PM heads home on a high note but aid agencies cast doubt on progress made in L'Aquila
Larry Elliott and Patrick Wintour in L'Aquila
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 July 2009 23.43 BST
For Gordon Brown, it was his best week since he hosted the London G20 summit three months ago. Then, the honeymoon was cut brutally short by the scandal involving his special adviser, Damian McBride. This time, Brown's summit in the earthquake city of L'Aquila was made all the sweeter by news from home that it was a Tory spin doctor, Andy Coulson, who was in hot water.
Italy's turn to host the annual talkathon got off to an inauspicious start, with criticism of Silvio Berlusconi for slashing his aid budget and bitching behind the scenes about Rome's failure to set an ambitious agenda.
Nor – despite today's declaration that the three-day meeting had been a resounding success – was there more than patchy progress. The summit edged forward at a glacial pace on climate change, set a 2010 deadline for the conclusion of trade talks, expressed concern about the state of the global economy and concluded with a package of food aid denounced immediately as smoke and mirrors by aid agencies.
"The G8 is cooking the books and cooking the planet," said Max Lawson, policy adviser to Oxfam.
None of this mattered to Brown, who was in his element as he sat next to Barack Obama for the duration of the talks, discussing what needed to be done to prevent Iran and North Korea getting nuclear weapons and how the deal between India and the United States over the special safeguard mechanism, a device that allows poor countries to protect their farmers from a surge in imports, could unlock the trade talks.
Politically, summits tend to be good for leaders, and while Berlusconi lost no opportunity to showcase himself, and Obama put in a performance on his G8 debut that was both polished and engaged, it was Brown who had most to gain. Downing Street was adept at using Sarah Brown to burnish her husband's image, letting the UK media know all about her meeting with the pope, what she wore to pick through the earthquake debris and even that she twice sent back veal at the spouses' meals on Thursday.
Unsurprisingly, the prime minister was in bullish moodtoday as he addressed a closing press conference before a brief visit to the still rubble-strewn streets of L'Aquila. "We have reached important conclusions about food and famine," he said, announcing that Britain would provide $1.8bn (£1.1bn) to a $20bn food security fund and that there had been progress on climate change and boosting growth.
In truth, the achievements of the summit were – as usual – far more modest than the hyperbole would suggest. Brown and Obama insisted that the G8 should focus on the possibility that a fragile global economy could suffer a double-dip recession, but there were precious few ideas for what policy makers could do if their emergency measures failed to boost growth.
Nor was the new era of openness and transparency about how the G8 was doing in relation to promises made at previous summits quite what it was cracked up to be. Under pressure from Brown, the G8 agreed to publish an "accountability framework" to monitor each member's spending in development sectors such as food, water, health and education. But the data were incomplete, used questionable methodology and omitted to mention the most important test of all – how G8 countries were doing against the pledge made at Gleneagles four years ago to double aid by $50bn.
With the months ticking away to the Copenhagen summit in December, it was climate change that took up most time in L'Aquila. That negotiation is going to be the biggest test of world leaders' ability to turn good intentions into hard reality, and almost create a unprecedented form of world governance. The negotiation involves an elaborate diplomatic dance, with the developing nations – Brazil, Mexico, India, China and South Africa – refusing to spell out future commitments until they have seen the kind of pledges that the G8 nations, especially the US, will make, both in terms of funding green technology in developing nations and in making hard commitments to specific carbon reduction targets by 2020. At the moment the two sides are far apart.
Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba, the lead co-ordinator on climate change for the developing countries, told the Guardian that a 25%-40%cut by the developed nations by 2020 is based on what UN climate change scientists have recommended. The suave De Alba will be central to the success, or otherwise, of Copenhagen. He gave some ground by saying: "It does not have to be a specific target of 40%. That is what we hope to achieve, but this is a process of negotiation." But he added: "We still need to see numbers. We respect the internal debate in the US, but it is important for the US to understand that this is a global issue and a multilateral negotiation. We cannot just sit and wait to see what the internal debate in the US resolves." De Alba pointed out that Mexico had already come up with its own carbon reduction programme, and he expected other developing nations to do the same in the coming months. But progress will depend on the extent to which funding is provided by the rich countries. Here Brown has been ahead of his colleagues by proposing a $100bn-a-year fund. Brown came late to climate change, but now seems fully engaged. Advisers will also be telling him that political mileage exists on the issue, in that Tory Euroscepticism mangles David Cameron's green credentials.
Although it will take more than summitry to give Brown a chance at the next general election, there is certainly no shortage of opportunities to take the global stage between now and the expected polling day next year. In September a meeting of the UN general assembly will be followed immediately by a G20 gathering in Pittsburgh. Then, if environment ministers run into trouble at Copenhagen in December, there is the possibility that world leaders will fly in to take charge. Next spring Obama is planning a summit on nuclear proliferation.
After that the G8 circus moves on to Muskoka, two hours' drive north of Toronto. Between now and then Canada holds a general election and there is speculation that Stephen Harper may not be around to enjoy the summit's halo effect. He may not be the only new face round the table.