2006 st. petersburg final compliance update...igor churkin natalia churkina maria kaloshkina arina...
TRANSCRIPT
G8 Research Group
2006 St. Petersburg FinalCompliance Update
Brian Kolenda & Matto Mildenberger – Co-Directors, Compliance Unit
Janet Chow – Chair, G8 Research Group
Dr. Marina Larionova – Director, G8 Research Group (Moscow)
Thüringer Landesvertretung, Berlin
1 June 2007
2G8 Research Group
Acknowledgements
The G8RG Compliance Team
♣ Professor John Kirton, Director, G8 Research Group
♣Madeline Koch, Managing Director, G8 Research Group
♣ Dr. Ella Kokotsis, Director of Analytical Research, G8 ResearchGroup
♣ Dr. Marina Larionova, Chair, HSE Research Team
♣ Janet Chow, Student Chair, G8 Research Group
♣ Brian Kolenda, Co-Director, Compliance Unit
♣Matto Mildenberger, Co-Director, Compliance Unit
♣ Laura Sunderland, Senior Researcher, G8 Research Group
♣ Katya Gorbunova, HSE Research Team Leader
3G8 Research Group
Acknowledgements
Team Leaders
Héloïse Apestéguy-Reux Brian Kolenda Matto Mildenberger Julia Muravska
Sadia Rafiquddin Samreen Beg Jeff Claydon Michael Erdman
Courtney Hood Susan Khazaeli James Meers Jonathan Scotland
Cliff Vanderlinden
University of Toronto Analysts
Zeeshawn Ali Dunja Apostolov John Alexander Ashbourne Fritz Bartel Greg Beres Farnam Bidgoli Viktor Brech Giovanni Bruno Navona Calarco Frances Cation Oana Chivaran Christian Cianfrone Rasta Daei Gabriel De Roche Hana Dhanji Kirby Dier Mark Donald Kyle D'Souza Qi Fang Erin Fitzgerald Charlotte Freeman-Shaw
Katrin Geenen Yinuo Geng Matthias Gerber Aaron Ghobarah Sandro Gianella Gunwat Gill Erin Haines Ioana Hancas Sina Hariri Haley Hatch John Howell Sophia Huda Stephanie Ing Maria Delia Ionescu Taleen Jakujyan Katherine Kanczuga Rustana Kardasovski Adrianna Kardynal Nadjiba Karimi Sahar Kazranian Aftab Khan
Aisha Khan Susan Khazaeli Mila Khodskaya Sarah Kim Sarah Koerner Kathryn Kotris Catherine Kunz Augustine Kwok Alexandra Lapin Mariann Lau Stephanie Law Dana Lepshokova Philippa Leslie Anita Li Iryna Lozynska Ekaterina Mamontova Aziza Mohammed Sumera Nabi Dediu Adina Nicoleta Elvira Omarbagaeva Egor Ouzikov
Hilary Peden Bonny Poon Kayla Pries Jen Quito Esmahan Razavi Farah Saleem Doug Sarro Daniela Scur Vera Serdiuk Golta Shahidi Dipna Singh Joseph Tabago Christopher VanBerkum Frida Wallin Jeremy Weiss Venus Yam Loretta Yau Tatyana Zeljkovic
State University Higher School of Economics (Moscow) Analysts
Elena Bylina Igor Churkin
Natalia Churkina Maria Kaloshkina
Arina Shadrikova Yulaj Sultanov
Yuriy Zaitsev
4G8 Research Group
Contents
I. Compliance
II. 2006 Final Compliance Results
III. Results by Country
IV. Results by Issue Area
V. Interim vs. Final Compliance
VI. Predicting Compliance
VII. Conclusion
VIII. HSE Compliance Report
IX. Alternative Perspectives
X. Contact
5G8 Research Group
I. Compliance
Why perform compliance assessments?
♣ Determine the overall effectiveness of the Summit process
♣ Assess to what extent the G8 process has an impact onsovereign states’ policies
♣ Assess how much credibility the leaders bring to the Summittable
♣ Provide transparency and accountability to the Summits
Compliance reports assess to what extent the G8members live up to commitments made at
their annual summits
6G8 Research Group
I. Compliance
Commitments
♣ G8 leaders agree to a diverse range of commitments at everySummit
♣ Commitments need to be:
¬ Deliberate;
¬ Discrete;
¬ Future-oriented; and
¬ Collectively expressed and publicly agreed upon
G8 leaders agreed to 317 commitmentsat St. Petersburg
7G8 Research Group
I. Compliance
Selecting commitments to analyse
♣ Primary Selection Criteria
¬ Importance for the summit, the G8 and the world
¬ Comprehensiveness
¬ Balance:
– By document
– Temporality
– Geography
– Ambition
♣ The G8 Research Group selected 20 St. Petersburg commitmentsas a representative sample
8G8 Research Group
I. Compliance
What is “compliance”?
♣ Compliance happens when national governments alter behaviourto meet a summit target
♣ Compliance can take a number of forms:
¬ Official reaffirmation
¬ Internal bureaucratic review and representation
¬ Budgetary and resource allocations are made or changed
¬ New or altered programs, legislation and regulations
9G8 Research Group
I. Compliance
Measuring compliance
♣ Method devised by Dr. Ella Kokotsis, Director of AnalyticalStudies, G8 Research Group
♣ Building on methodology first developed by Von Furstenberg andDaniels
♣ Each country’s compliance with each issue assessed
♣ Three-tier scoring system:
¬ +1: Full or nearly full compliance with a commitment
¬ -1: Complete or nearly complete failure to implement acommitment
¬ 0: A "work in progress“
♣ Interpretive guidelines were created for each commitment
10G8 Research Group
I. Compliance
The compliance reports
♣ Two reports produced annually
♣ Interim reports
¬ Prepared every January
¬ Summarize G8 compliance from Summit through 31 December
♣ Final reports
¬ Prepared immediately before following Summit
¬ Assesses G8 compliance during the entire period betweenSummits
11G8 Research Group
II. 2006 Final Compliance
How has the G8 performed since St. Petersburg?
♣ G8 countries have taken some actions to comply with their St.Petersburg commitments
♣ Significant efforts would have been needed to fully meet targets
♣ Lowest final compliance since Kananaskis
¬ 0.65 - Gleneagles (2005)
¬ 0.54 - Sea Island (2004)
¬ 0.51 - Evian (2003)
¬ 0.33 - Kananaskis (2002)
¬ 0.53 – Genoa (2001)
St. Petersburg Final Compliance Score: 0.46
12G8 Research Group
II. 2006 Final Compliance
G8 performance since 1996
2006 G8 Final Compliance Score: 0.46
0.40
0.27
0.39
0.78
0.53
0.27
0.480.51
0.39
0.54
0.47
0.65
0.45
0.46
0.350.33
0.39
0.48
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Average Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
13G8 Research Group
0.60
0.40
0.55
0.00
0.40
0.60 0.600.58
0.460.45
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Canada France Germany Italy Japan Russia United
Kingdom
United
States
European
Union
G8+EU
2006 Final
II. 2006 Final Compliance
2006 G8 performance
2006 G8 Final Compliance Score: 0.46
14G8 Research Group
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Canada France Germany Italy Japan Russia United
Kingdom
United
States
European
Union
G8+EU
2006 Final Country Interim Avg. Country Final Avg. Interim Avg. Final Avg.
II. 2006 Final Compliance
2006 G8 performance (cont’d)
2006 G8 Compliance Historical Comparison
15G8 Research Group
III. Results by Country
Compliance is generally down across the board
-8%-12%All G8 + EU
-13%-17%European Union
-19%-18%United States
-9%-12%United Kingdom
+28%+27%Russia
-18%-8%Japan
-34%-23%Italy
+9%-18%Germany
-16%-11%France
-8%-12%Canada
2006 Interim% Change2005-2006
2006 Final% Change2005-2006
16G8 Research Group
III. Results by Country
Host performance: How did Russia do?
2006 Russia Final Compliance Score: 0.45
0.00
0.34
0.17
0.00
0.42
0.33
0.00
0.06
0.25
0.45
0.140.140.14
0.11
N/A
0.13
0.17
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Russia Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
17G8 Research Group
III. Results by Country
Germany’s presidency: Off to a good start
2006 Germany Final Compliance Score: 0.55
0.58
0.17
0.25
0.17
1.00
0.59
0.08
0.18
0.42
0.50 0.50
0.67
0.88
0.55
0.33
0.45
0.36
0.50
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Germany Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
18G8 Research Group
III. Results by Country
Canada: Race to the Finish
2006 Canada Final Compliance Score: 0.60
0.47
0.17
0.50
0.67
0.83 0.82
0.77
0.82 0.83
0.50
0.72
0.81
0.45
0.60
0.52
0.58
0.56
0.66
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Canada Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
19G8 Research Group
IV. Results by Issue
Not all commitments are born(e) equal
♣ Russia identified three priority issue areas as host:
¬ Energy Security
¬ Health and Infectious Diseases
¬ Education
♣ Some commitments are easier than others
♣ Different commitments place different burdens on each member
¬ e.g. Climate Change, Global Partnership
20G8 Research Group
No. Issue Area CAD FRA GER ITA JAP RUS UK USA EU
Issue
Average
1 Health (Global Fund) 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0.56
2 Health (Tuberculosis) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.22
3 Health (Polio) 1 0 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0.44
4 Energy (Oil and Energy Reserve Data
Collection)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
5 Energy Intensity 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.33
6 Surface Transport 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.44
7 Renewable Energy 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
8 Climate Change 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.67
9 Education (Academic Mobility) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.44
10 Education (Qualification Systems) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.33
11 Education (Gender Disparities) 1 1 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0.22
12 Africa (Security) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.44
13 Africa (Debt Relief) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
14 Transnational Crime and Corruption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
15 Intellectual Property Rights 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 N/A 0.13
16 Trade (Export Subsidies, Agriculture) 0 -1 1 -1 1 0 1 0 0 0.11
17 Counter-terrorism (Energy) 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.56
18 Stabilization and Reconstruction (UN) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
19 Global Partnership (Non-Proliferation) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.56
20 Middle East (Lebanon) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
Country Average: 0.60 0.40 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.58
IV. Results by Issue
How did the G8 perform on the issues?
21G8 Research Group
1.00 1.00
0.89 0.89
0.67
0.56 0.56
0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44
0.33 0.33
0.22 0.22
0.13 0.11
0.00 0.00
0.56
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
JOD
I
Lebanon
Renew
able
s
Afr
ica D
ebt
Clim
ate
Glo
bal Fund
Terr
orism
Non-P
rolife
ration
Polio
Tra
nsport
Edu M
obility
Afr
ica S
ecurity
Inte
nsity
Edu Q
ualification
TB
Edu G
ender
IPR
Tra
de
Crim
e /
Corr
uption
UN
Refo
rm
IV. Results by Issue
Issue areas sorted by compliance score
2006 Final G8 Issue Area Performance
22G8 Research Group
1.00
0.44
0.89
0.67
0.33
0.80
0.62
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Energy (Oil and Energy
Reserve Data Collection)
Energy Intensity Surface Transport Renewable Energy Climate Change
2006 Final Energy Security Energy Avg. (1996-2006) Environment Avg. (1996-2006)
IV. Results by Issue
Energy Security
2006 Final G8 Energy Security Performance
23G8 Research Group
0.56
0.44
0.22
0.53
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Health (Global Fund) Health (Tuberculosis) Health (Polio)
2006 Final Health Health Avg. (1996-2006)
IV. Results by Issue
Health
2006 Final G8 Health Performance
24G8 Research Group
0.22
0.33
0.440.47
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Education (Academic Mobility) Education (Qualification Systems) Education (Gender Disparities)
2006 Final Education Education Avg. (1996-2006)
IV. Results by Issue
Education
2006 Final G8 Education Performance
25G8 Research Group
1.00
0.44
0.89
0.67
0.22
0.44 0.44
0.33
0.22
0.56
0.33
0.67
0.41
0.33
0.46
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
JOD
I
Inte
nsity
Tra
nsport
Renew
able
s
Clim
ate
Glo
bal Fund
TB
Polio
Edu M
obility
Edu
Qualifications
Edu G
ender
2006 Final Priorities Energy Security Final Avg. Health Final Avg. Education Final Avg. All Issue Final Avg.
IV. Results by Issue
Priorities compared
2006 Final G8 Priority Performance
26G8 Research Group
V. Interim vs. Final Compliance
2006 Interim Compliance ScoresNo. Issue Area CAD FRA GER ITA JAP RUS UK USA EU
Issue
Average
1 Health (Global Fund) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22
2 Health (Tuberculosis) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
3 Health (Polio) 1 0 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0.44
4 Energy (Oil and Energy Reserve Data Collection)1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
5 Energy Intensity 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.33
6 Surface Transport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.22
7 Renewable Energy 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.67
8 Climate Change -1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.56
9 Education (Academic Mobility) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.11
10 Education (Qualification Systems) 0 0 1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 1 0.00
11 Education (Gender Disparities) 1 1 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0.22
12 Africa (Security) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.22
13 Africa (Debt Relief) 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.67
14 Transnational Crime and Corruption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
15 Intellectual Property Rights 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 N/A 0.13
16 Trade (Export Subsidies, Agriculture) 1 -1 1 -1 1 0 1 0 0 0.22
17 Counter-terrorism (Energy) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.11
18 Stabilization and Reconstruction (UN) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
19 Global Partnership (Non-Proliferation) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.78
20 Middle East (Lebanon) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
Country Average: 0.45 0.30 0.45 -0.10 0.30 0.25 0.55 0.35 0.58
All Country Average: 0.35
All Issue Average: 0.35
27G8 Research Group
V. Interim vs. Final Compliance
2006 Final Compliance ScoresNo. Issue Area CAD FRA GER ITA JAP RUS UK USA EU
Issue
Average
1 Health (Global Fund) 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0.56
2 Health (Tuberculosis) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.22
3 Health (Polio) 1 0 1 -1 0 1 1 1 0 0.44
4 Energy (Oil and Energy Reserve Data
Collection)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
5 Energy Intensity 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.33
6 Surface Transport 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.44
7 Renewable Energy 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
8 Climate Change 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.67
9 Education (Academic Mobility) 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.44
10 Education (Qualification Systems) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.33
11 Education (Gender Disparities) 1 1 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0.22
12 Africa (Security) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.44
13 Africa (Debt Relief) 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
14 Transnational Crime and Corruption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
15 Intellectual Property Rights 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 N/A 0.13
16 Trade (Export Subsidies, Agriculture) 0 -1 1 -1 1 0 1 0 0 0.11
17 Counter-terrorism (Energy) 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.56
18 Stabilization and Reconstruction (UN) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
19 Global Partnership (Non-Proliferation) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.56
20 Middle East (Lebanon) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
Country Average: 0.60 0.40 0.55 0.00 0.40 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.58
All Country Average: 0.46
All Issue Average: 0.46
28G8 Research Group
V. Interim vs. Final Compliance
G8 performance since 1996
2006 G8 Final Compliance Score: 0.46
0.40
0.27
0.39
0.78
0.53
0.27
0.480.51
0.39
0.54
0.47
0.65
0.45
0.46
0.350.33
0.39
0.48
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Average Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
29G8 Research Group
VI. Predicting Compliance
Importance of commitment
♣Measured as total commitments in communiqué of interest as afraction of total St. Petersburg commitments (n=317)
♣ Significant relationship between compliance (-1.0 to +1.0) andimportance (0 to 1.0)
¬ R= 0.50; R2 = 25%, F-test Significance level = 0.029
¬ Compliance increases with decreasing importance
y = 0.2374x + 0.0648
R2 = 0.2533
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Importance
Compliance
2006 Final Compliance vs. Importance Linear (2006 Final Compliance vs. Importance)
30G8 Research Group
VI. Predicting Compliance
Measuring ambition of commitments
♣ Commitment is a new G8 initiative
♣ Commitment contains specific actions
♣ Commitment references target dates
♣ Commitment creates new institutions
♣ Commitment is from a new agenda item
♣ Previous research points to target dates as a compliance catalyst
♣ No evidence that the ambition index, or any measures ofcommitment ambition increased compliance scores for the St.Petersburg summit
31G8 Research Group
VII. Conclusion
The final compliance results are in
♣ Compliance is down (except Russia); but so is the compliance gap
¬ The disparity between the high and low country scores is 0.60,from a high of 0.81 at the Gleneagles interim
¬ Russia, Germany and US outperforming historical averages
¬ Increases in performance over interim compliance report for 10of 20 commitments
♣ Energy security agenda a relative success; health and educationagendas underperform
The St. Petersburg Legacy:?
32G8 Research Group
VIII. HSE Compliance Report
Russia Compliance
2006 Russia Final Compliance Score: 0.45
0.00
0.34
0.17
0.00
0.42
0.33
0.00
0.06
0.25
0.45
0.140.140.14
0.11
N/A
0.13
0.17
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Russia Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
33G8 Research Group
IX. Alternative Perspectives
G8 Research Group (Oxford) Environment Performance Report
-0.40
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.40
-0.40
0.60
0.20
1.00
0.00
-0.20 -0.20
0.20
0.00
0.18
-0.04
0.10
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
Canada
Fra
nce
Germ
any
Italy
Japan
Russia
UK
USA
EU
Bra
zil
Chin
a
India
Mexic
o
South
Afr
ica
G8+
EU
Plu
s f
ive
G8+
EU
+5
2006 Overall G8 Final Climate Change Compliance Score: 0.18
34G8 Research Group
VI. Contact
http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/compliance
♣ All compliance reports are accessible online
♣ The 2006 compliance report will be available early next week
♣We welcome any and all feedback
¬ Feedback, for example, from the Canadian government, hasbeen very helpful in focusing our full text on compliance
Further Enquiries
♣ Brian Kolenda and Matto Mildenberger, Compliance Unit Directors
¬ +49 (0) 151 55 23 99 13 / [email protected]
♣Madeline Koch, Managing Director, G8RG
¬ +49 (0) 151 49 24 39 23 / [email protected]
35G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
Canada
2006 Canada Final Compliance Score: 0.40
0.47
0.17
0.50
0.67
0.83 0.82
0.77
0.82 0.83
0.50
0.72
0.81
0.45
0.60
0.52
0.58
0.56
0.66
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Canada Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
36G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
France
2006 France Final Compliance Score: 0.25
0.28
0.00
0.25
0.34
0.92
0.69
0.64
0.50
0.75
0.500.48
0.57
0.30
0.400.390.380.41
0.49
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
France Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
37G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
Germany
2006 Germany Final Compliance Score: 0.45
0.58
0.17
0.25
0.17
1.00
0.59
0.08
0.18
0.42
0.50 0.50
0.67
0.88
0.55
0.33
0.45
0.36
0.50
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Germany Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
38G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
Italy
2006 Italy Final Compliance Score: -0.05
0.43
0.50
0.67
0.89
0.57
0.00
-0.11
0.38
0.25
0.39
0.44 0.43
0.29
-0.10
0.00
0.34
0.22
0.39
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Italy Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
39G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
Japan
2006 Japan Final Compliance Score: 0.25
0.22
0.50
0.20
0.67
0.82
0.44
0.10
0.18
0.42 0.42
0.33
0.52 0.52
0.30
0.400.39
0.33
0.43
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Japan Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
40G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
Russia
2006 Russia Final Compliance Score: 0.10
0.00
0.34
0.17
0.00
0.42
0.33
0.00
0.06
0.25
0.45
0.140.140.14
0.11
N/A
0.13
0.17
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
Russia Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
41G8 Research Group
0.42
0.50
0.75
0.50
1.00
0.69
0.42
0.55
0.50 0.50
0.67 0.67
0.95
0.55
0.600.58
0.54
0.65
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
UK Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
Appendix A. Country Performance
United Kingdom
2006 UK Final Compliance Score: 0.55
42G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
United States
2006 US Final Compliance Score: 0.35
0.34
0.60
0.67
0.35
0.25
0.36
0.44
0.72 0.71
0.81
0.35
0.60
0.42
0.50 0.50 0.50
0.45
0.53
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
US Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average
43G8 Research Group
Appendix A. Country Performance
European Union
2006 EU Final Compliance Score: 0.53
0.17
0.720.75
0.89
0.58
0.50
0.58
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
0.61
0.73
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
(I)
2002 2003
(I)
2003 2004
(I)
2004 2005
(I)
2005 2006
(I)
2006
EU Compliance Score Interim Average Final Average