. Alongside the ongoing economic, social and health recovery from Covid-19, climate change, the environment, energy, inclusive development and gender equality remained at the forefront of the summit agenda and action. Moreover, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 became a core focus, pushing the topic of regional security into the spotlight on Elmau’s centre stage.

Indeed, the 545 commitments were led by 65 on regional security, for 12% of the total, 59 on climate change for 11% and 49 on energy for 9%. Reflecting the G7’s distinctive foundational mission, leaders made 45 commitments on human rights and 42 on democracy, for 8% each. They made 40 on health and 36 on the environment, for 7% each, and 35 on food and agriculture for 6%, 25 on the digital economy for 5%, 22 on gender equality for 4%, and 19 on macroeconomic policy for 3%.

PRIORITY COMMITMENTS FOR ASSESSING COMPLIANCE

The G7 Research Group selected 21 priority commitments of the 545 total for monitoring members’ compliance. The selection was based on the proportion of the number of commitments on a particular subject. Thus, regional security, climate change and health had two each. One each was selected for energy, human rights, democracy, environment, food and agriculture, digital economy, gender, trade,

macroeconomics, crime and corruption, labour and employment, infrastructure, non-proliferation, terrorism and development.

INTERIM COMPLIANCE

The G7 Research Group’s analysis of all eight G7 members, including the European Union, assessed their compliance during the interim period from the end of the Elmau Summit on 28 June 2022, when the commitments were made, to 6 January 2023, after Japan assumed the 2023 presidency and halfway to the G7 summit in Hiroshima on 19–21 May. The final compliance report, covering the full period since Elmau, will be published on the eve of the Hiroshima Summit.

By 6 January, average compliance with Elmau’s 21 priority commitments was 85%, the same as the 2021 Cornwall Summit interim score but substantially lower than the 2020 US Virtual Summit’s interim score of 93%.

By subject, interim compliance with the 2022 Elmau Summit’s priority commitments was highest – 100% – on four commitments: two regional security commitments on Ukraine, one on energy security and one on macroeconomic growth. At the bottom, with 63%, were a commitment on climate change and health sustainability and another on non-proliferation.

In between, but close to the top came labour and employment, and infrastructure with 94% each. They were followed by five commitments with 88%: on decarbonising the power sector, human rights, democracy, food and agriculture, and the digital economy. Next, with 81%, were six on gender, free trade, non-communicable diseases, cooperation on extremism, transnational crime and debt transparency. The commitment on pandemic preparedness had 75%, and the environment commitment on funding for nature had 69%.

By member, the United Kingdom and the United States ranked first with 93% compliance. They were followed by Germany and

Whether the G7 can continue with the strong compliance it has achieved on commitments from the Elmau Summit is yet to be seen, but there are indicators that continued good performance is likely

Keah Sharma and Malhaar Moharir, co-chairs, Summit Studies, G7 Research Group

KEAH SHARMA

Keah Sharma is co-chair of summit studies for the G7 Research Group for Japan’s 2023 G7 presidency. She has been a lead analyst with the G7 Research Group and a compliance analyst and compliance director for the G20 Research Group. A third-year student at the University of Toronto, she is majoring in political science and minoring in contemporary Asian studies and literature and critical theory. Her research interests include international accountability and cooperation, digital transnational repression and the protection of human rights.

MALHAAR MOHARIR

Malhaar Moharir is co-chair of summit studies for the G7 Research Group for Japan’s 2023 G7 presidency. He is a fourth-year undergraduate student pursuing a double major in international relations and political science. He has worked with the Global Governance Research Groups since 2019, serving as a compliance analyst, lead analyst and compliance director with the G7 and G20 Research Groups. His research interests include global institutions, political economy, geopolitics and international security. Twitter @g7_rg  www.g7.utoronto.ca

545

12

the European Union at 90%, Canada at 88%, France at 83%, Japan at 74% and Italy at 67%.

PROSPECTS

Final compliance will likely vary by subject. The primary driver will be how the war in Ukraine unfolds. Given the steadfast resolve of G7 members and allies, compliance with the regional and energy security commitments will remain at 100%, backed by continued sanctions on Russian president Vladimir Putin’s regime and his war effort.

On energy, the G7, and Europe in particular, will continue to focus on managing fuel shortages and price hikes. They have fared well here so far. As seasonal temperatures begin to rise, one can expect a renewed focus on decarbonisation and the green transition. This could help raise the G7’s compliance with its climate change commitments.

With the historical symbolism of Hiroshima as the summit site and the increasing threat of nuclear war, the G7’s relatively low interim compliance on its non-proliferation commitment may improve.

Compliance with the macroeconomic commitments on inclusive growth will remain high, following the trend of historically high G7 compliance on this subject over the years. Compliance on the health-related commitments will likely rise. Given the lasting economic and structural ramifications of the Covid-19 pandemic, it would be appropriate for G7 members to acknowledge the need for concrete action to respond to the threat of another pandemic and the precarity of global health institutions.

With the historical symbolism of Hiroshima as the summit site and the increasing threat of nuclear war, the G7’s relatively low interim compliance on its non-proliferation commitment may improve”

commitments made at the G7 Elmau Summit

% of these were on regional security

Counting on Japan

The G7 matters to Japan. By inviting Prime Minister Takeo Miki to the first G7 summit in Rambouillet in November 1975, Japan’s North American and European partners recognised the country as a contemporary democratic great power. This inclusive approach stood in stark contrast to other mechanisms of global governance that excluded Japan in various ways. The G7 provided the Japanese government with an opportunity to pursue national interests closely related to the G7’s traditional agenda of macroeconomic policies as well as seemingly unrelated issues, such as territorial disputes. It also provided Japan’s prime minister of the day with an opportunity to leverage the summit in an attempt to boost his domestic approval ratings. In addition to promoting these

The Hiroshima Summit is likely to be one of the most security-focused summits in G7 history, with Japan making clear that it can be counted upon to lead

Hugo Dobson, School of East Asian Studies, University of Sheffield

People gather at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial

interests, Japan’s approach to the G7 summit has been informed by three norms.

First, the norm of bilateralism has been a central feature of Japan’s foreign policy since the Anglo-Japanese alliance of 1902. The Japanese government has used the opportunity provided by the G7 to engage with the United States and manage what has repeatedly been referred to as ‘the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none’. Second, as the only Asian country to be represented within the G7, Japan’s government has responded to the norm of Asianism and appointed itself as the region’s representative (Ajia no daihyō). In this role, it has sought to insert Asian concerns into a summit of predominantly North American and European leaders. Finally, the norm of internationalism has shaped Japan’s commitment to be a responsible member of the international community and made it the most consistent host of successful summits, according to the G7 Research Group. It is likely that a melange of national interests and normative impulses will continue to shape the approach to, and outcomes of, the Hiroshima Summit this year.

CHALLENGING INFORMALITY

At the same time, the G7’s emphasis on informality has proved to be challenging for the Japanese prime minister historically. Masayoshi Ohira, host of the 1979 Tokyo Summit, the first to be held in Japan, was reported to have said after the event that “I felt naked –like a little child”. The Japanese media frequently use the three Ss of smiling, sleeping and silent to describe their prime ministers’ behaviour at the summits. However, proactive and vocal prime ministers such as Yasuhiro Nakasone in the 1980s and Junichiro Koizumi in the 2000s, and especially Shinzo Abe as Japan’s longest serving prime minister from 2012 to 2020, have dispelled this reputation for passivity. Abe sought to challenge post-war norms of Japan’s foreign and security policies by promoting an eponymous foreign policy ‘doctrine’ that advocated securing Japan’s great power status by building an economically strong Japan, promoting a more proactive and robust Japanese security role, and engaging in historical revisionism to challenge post-war taboos and constraints. ‘Japan is back’ became the oft-repeated mantra of Abe’s prime ministership and G7 summitry provided another arena to advance this doctrine. When appointed prime minister in 2021, Fumio Kishida was widely regarded as providing continuity in Japanese leadership, and having become Japan’s longest serving foreign minister under Abe, it is likely that he will pursue similar goals.

HUGO DOBSON

Hugo Dobson is professor of Japan’s international relations in the School of East Asian Studies at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. His research focuses on international relations, multilateral organisations and global governance, especially the G7, G20 and Japan’s role therein. This has resulted in several publications including Japan and the G7/G8, 1975–2002 (Routledge, 2004), The Group of 7/8 (Routledge, 2007), Japan’s International Relations: Politics, Economics and Security (third edition, Routledge, 2011) and The G20: Member Insights and Perspectives (Edward Elgar, forthcoming).

FOCUS ON SECURITY

Forty years ago, at the height of the Cold War, security issues dominated the 1983 Williamsburg Summit. Prime Minister Nakasone flew in the face of domestic anti-militarist sentiment and signed up to a political statement that brought Japan firmly into the West’s security alliance by declaring that “the security of our countries is indivisible and must be approached on a global basis”. The Hiroshima Summit is likely to be one of the most security-focused summits since Williamsburg. How the G7 can support Ukraine against Russia’s invasion will continue to dominate discussions, having already influenced Kishida’s choice of venue because of the message it can send against the use of nuclear weapons. At the same time, Prime Minister Kishida has revised key defence documents and is pursuing a radical and controversial expansion of Japan’s defence budget and capabilities. Since the beginning of 2023, Prime Minister Kishida and his G7 partners have signed historic defence agreements, pledged to strengthen ties or declared the inseparability of their security in light of actual conflict in Ukraine and potential conflict in East Asia. Prime Minister Kishida has linked the two by emphasising that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow”.

Kishida’s position as prime minister may not be wholly secure. However, it is clear that Japan is back, and can be counted upon to lead.

How the G7 can support Ukraine against Russia’s invasion will continue to dominate discussions, having already influenced Kishida’s choice of venue because of the message it can send against the use of nuclear weapons”

A symbolic summit

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s choices on venue and agenda for the 2023 G7 Summit reflect his aspirations for a summit of great impact

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida boldly chose Hiroshima as the venue for the 2023 G7 summit. In recent G7 history, it has been common to choose ‘retreat style’ settings to avoid security problems. To hold the leaders’ meeting in a city of more than one million habitants is quite exceptional.

Junichi Takase, director, Research Institute of New Global Societies, Nagoya University of Foreign Studies

Hiroshima is known throughout the world as the site of the atomic bombing in 1945. It is rare that the name of the city itself can suggest what should be discussed at a G7 summit. That is why Prime Minister Kishida chose Hiroshima. As he is elected by the constituency of Hiroshima, anti-nuclear proliferation is always on his mind.

In 2016, as foreign minister, Mr Kishida hosted the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Hiroshima. And just after the Ise-Shima Summit that year, US president Barack Obama visited the city, thanks in part to Mr Kishida’s efforts.

On 1 August 2022, Prime Minister Kishida addressed the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. He spoke on his proposed Hiroshima Action Plan, promising “Japan will promote the accurate understanding on the realities of nuclear weapons use through encouraging visits to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by international leaders and others”. And he made it clear that he wants the G7 Hiroshima Summit “to demonstrate our firm commitment from Hiroshima to never repeat the catastrophe of atomic bombings”.

STRONG MESSAGES

In light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Prime Minister Kishida has a good chance of persuading the other G7 leaders to issue a strong message on nonproliferation, or at least of the non-use of nuclear weapons. This should be historically significant. The Hiroshima Summit is destined to be successful by virtue of its venue.

Another Japanese city, Nagasaki, was bombed in 1945. In May 2023, at one of the 15 ministerial meetings under the Japanese G7 presidency, G7 health ministers will meet there.

Japan has devoted itself to fostering global health and human security at G7 meetings, especially when it has hosted. At the Okinawa Summit in 2000, Japan put infectious diseases on the leaders’ agenda. In the communiqué, Japan and the G7 promised to hold an international meeting on infectious and parasitic diseases, which led to the establishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

At the 2008 Hokkaido Summit, leaders agreed to the Toyako Framework for Action on Global Health. At the Ise-Shima Summit in 2016, leaders

JUNICHI TAKASE

Junichi Takase has been the director of the Research Institute of New Global Societies at the Nagoya University of Foreign Studies since 2019. He joined NUFS in 1994 and served as dean of global governance and collaboration from 2017 to 2019. He has also taught at Waseda University. He has published five books on Japanese politics and two on G7 summitry (in Japanese), and coauthored or coedited more than a dozen, including New Directions in Global Political Governance

assembled their commitments to global health in the G7 Ise-Shima Vision for Global Health. Japan has thus contributed substantially to global health when it has hosted G7 summits.

Prime Minister Kishida has stated openly that human security and universal health coverage should be addressed by the G7 leaders in Hiroshima. In his article “Human security and universal health coverage: Japan’s vision for the G7 Hiroshima Summit” published in The

Lancet, he wrote: “In May, 2023, Japan will host the G7 Summit Meeting in Hiroshima and the G7 Health Ministers’ Meeting in Nagasaki—in the Cities of Peace. At these meetings, building on the discussions and outcomes of previous G7 meetings, I intend to highlight the strategic importance of undertaking efforts on human security and UHC [universal health coverage] as central to the Japanese Government's vision for the Summit.”

JAPAN’S FORTE

Prime Minister Kishida, reflecting on previous Japan-hosted summits, recognises global health as Japan’s forte. By choosing the symbolic city of Nagasaki as the venue for the health ministers’ meeting, he is ensuring progress in G7 discussions in this field.

Hiroshima, which faces the Seto Inland Sea, is also an appropriate place to discuss marine pollution. Prime Minister Kishida is considering using the Itsukushima Shrine, famous for its floating red torii gate, as a place for the discussion on global warming.

At the G20 Osaka Summit, which Japan hosted in 2019, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe led the discussion of the Osaka Blue Ocean Vision, which promised to reduce marine plastic litter to zero by 2050. It is thus natural for the Hiroshima Summit to express support for enacting the new legally binding instrument now being discussed by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution established in 2022.

Prime Minister Kishida’s intention to use the symbolic aspects of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki seems a very good political choice to make this year’s G7 summit a great success.

It is rare that the name of the city itself can suggest what should be discussed at a G7 summit …

The Hiroshima Summit is destined to be successful by virtue of its venue”

The G7 seemingly rediscovered its unity and purpose during the 2022 German presidency and its Elmau Summit in June. Leaders and foreign ministers also held several extra meetings, with the forum functioning as a crisis committee on the war in Ukraine. Galvanised by contemporary challenges, the G7 increasingly prioritises its cooperation and stewardship of liberal-democratic values in the face of authoritarian threats.

This G7 rejuvenation follows years of uncertainty about its future, especially since the diplomatic elevation of the more inclusive, although still selective, G20 amid the 2008 global financial crisis. The Trump administration in the United States heightened doubts about the G7’s viability as a supposedly like-minded normative ‘club’ of liberal democracies, by escalating group disagreements on trade and the World Trade Organization, climate and emissions targets, the World Health Organization during the Covid-19 pandemic, security and North Atlantic Treaty Organization defence spending, and multilateralism in general. The election of Joe Biden as president and the war in Ukraine subsequently contributed to reviving solidarity within the G7.

At a joint Think 7–Think 20 roundtable discussion in February 2023, several speakers noted a recent ‘fracturing’ of multilateralism. This echoed what Amitav Acharya of American University calls an increasingly “multiplex world” of parallel, and potentially complementary or competing, architectures within global governance. This is not yet tantamount to an irrevocable fragmentation of multilateralism; Indonesia’s G20 presidency in 2022, for example, was praised for achieving a joint leaders’ declaration at its Bali Summit in November. Meetings such as the G20 finance ministerial in Bengaluru in February 2023, however, have become antagonistic occasions, pitting G7 members against Russia and China. Tensions have been exacerbated by ‘spy balloon’ allegations and G7 sanctions on Russia.

TRANSCENDING POLICY SILOS

It is often claimed that the G7 gives prominence to security and political issues while the G20 focuses on economic cooperation. The wide-ranging international effects of the conflict in Ukraine transcend such policy silos. The agendas of the G7, G20 and, on some issues, also the United Nations still include considerable overlap and symmetries. The G7 and G20 tie much of their policy engagement

Renewed unity, fresh purpose

The G7 is experiencing rejuvenation following years of uncertainty about its future, but challenges regarding the group’s engagement with the G20 and United Nations remain

Jonathan Luckhurst, professor of international relations, Soka University

to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Framework Convention on Climate Change, particularly the 2015 Paris Agreement. Many politicians, diplomats and experts believe the G7 should try to influence the G20 agenda, including on the SDGs, climate and emissions targets, and other global public goods such as the One Health Initiative and pandemic preparedness.

Indonesia’s G20 presidency prevented the war in Ukraine from scuppering the Bali leaders’

JONATHAN LUCKHURST

Jonathan Luckhurst is a professor of international relations at the Graduate School of International Peace Studies of Soka University in Tokyo. His recent books include The G20 Since the Global Crisis (2016) and The Shifting Global Economic Architecture (2017). His research focuses on transnational networks and shifting authority, ideas and beliefs in global governance. He participates in the Think 7 and Think 20 engagement groups and is a member of the Global Solutions Initiative expert working group on Rethinking Multilateralism and Global Governance.

declaration, but foreign policy and security issues have long influenced the larger forum’s agenda –on terrorism, Ukraine, Syria and other topics. G7 governments emphasise their support for liberaldemocratic principles, the UN Charter and the rules-based international order in condemning Russian actions in Ukraine. Diplomacy and more substantive steps might help to mitigate Global South concerns about the G7’s Russia-targeting sanctions, especially their perceived consequences for global food and energy supplies. There is also a legacy of skepticism about G7 inconsistency on non-intervention norms among some G20 members and G77 states at the UN. Whatever the merits of these concerns, the G7 should gradually try to assuage them.

Japan’s G7 presidency combines earlier and more recent priorities – the war in Ukraine, nuclear security and non-proliferation, energy supply problems, food security, inflation and global economic woes, climate, the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ‘build back better’ agenda, plus relations with the Global South. The G7 should engage with India’s 2023 G20 presidency in seeking progress on these issues. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has stressed the importance of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament for the G7, in a speech to the International Group of Eminent Persons for a World without Nuclear Weapons in December 2022. This was symbolised by the choice of Hiroshima as the venue for the summit in May 2023; Russia’s suspension of its participation in the New START nuclear weapons treaty indicates the contemporary resonance.

LONG-TERM PRIORITIES

G7 delegations should discuss long-term strategic priorities at Hiroshima, as many commentators perceive a definitive break with the post–Cold War era. The group’s nearly 50 years of cooperation on international challenges might assist its diplomacy with G20 and UN members. The G7 should listen to Global South concerns and ease the burden on low- and middle-income societies managing climate and economic transitions, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic and what has been characterised as a polycrisis in world affairs. Financial costs might be more than compensated, were such engagement to strengthen rules-based multilateralism and global governance.

Twitter @JonLuckhurst

The election of Joe Biden as president and the war in Ukraine subsequently contributed to reviving solidarity within the G7”

Soudah, Where Adventure Meets Tranquility