COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP
Finding common ground on security, sustainability and shared prosperity
RENEWED RESPONSIBILITY
Ensuring equity in digital governance, development and global health
ECONOMIC RESILIENCE
Restoring growth, trust and stability as central to the G7's global role
“We had no choice but to leave our home. The journey was long and difficult. We walked through the wilderness, seeing terrifying things along the way.”
- Amal*, an 8-year-old from Syria
Today’s children are growing up in the midst of conflict, poverty, and climate disasters. Their futures and rights are under threat. Now is the time for global leaders to act. Together, we can invest in a brighter future for every child.
*Name is changed to protect the child’s identity. | Photo credit: Delil Souleiman / Save the Children
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.
© 2025. 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
Published by GT Media Group Ltd.
CEO & Publisher: Khaled Algaay
Managing Director: Tom Kennedy
Co-Editor: John Kirton
Co-Editor: Madeline Koch
Guest Editor: Martha Hall Findlay
Managing Editor: Jacqueline McGhie
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:
Joanna Davies
Sonja Dobson
Angela Minyi Hou
Isabelle Gilmore
Ella Kokotsis
Julia Kulik
Angus MacKellar
Zoe Mason
Michael F. Motala
Chiara Oldani
Jessica Rapson
Sarah Richardson
Denisse Rudich
Jacob Rudolph
Nancy E. Scott
Brittaney Warren
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.
WELCOME MESSAGE
Confronting today’s challenges, united in a common cause
Mark Carney, prime minister, Canada
Stronger together: Uniting for peace, prosperity and sovereignty
Emmanuel Macron, president, France
Security, sovereignty and stability in a changing world
Sir Keir Starmer, prime minister, United Kingdom
Power, prosperity and protection
Donald Trump, president, United States
A roadmap for economic growth, national security and global engagement
Ishiba Shigeru, prime minister, Japan
Reliable partnerships in a world of uncertainty
António Costa, president, European Council
Securing borders, shaping futures
Giorgia Meloni, prime minister, Italy
Transatlantic resolve in Ukraine and beyond Friedrich Merz, chancellor, Germany
Europe stands tall: Open, united and ready to lead
Ursula von der Leyen, president, European Commission
EDITORS' INTRODUCTIONS
20
Promising prospects for a productive Kananaskis Summit
John Kirton, director, G7 Research Group
22
The G7 confronts a new world order as leaders return to Kananaskis
Martha Hall Findlay, director and Palmer Chair in Public Policy, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary
ADVOCACIES
08
How energy is redefining Europe’s global role
Interview with Claudio Descalzi, CEO, Eni
18
Taking responsibility for health in a fragmenting world
Axel Radlach Pries, president, World Health Summit
G7 performance on Ukraine
Zoe Mason, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
Holding the line: Why Ukraine’s defence matters to us all
Aurel Braun, professor of international relations and political science, University of Toronto
Charting a path to stability in the Middle East
Interview with Sanam Vakil, director, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House
The G7 and global AI competition: What the G7 needs to do to stay ahead in the AI race
George Takach, author, Cold War 2.0
Digital finance at a crossroads
Chiara Oldani, lecturer, monetary economics, Università degli Studi della Tuscia
G7 performance on trade
Sarah Richardson, research associate, G7 Research Group
Seizing the opportunities within the global trade crisis
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, director general, World Trade Organization
State-of-the-art customs at the forefront of global trade transformation
Ian Saunders, secretary general, World Customs Organization
Trade policy: Time for candid conversations
Simon J. Evenett, IMD Business School
Building resilience through fair and inclusive employment
3 INNOVATIVE
G7 performance on artificial intelligence, ICT and digitalisation
Nancy E. Scott, legal director, G7 Research Group
Collaboration creates breakthroughs for a better world
Doreen Bogdan-Martin, secretary general, International Telecommunication Union
The G7 and the future of AI governance
Kenddrick Chan, LSE IDEAS, and Chris Alden, professor of international relations, LSE
AI advances are shifting the balance between opportunities and risks
Yoshua Bengio, professor, Université de Montréal, and scientific director, Mila
Angela Minyi Hou, senior researcher,
Stronger together: Harnessing the economic power of multilateralism
Mathias Cormann, OECD secretary general
The G7 at a critical crossroads
Mark Sobel, US chair, Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum
America’s exit and the future of global corporate tax reform
Michael F. Motala, fellow, G7 Research Group 2
Gilbert Houngbo, director general, International Labour Organization
G7 performance on gender equality
Julia Kulik, director of strategic initiatives and public engagement, G7 Research Group
Will the G7 stand firm on LGBTIQ+ and women’s rights?
Beth Woroniuk and Diana Sarosi, Women 7 2025 co-chairs
Reinforcing responsible tourism
Zurab Pololikashvili, secretary general, UN Tourism
Hospitality’s strategic role in economic resilience and climate leadership
Glenn Mandziuk, CEO, World Sustainable Hospitality Alliance
Shaping the global governance of quantum technology for sustainable development
Tim Smith, Open Quantum Institute
Strengthening the global shield against illicit finance
Elisa de Anda Madrazo, president, Financial Action Task Force
A global response to drug trafficking
Ghada Waly, executive director, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
A new direction for the global migration system
Amy Pope, director general, International Organization for Migration
The G7: Uniting to stop human trafficking and migration crimes
Denisse Rudich, director, G7 and G20 Research Groups (London), and CEO, Rudich Advisory
G7 performance on development
Sonja Dobson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
Securing the SDGs: Why the G7 must lead the way
Interview with Achim Steiner, administrator, United Nations Development Programme
Strengthening national development banks: Why wait?
Edgardo Alvarez, secretary general, Latin American Association of Development Financing Institutions
The fight to feed millions: The G7 must act now
Cindy McCain, executive director, World Food Programme
G7 performance on health
Joanna Davies, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
We must tackle the current global health financing emergency now to save lives
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general, World Health Organization
Why the G7 must act now to address the digital health transformation
Ilona Kickbusch, founding director, Global Health Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
Integral brain health: The unifying goal for health, productivity and well-being
Vladimir Hachinski, University of Western Ontario, Guy Rouleau, Montreal Neurological Institute, and Danuta Wasserman, Karolinska Institutet
G7 performance on energy
Ella Kokotsis, director of accountability, G7 Research Group
Reinforcing the renewables revolution
Interview with Francesco La Camera, director general, IRENA
A proven partner: Doubling down on nuclear energy ambitions is a smart move for the G7
Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general, International Atomic Energy Agency
Critical minerals supply in uncertain times
Kathryn Sturman, Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland
Improving G7 performance on climate change
Brittaney Warren, director of compliance and climate change research, G7 Research Group
Red alert for climate, blueprint for action: A science-based call to the G7
Celeste Saulo, secretary general, World Meteorological Organization
Canada’s G7 summit in Kananaskis: Lessons learned for advancing climate action
Catherine McKenna, chair, UN Secretary General’s High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities, with Isabelle Gilmore, G7 Research Group
Urgent action is needed to safeguard biodiversity, the foundation of the global economy
Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity
The G7 should prioritise financing for disaster risk reduction
Kamal Kishore, special representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction
The strategic role of ministerial meetings in fulfilling G7 commitments
Jessica Rapson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
G7 compliance with Apulia’s commitments among evolving priorities
Jacob Rudolph and Angus MacKellar, co-chairs, summit studies, G7 Research Group
American leadership at Kananaskis
Christopher Sands, director, Hopkins Center for Canadian Studies, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
Mark Carney, prime minister, Canada
Fifty years ago, the G7 was created at a moment of crisis.
Faced with financial upheaval, a stagflationary shock and geopolitical tensions, a small group of advanced economies came together – not to retreat into isolationism, but to build a platform for cooperation, stability and shared prosperity. In the decades since, the G7 has proven its enduring value: as a forum for frank dialogue, principled disagreement and decisive action.
In 2025, the need for this forum has only increased.
We are navigating a global economy under pressure – from trade tensions and disruptive technologies to rising geopolitical instability. The foundations of international peace and economic security, long taken for granted, are being tested. At this inflection point, the G7 must rise to meet the scale of these crises with purpose and with force.
I look forward to welcoming my fellow G7 leaders to Kananaskis, Alberta, this June, as Canada assumes the presidency on the G7’s 50th anniversary. This will be a moment to
confront the challenges of our time, united in common cause.
I have attended G7 summits before – through my roles at the Department of Finance, as governor of the Bank of Canada and as governor of the Bank of England. Those experiences have given me a deep understanding of what makes the G7 effective and, crucially, where it must do better. I bring those lessons and that focus with me.
Canada’s agenda will have three core imperatives: securing our communities and a safer world, building energy security and accelerating the digital transition, and investing in partnerships of the future. Nowhere are these objectives more timely and strategic than with critical mineral supply chains that allow Canada to lead trusted, reliable partnerships to fuel the technologies of the future.
In practical terms, our agenda means driving artificial intelligence adoption across public and private sectors; unlocking the full potential of quantum technology to grow our economies and solve
global challenges; and mounting a multilateral effort to better prevent, fight and recover from wildfires, which are on the rise in Canada and around the world. We will discuss global pressures driving migration and measures to ensure the lawful, humanitarian and economically beneficial movement of peoples. We will push back against foreign interference with a focus on transnational repression because the rights of our citizens and state sovereignty are non-negotiable. Finally, we will deepen partnerships and catalyse enormous private investment to build stronger infrastructure, higher-paying jobs and careers for our citizens, and dynamic markets where businesses can compete and succeed.
Canada also remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty against Russia’s war of aggression. I have invited President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO secretary general Mark Rutte to join us in Kananaskis to reaffirm our collective resolve.
The G7 Kananaskis Summit will be forward looking. We are engaging not only our G7 allies but also partners beyond, recognising that our long-term security and prosperity will depend on building coalitions with reliable partners and with mutual respect. Canada has also engaged with leaders and stakeholders from across the country – including Indigenous partners, provinces and territories, business, civil society, and academia – to develop an agenda that resonates with Canadians.
Canada’s presidency is an opportunity for Canada and for Canadians. An opportunity to meet the challenges of our time, to affirm our values with longstanding partners, and to build a stronger G7 alliance. And it will serve as a moment to showcase the best of Canada, our world-class expertise, our country’s extraordinary natural beauty and wealth of resources, and who we are as Canadians – the true north, strong and free.
“The G7 Kananaskis Summit will be forward looking. We are engaging not only our G7 allies but also partners beyond, recognising that our long-term security and prosperity will depend on building coalitions with reliable partners and with mutual respect”
Europe must embrace flexible partnerships, resilient industrial strategies and economically viable decarbonisation to remain competitive in a fractured world
Q: Are we witnessing the end of globalisation as we once knew it?
A: We’ve been living through the gradual erosion of the globalisation model that had, in truth, been faltering for some time. This hasn’t happened overnight. We’ve seen the rise of protectionist measures like tariffs, but these are only symptoms of a much deeper reordering of the global economy. The energy sector is at the heart of this shift: it doesn’t just reflect broader geopolitical and economic tensions— it shapes them. Growing fragmentation has steadily undermined confidence in a global value chain model driven by cooperation and multilateralism, exposing some countries and regions to strategic vulnerabilities.
Q: Where does this leave Europe?
A: For decades Europe has prioritised policies and targets over pragmatism
Eni
and resilience—and now it’s facing the consequences. From the energy perspective, first the pandemic, then the war in Ukraine exposed just how fragile that model was. And it’s not just gas—today, the same risk exists in critical materials and technologies, almost entirely controlled by China. If we don’t diversify now, we’ll face the same vulnerabilities in the next crisis. These energy security concerns are increasingly intertwined with growing challenges regarding economic sustainability and competitiveness. Europe, which over the past two decades has embraced globalisation by offshoring its primary and secondary sectors while focusing on developing services domestically, is now contending with stagnating growth, industrial decline, and a loss of competitiveness. And in Europe, where energy prices are among the highest in the world, costs
entire
chain of its businesses, turning it into one of the key drivers for achieving Net Zero by 2050
have become a real burden on competitiveness. What we’re seeing isn’t just disruption—it’s a chance to reset Europe’s direction. These global shifts are pushing us to rethink our industrial and economic priorities, putting energy security, competitiveness, and sustainability at the core. This is no longer the time for ideological debates. What we need is to strengthen our historical alliances, modernise them, and build new, strategic partnerships. The way forward is clear: pragmatic energy policies that turn today’s challenges into real opportunities for long-term competitiveness.
Q: That would seem to require a major shift. Is it really feasible?
A: First and foremost, we must address the complex bureaucratic apparatus within the European Union. For years, this system has translated political decisions into cumbersome regulations. Governments are left to interpret and apply complex decisions, while businesses are expected to invest time, capital, and resources to make them work. In energy, we need a truly shared vision—one that reflects Europe’s diverse realities. Europe is a collective of diverse countries, each with different levels of economic and industrial development, different energy mixes which drive differences in energy prices, distinct demand profiles, and heterogeneous industrial strategies. Managing this diversity requires pragmatic compromise and flexibility, prioritisation of available technology solutions, and a deep understanding of differing national interests—like assembling a vast and intricate mosaic. Europe needs to break away from rigid, onesize-fits-all regulations and embrace a more flexible, cooperative model—one that fosters innovation while delivering on climate and energy security goals. Regulation can’t be an obstacle; it has to be an enabler. We've seen it work. In the UK, our Liverpool Bay CCS project shows how the regulatory framework can unlock investment and create value around low-carbon technologies. It’s proof that when regulation supports innovation, new markets can grow, emissions can fall, and value can be shared across the system. That’s the direction Europe needs to take.
Q: You mention Europe’s priorities as security, competitiveness, and the environment. Are they meant to be pursued in that order?
A: These priorities aren’t sequential—they’re interdependent. Energy security, competitiveness, and sustainability must move together, or none of them will hold. What we’re starting to see in Europe is a shift from slogans to realism. There’s a growing understanding that the energy transition cannot—and must not—undermine industrial strength. Industry isn’t optional; it’s the backbone of progress. Without it, innovation remains
“What
we need is to strengthen our historical
alliances, modernise them, and build new, strategic partnerships. The way forward is clear: pragmatic energy policies that turn today’s challenges into real opportunities”
theory. Whether we’re talking about CCS, biofuels, solar or wind, these technologies only scale if they’re built on a solid industrial foundation—with the right infrastructure, skills, and production capacity. To remain competitive, we need a transition strategy that safeguards industry and supports the technologies we can deploy quickly and effectively. At the same time, we must create space for breakthrough solutions to emerge over time. And one principle must be non-negotiable: decarbonisation has to be economically viable. It must attract private capital, not rely on endless public subsidies. That requires a regulatory environment that enables investment and gives companies the freedom to lead the transition through sustainable, resilient business models.
Q: Does Europe truly have the tools to deliver all of this?
A: Europe is facing structural constraints, but it still has what it takes—capital, technology, and knowhow. What’s missing is the ability to turn these assets into foundational partnerships, built not on dependency but on shared value. Energy can be a powerful tool for cooperation— if managed with long-term vision and competence. That’s exactly the approach we’ve followed at Eni. In the Eastern Mediterranean, we’ve connected Cyprus and Egypt through our infrastructure to develop gas resources that benefit both. In Southeast Asia, we’ve brought Indonesia and Malaysia together to unlock shared natural gas potential and help phase out coal. These aren’t one-off deals— they’re examples of how energy, when approached pragmatically, creates stable, forward-looking relationships where none existed before. Energy can cause imbalances when it’s driven by short-term logic. But if we manage it well—anchored in industrial capability and mutual interest—it becomes a driver of resilience, development, and global stability.
// CLAUDIO DESCALZI
Claudio Descalzi has been the CEO of Eni, a global energy tech company operating in over 65 countries, since May 2014.
X-TWITTER @eni eni.com
The American dream is unstoppable, and our country is on the verge of a comeback, the likes of which the world has never witnessed and perhaps will never witness again …
Among my very highest priorities is to rescue our economy and get dramatic and immediate relief to working families …
A major focus of our fight to defeat inflation is rapidly reducing the cost of energy. The previous administration cut the number of new oil and gas leases by 95 percent, slowed pipeline construction to a halt, and closed more than 100 power plants. We are opening up many of those power plants right now …
We have more liquid gold under our feet than any nation on Earth and by far. And now I’ve fully authorized the most talented team ever assembled to go and get it. It’s called drill, baby, drill … I will also take historic action to dramatically expand production of critical minerals and rare earths here in the USA …
The next phase of our plan to deliver the greatest economy in history is for this Congress to pass tax cuts for everybody …
We’re seeking permanent income tax cuts all across the board …
In addition, … we want to cut taxes on domestic production and all manufacturing …
If you don’t make your product in America, however, … you will pay a tariff and, in some cases, a rather large one. Other countries have used tariffs against us for decades, and now it’s our turn to start using them …
On average, the European Union, China, Brazil, India, Mexico, and Canada … and countless other nations charge us tremendously higher tariffs than we charge them …
This is happening by friend and foe. This system is not fair to the United States and never was … And whatever they tariff us – other countries – we will tariff them …
We will take in trillions and trillions
of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before …
Much has been said over the last three months about Mexico and Canada, but we have very large deficits with both of them …
They are, in effect, receiving subsidies of hundreds of billions of dollars. We pay subsidies to Canada and to Mexico of hundreds of billions of dollars. And the United States will not be doing that any longer …
And I have also imposed a 25 percent tariff on foreign aluminum, copper, lumber, and steel, because if we don’t have, as an example, steel and lots of other things, we don’t have a military and, frankly, we just won’t have a country very long …
But if we truly care about protecting America’s children, no step is more crucial than securing America’s borders. Over the past four years, 21 million people poured into the United States. Many of them were murderers, human traffickers, gang members, and other criminals from the streets of dangerous cities all throughout the world ...
Every last one will be rounded up and forcibly removed from our country, or, if they’re too dangerous, put in jails, standing trial in this country, because we don’t want them to come back ever ...
As commander in chief, my focus is on building the most powerful military of the future. As a first step, I’m asking Congress to fund a state-of-the-art Golden Dome missile defense shield to protect our homeland, all made in the USA …
To boost our defense industrial base, we are also going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry, including commercial shipbuilding and military shipbuilding …
To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal …
We need Greenland for national security and even international security,
and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it … One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together, we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before …
In the Middle East, we’re bringing back our hostages from Gaza. In my first term, we achieved one of the most groundbreaking peace agreements in generations: the Abraham Accords. And now we’re going to build on that foundation to create a more peaceful and prosperous future for the entire region …
I’m also working tirelessly to end the savage conflict in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians and Russians have been needlessly killed or wounded in this horrific and brutal conflict with no end in sight.
The United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine’s defense …
Two thousand people are being killed every single week – more than that. They’re Russian young people. They’re Ukrainian young people. They’re not Americans. But I want it to stop …
It’s time to stop this madness. It’s time to halt the killing. It’s time to end this senseless war. If you want to end wars, you have to talk to both sides. Joint Address to Congress, 6 March 2025
We have worked with courage, daring to begin a new chapter in Italy and in Europe too, designing a model to counter irregular immigration and manage migration flows based on four focus areas: relentlessly fighting human traffickers; building a new cooperation and development model with migrants’ countries of origin and of transit; supporting pathways for agreed legal migration that is therefore more easily integrated; innovative solutions to redesign how migration flows are managed.
These four focus areas have enabled us to achieve … a drastic reduction in the number of migrants arriving on small boats along the central Mediterranean route, and with it a fall in the number of deaths at sea, especially thanks to the drop in departures from Tunisia and Libya; and also, the overall reduction in irregular entries into the European Union along other routes …
We have also addressed the causes of migration through the Mattei Plan ... The next challenge regarding the Mattei Plan is to ‘Europeanise’ and ‘internationalise’ it, building new synergies between what we are doing at the national level and the instruments that exist at other levels: I am referring to the European Union’s Global Gateway and the G7’s ‘PGII’ [Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment] … This was part of Italy’s work last year as G7 Presidency … These are actions carried out on the ground, actions agreed with our partners, actions based on verifiable milestones: it is not a wish list, but rather a concrete strategy that has already got underway in nine nations and is now being expanded to another five nations in Africa.
… I would like to briefly highlight the decisive role Italy has played in Brussels to change Europe’s approach to immigration. The fact that, today, implementing equal partnerships with countries of origin and of transit is a priority, the fact that the priority is no longer distributing unmanageable
and unstoppable migration flows within Europe’s borders but rather defending the EU’s external borders, the fact that we are now talking about strengthening return policies …
The management of migration flows is an issue for which the majority of citizens have provided very clear indications: citizens are asking us to stop illegal immigration, because illegal immigration creates insecurity, a lack of integration and an inability to uphold the rule of law, and also because mass illegal immigration is the number one enemy of legal migration … We have driven out organised crime, which had infiltrated the rules for legal migration, and I think that this is another great achievement that we should all be proud of together … Speech at the Conference of Italy’s prefects and police commissioners, 17 February 2025
I welcome the proposed EU list of safe countries of origin presented by the European Commission, which also includes, among others, Bangladesh, Egypt and Tunisia …
This is further confirmation that the direction charted by the Italian
Government over these years is the right one, and of the support of an increasing number of European nations. Italy has played a decisive role in changing Europe’s approach to managing migration flows, and is continuing to do so. Europe now also sees defending external borders, fighting mass irregular migration, strengthening returns policies and implementing equal partnerships with countries of origin and of transit as a priority, and this is largely thanks to Italy’s determination and tenacity. The facts show that we were right and that we are on the right track.
Statement on the European Union’s list of safe countries of origin, 16 April 2025
According to the World Bank, 80% of the most advanced nations’ wealth is represented by knowledge. In this context, STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] subjects are taking on an increasingly crucial role, offering great opportunities and prospects.
The Government … has already taken the first steps in this direction. I am referring … to the technical-vocational education and training reform to create a stable and structural link between technical and vocational education pathways, higher technical institutes (‘ITS’) and production chains; the establishment of the ‘Made in Italy’ high school, which encompasses both humanities and STEM subjects; the incentives for companies to hire researchers and research contract holders; the funding allocated for career guidance and the ‘scientific degree plan’ …
Overcoming the skills challenge is essential to building an increasingly competitive nation that is at the forefront of the great transformations of our time. We can only achieve this goal if we are able to work together as a team, involving families, schools, universities, companies, professional associations, cultural institutions and the media in this mission. Believing in Italy’s future also means working to shape the professions and the professionals of tomorrow, thus helping to reawaken that courage and daring that are innate in our people and that have allowed our nation to become what it is today.
Statement to mark National STEM Week, 4 February 2025
France – through its culture, way of life and language – is an irreducible part of Canada’s identity, just like the First Peoples and the British legacy … Canada is a unique friend to us.
… We ... want to be able to develop our most strategic projects with our closest, most loyal partners, because we’re convinced … that we are stronger together, better able to ensure that our interests are respected and to exercise our sovereignty to the full …
We’ve already had initial successes, as proven by the recent announcement that a consortium including French businesses had been chosen for the first stage of the planned high-speed train between Quebec and Toronto … Further proof is the very strong turnout by your investors and businesses at the artificial intelligence summit, which shows Canada’s strong presence and the partnership we have together in this area. Our businesses are also talking about mutual investments in the critical-metals sector – essential building-blocks for any energy transition.
I know how much you’re also promoting fresh ambition on nuclear energy, which is the focus of long-standing cooperation between our two countries, and on quantum, where our research centres and businesses have knowledge unique in the world … We’re going to continue making active efforts together, because we’re holding successive G7 presidencies, with challenges which await you in a few weeks’ time and which we’ll continue addressing, as we did from Charlevoix to Biarritz a few years ago.
We’ll also make sure that our friendship is useful in promoting our values and our shared commitments to
defending democracies, international solidarity, development, fair trade and protecting the planet … We both believe that fair trade which respects international rules is a good thing for everyone’s prosperity, and it’s certainly more effective than tariffs, which create inflation and damage production chains and the integration of our economies. We too believe that the freedom of expression so dear/precious to our countries is not the same as an outpouring of hatred, violence, online harassment and opaque algorithms. That’s why your G7 presidency in 2025 should be an opportunity for us to make progress on each of these points and basically uphold together a fair international order, in other words something that is neither the law of the strongest nor isolationism, and that’s why we’re fighting.
Statement ahead of the working lunch with Canadian prime minister Mark Carney, 17 March 2025
The war in Ukraine, which has killed or injured nearly a million people, is continuing at the same level of intensity … Russia has already made the Ukrainian conflict a global conflict. It has deployed North Korean soldiers and Iranian equipment on our continent, while helping those countries to further rearm. President [Vladimir] Putin’s Russia violates our borders to murder his opponents and manipulates elections in Romania and Moldova … Russia is continuing to rearm, spending more than 40% of its budget for that purpose. By 2030, it plans to have further expanded its army … Russia has become a threat to France and Europe now and for years to come …
… We must continue helping the
Ukrainians to resist until they can negotiate a deal with Russia that ensures a solid peace for themselves and for all of us …
A peace deal can’t be signed at any price on orders from Russia. Peace can’t mean Ukraine’s capitulation. It can’t mean its collapse. Nor can it come about through a ceasefire, which would be too fragile. Why? Because once again, we’ve learned from the past. We can’t forget that Russia began its invasion of Ukraine in 2014, that we negotiated a ceasefire in Minsk, that Russia did not abide by that ceasefire and that we were unable to maintain it due to a lack of solid guarantees. We can no longer take Russia at its word …
Whether or not peace is achieved quickly in Ukraine, the European nations must be able to better defend themselves and to deter any new aggression … Whatever happens, we must be better equipped; we must improve our defence posture for the sake of peace and for the purpose of deterrence. In that regard, we remain committed to NATO and to our partnership with the United States, but we must do more …
… France is in a unique position. We have the most effective military in Europe and … we possess nuclear deterrence capabilities … Our military budget will have doubled over close to 10 years …
… France will follow only one course: that of the desire for peace and freedom, true to its history and its principles. Yes, that is what we believe in for our security, and that is also what we believe in when it comes to defending democracy, a certain idea of the truth, a certain idea of free research, a certain idea of respect in our society, a certain idea of freedom of expression that eschews hate speech, and a certain idea of humanism …
… No longer will our generation enjoy the peace dividends. It is up to us to ensure that one day, our children will enjoy the dividends of our efforts.
Address to the French people, 5 March 2025
Japan’s working-age population is forecasted to shrink by almost 15 million people over the next 20 years, a decrease of over 20 percent … It is imperative for us to advance the building of a human-centered nation that makes it possible for each and every citizen to realize happiness …
We will ensure that diplomatic and security structures, systems to make Japan a disaster-resilient nation, and crisis management arrangements to address infectious diseases and other threats are firmly set in place, and we will materialize a growth-oriented economy driven by wage increases and investment ...
We will establish Japan’s agriculture, forestry, and fishery industries and its food industry … as core industries by focusing on rigorously creating high added value. We will enhance our production infrastructure through the introduction and use of smart technology, the consolidation of small plots of land into large tracts, and other initiatives to make them profitable industries …
We will expand [our use of] decarbonized power sources, such as renewable energies and nuclear power, and redouble our deployment of supply hubs for hydrogen and other next-generation fuels, while efficiently developing their supply network. We will give concrete shape to our measures that help to develop decarbonized power sources while we simultaneously promote the development of new industrial sites and related infrastructure. We will submit draft legislation to institutionalize growth-oriented carbon pricing … and to facilitate the transition to a circular economy …
… By transitioning from a cost-cutting economy to an economy based on the creation of high amounts of added value, we will bring about a growth-oriented economy driven by wage increases and investment. We will strengthen initiatives to establish Japan as an investment-driven nation by holding the Public-Private Investment Forum, setting targets for domestic investments, deepening our examination of regulatory reforms, and formulating concrete measures to promote bold domestic investments.
We will proceed with the revision of the Science, Technology, and Innovation Basic Plan and promote investments in strategic fields, including AI [artificial intelligence], quantum technology, biotechnology, space, and fusion.
… We will advance initiatives such as strengthening critical supply chains and implementing countermeasures against technology outflow, including reshoring [of production processes] and promoting the establishment [of new plants, research centers, or other business facilities]. We will enhance economic intelligence functions that analyze threats and risks through public-private cooperation …
… Japan is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world … We will advance our technologies for forecasting disasters such as torrential rains and strengthen our information dissemination capabilities …
Our goal is to establish a disaster-resilient nation that prioritizes human lives and human rights, transforming Japan into the world’s foremost disaster prevention country. By sharing our disaster prevention expertise and technologies internationally, we will contribute to global disaster resilience while fostering it as a new
pillar of Japanese industry …
… As Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is poised to enter its fourth year, Japan faces increasingly intense military activities by China and Russia in the areas surrounding Japan, as well as North Korea’s nuclear and missile developments. In the most severe and complex security environment of the post-war period, it is essential to pay the utmost attention at all times to the balance of power, enhance Japan’s own capabilities, elevate the Japan-U.S. Alliance to new heights, and further expand and deepen partnerships with like-minded countries in order to fully defend Japan’s independence and peace as well as the daily lives of the Japanese people. At the same time, maintaining close communication with relevant countries is vitally important to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations …
… We will continue to strongly support Ukraine and enforce sanctions against Russia.
Regarding relations with China, while we continue to state what should be stated regarding various issues of concern and our different views, we will also pursue cooperation in areas where cooperation is possible. In this way, we are engaged in pragmatic foreign policy. Taking firm coordination with allied and like-minded countries with whom we share values as a major premise, we will maintain close communication with China at all levels, including at the leaders level, based on the broad direction of comprehensively promoting a Mutually Beneficial Relationship based on Common Strategic Interests and building a constructive and stable relationship, as confirmed with President Xi Jinping, so that China’s stable development yields benefits for the entire region …
Although Japan-Russia relations remain in a difficult situation, Japan firmly maintains its policy of resolving the territorial issues and concluding a peace treaty …
We will also continue to squarely address climate change, disarmament and non-proliferation, and other global challenges as well as humanitarian situations in various regions. We will press forward in coordinating with relevant countries and other parties to provide at an early time medical support for those who are injured and ill in Gaza. Speech to the Diet, 24 January 2025
FRIEDRICH MERZ, CHANCELLOR, GERMANY
NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization ] has existed for 75 years. For 70 years Germany has been a member of this alliance, … which is much more than an alliance of defence. It is a political alliance of transatlantic cooperation between America and Europe, and … I hope very much, and I also assume, that we will be able to maintain and further develop this transatlantic alliance in the way we’ve done over the last 75 years …
… It is we, the allies, who decide about our capabilities to defend ourselves, our lives in peace and security and freedom … We know that Germany needs to do more so we took the decision … to change the constitution and make it possible to enhance defence spending. Clearly we will now be able to spend more than 1% of German GDP [gross domestic product] for defence … We can spend the money that needs to be spent in order to make sure we are able to defend ourselves in this alliance.
… America has made this proposal … So the ball is exclusively in Moscow’s court right now … It’s another test case, if you will, a very precise one, about how serious the Russian president is about reaching peace in Ukraine …
… Also after a peace deal Ukraine will need to get support. We will do that together and as the German government, we will continue to work for strengthening the European pillar within NATO … We will enhance our defence capacities regardless of Ukraine. In our own territorial interest, we will enhance our defence efforts …
I also want to say, clearly, that this is not only about more money. As a priority we will also need to look at efficiency, increasing efficiency, and I would like to say three buzzwords here: simplification, being the first; the second is standardization; the third is … economy of scale. We need to make sure that in Europe … we become more efficient in our procurement and also that we really produce more, [so] that we have this economy of scale. We need more equipment for the money that we spend …
… The war of aggression Russia is waging against Ukraine is a full-front aggression, not only against territorial integrity but against the entire political order of Europe after 1990 … It is a massive attack against our political order.
I am very grateful that yesterday evening I had the opportunity to have a phone call with the American president … He informed me about his plan for an unconditional ceasefire of 30 days in Ukraine. I fully agree with that. I also know that the French government, the British government and the Polish government see it the same way … Ukraine is in favour
… The right answer is not money alone. This is a process that needs to go hand in hand with production capacities that need to be expanded. They need to focus on a strongly reduced number of weapon systems. We have far too many different systems that cost a lot of money. There are inefficiencies both in terms of scale and in terms of specifications that need to be reduced. We need simpler systems. I’m very interested to see what the industry in Ukraine has been doing in terms of efficient production in Ukraine over the last three years under the conditions of a war of aggression. I think we can learn so much from Ukraine. They have managed to do so many things over the last year, especially when it comes to producing drones, for example … So I will not only talk about money if we do not talk about these three topics together: simplification, standardisation and scale. That is clearly scaling up the number of fewer systems …
We of course need to discuss infrastructure as well – infrastructure that we need for military means but also civilian purposes, good streets and roads and bridges for transport …
… It needs to be clear that Ukraine decides in a sovereign way on the path it wants to take. It has decided to file for membership of the European Union … If Ukraine fulfills these criteria it is a welcome member within the European Union. Ukraine has to remain a sovereign actor deciding on its own political and military alliances … As spoken by an interpreter at a press conference at NATO, 9 March 2025
Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. They have launched cyber-attacks on our NHS [National Health Service] – only seven years ago, a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.
We must stand by Ukraine – because if we do not achieve a lasting peace, then the economic instability, the threats to our security, they will only grow.
And so, as the nature of that conflict changes … it brings our response into sharper focus …
First, NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] is the bedrock of our security – and will remain so.
It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded …
Second, we must reject any false choice between our allies, between one side of the Atlantic or the other …
The US is our most important bilateral alliance …
It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We’ve fought wars together; we’re the closest partners in trade, growth and security …
Fourth, … we must change our national security posture.
Because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices …
… We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP [gross domestic product] on defence but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 …
… We will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of the nation, which means, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on defence by 2027 …
Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for Defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP …
… The UK will strengthen its position, as a leader in NATO and in the collective defence of our continent …
It is good for our national security. It is also good for the defining mission of this government to restore growth to our economy …
… In the short-term, it can only be funded through hard choices …
British people must always come first …
… Our whole approach to national security must now change …
We will translate defence spending into British growth, British jobs, British skills, British innovation; we will … rebuild our industrial base …
So before the NATO summit in June, we will publish a single National Security Strategy and we will bring it to this House …
… At moments like these in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together, and it has demonstrated strength.
That is what the security of our country needs now, and it is what this Government will deliver.
Oral Statement to the House of Commons, 25 February 2025
Clearly, there will be an economic impact from the decisions the US has taken both here and globally.
But … we are prepared.
Indeed, one of the great strengths of this nation is our ability to keep a cool head …
Nobody wins in a trade war. That is not in our national interest.
And we have a fair and balanced trade relationship with the US.
Negotiations on an economic prosperity deal, one that strengthens our existing trading relationship – they continue, and we will fight for the best deal for Britain.
Nonetheless, … I will only strike a deal if it is in the national interest and if it is the right thing to do for the security of working people …
That is my priority. That is always my priority …
But nothing is off the table.
But … strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe.
… Our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering. But now is the time to deepen it.
So we will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together, seeking out new opportunities for growth.
Third, … we seek peace not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end …
But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. …
… That means we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI [gross national income] today to 0.3% in 2027 fully funding our increased investment in Defence …
I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, in Ukraine and in Gaza, tackling climate change, supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges like vaccination …
We will do everything we can to … rebuild our capacity on development.
But … the defence and security of the
We have to understand that just as with defence and security, so too for the economy and trade we are living in a changing world …
… This government will do everything necessary to defend the UK’s national interest.
Everything necessary to provide the foundation of security that working people need to get on with their lives. That is how we have acted – and how we will continue to act.
With pragmatism. Cool and calm heads. Focused – on the national interest.
Remarks to UK business leaders in Downing Street, 3 April 2025
The best response to uncertainty is reliability. In a world marked by increased fragmentation, unpredictability and rivalry, the European Union remains a reliable, predictable and trusted partner. We will continue to work closely with like-minded partners in the G7 and beyond, in this spirit.
Reliability is a common thread across all EU policies: a commitment to our partners, to our international engagements, to effective multilateralism and to the fundamental principles of international law –national sovereignty, the right to self-determination, territorial integrity and respect for international borders. The EU’s unwavering support for these principles, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, is a cornerstone of Europe’s place in, and contribution to, the international community.
This is why the EU remains steadfast in its commitment to Ukraine. Russia’s war of aggression must not become a precedent for countries to invade others and redraw international borders by force. Countries and actors supporting Russia’s war effort in Ukraine must therefore be reminded that they are helping to undermine global peace.
Europe’s support for Ukraine also demonstrates our commitment to global security, which is threatened by Russia’s war.
We will continue to stand with Ukraine, in defending itself and in its efforts towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. We will continue to step up pressure on Russia, notably through sanctions that weaken its war machine and preserve leverage for any negotiations. The G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan initiative is a demonstration of how the G7 can act decisively to support Ukraine. Going forward, the EU will play a central role in Ukraine’s reconstruction, closely linked with the EU accession process, and looks forward to continued cooperation with G7 partners in supporting Ukraine.
The G7 must also continue to strengthen its relations with countries around the globe, as well as to work with the United Nations and its agencies, building on common interests and shared priorities, such as climate action, sustainable development, poverty and disease reduction, debt vulnerabilities, and the reform of global financial institutions.
We need to implement our agreed G7 $600 billion partnership to finance global infrastructure and investment in developing countries, which enhances our economic security and strengthens their ability to cope with economic adversity. This includes addressing global warming, which is the root cause of climate disasters such as wildfires and floods. The EU will stand firm in the fight against climate change, aiming for climate neutrality by 2050 and striving for meaningful progress at this year’s Conference of the Parties meeting in Brazil.
Efficient, safe and predictable trade is a key feature of global cooperation. Indiscriminate tariffs will not address
the deficiencies in the trading system. They increase prices for consumers and costs for businesses, and disrupt supply chains. The EU remains committed to predictable and fair trade relationships with all its partners.
Over the years, the G7 has built a strong track record of cooperation and like-mindedness, promoting sound policies and securing economic relations based on mutual trust, with a real impact on the lives of our citizens and our businesses. In securing and building on this unity, the G7 and other global partners who share the same fundamental values will contribute to de-risking our supply chains and safeguarding our economic security. New systemic challenges – most notably those posed by the emergence of China as a key global player –have fundamentally changed the global economy. We need to work together on issues that cannot be tackled in isolation: climate change, biodiversity loss, the governance of emerging technologies and the risk of pandemics, to name only a few. At the same time, only fair and balanced cooperation can lead to a predictable, principled and lasting partnership. This also means that systemic distortions, lack of market access and the absence of a level playing field must be addressed.
In these uncertain times, leadership is essential. Our Canadian friends have demonstrated the ability to read the moment and develop a strategy that finds common ground among G7 members on some of the most critical issues of our time, laying the groundwork for detailed, focused discussions and for delivering concrete and effective outcomes.
G7 unity must continue to be a pillar of stability in a world of heightened uncertainty. The EU is ready to contribute to this unity.
For decades, free trade has been a driver of global prosperity, it has lifted billions out of poverty and sustained the livelihoods of millions of European families. Now, global markets are shaken by the unpredictable tariff policy of the US administration … Tariffs are like taxes, they hurt consumers and business alike … Millions of citizens will face higher grocery bills, medicines will cost more, transportation will cost more, inflation will go up, and this is hurting in particular the most vulnerable citizens. Businesses – big and small – suffer from day one. Greater uncertainty, disruption of supply chains, burdensome bureaucracy, we cannot and must not allow this to happen. We have to double down on our hallmark policies of open markets, of win-win trade and investment partnerships, of free and fair trade.
But in every crisis, there is also an opportunity. Not only is our Single Market the largest in the world, because its openness to the world is so much greater than that of the US or China, but we are also world champion in exports to GDP [gross domestic product]. Our companies need the global markets … We already have the largest network of free trade agreements, with 76 countries around the world, now the world of trade is turning towards us … They all want to deal with us because we are fair, reliable and we play by the rules … But the key to our prosperity is … to make business easy right here in Europe. Our Single Market is a safe harbour for European businesses, a place where they can grow strong before they set sail on global markets. But the vitality of the Single Market is held back by too many national barriers, fragmentation and bureaucracy … … If we remove all trade obstacles inside our Union, we could boost our GDP by as much as 10% … Europe was the cradle of innovation, let us free up
European innovation and boost again the entrepreneur spirit of Europe.
This is the moment to stand up for our strengths and values. We do not invade our neighbours, and we do not punish them. On the contrary, there are twelve countries who absolutely want to become members of the European Union, that is about 150 million people. In Europe, children can go to good schools independent of their parents’ income; controversial debates at our universities are welcome; we consider freedom of science and research as fundamental, not only because it is a core value for us, but also because this is how excellence and innovation thrives … This is why we will make proposals to help [the best and brightest] ‘Choose Europe’. Because we want scientists and researchers from all over the world to make Europe their home – and to make Europe the home of innovation again.
… Migration is a common European challenge, that requires a common European solution … First, we have to take control of numbers of illegal
arrivals. It is important that migration does not happen at a faster pace than our communities can keep up with. We will fulfil our international obligations … But it is us, Europeans, who decide, who comes to Europe and under what circumstances, and not the smugglers and traffickers. Since the start of this year, illegal border crossings are down by 30%. This shows that our engagement with our Southern neighbours delivers, and we will continue this work. Second, we have to implement the Migration Pact. We have a new body of law that helps us to put our house in order … And we need better results on returns. It cannot be that only 20% of those who have a negative asylum decision actually leave Europe … Being tough on illegal migration allows us to pave the way for the much-needed labour migration, because Europe should always be open to more talent and more skills.
… Security for Europe also means doing more on our own defence. The threat posed by Russia will not go away, and we know that the American focus will increasingly shift … So, there is no doubt peace in Europe requires that we take much greater responsibility for our own defence. Already … we discussed to turbocharge our defence industrial capacity. But no one could imagine how much we would achieve in … a year: up to EUR 800 billion in investment for our common defence; all 27 Member States on board; new defence partnerships with Norway and soon the UK. We have done more for European defence in a single year than in several decades …
… For a just and lasting peace, we must continue to stand with Ukraine, with more military and financial support, with more pressure on Russia – and yes, with a clear pathway for Ukraine to join our Union. Our message to Ukraine is clear: Your freedom is our freedom; your security is our security; and your future is in our Union.
Speech at the 2025 EPP Congress, Valencia, 28 April 2025
As trust in multilateralism wanes, the 2025 G7 Summit is a pivotal moment to reshape international development cooperation. Global health must be reframed as a strategic investment, redefining sustainable progress
Axel Radlach Pries, president, World Health Summit
Canada will host the G7 Leaders' Summit in June 2025, bringing together the heads of this alliance at a time of increasing geopolitical tension and internal division. Once regarded as a symbol of unity and leadership, the G7 – comprising seven leading industrial democratic states and the European Union – is now grappling with a changing geopolitical environment and growing scepticism of global cooperation.
Even as the G8 including Russia in earlier years, G7 leaders were basically aligned in facing global challenges over
many years. This was rooted in shared views on globalisation, free trade, democratic systems, and the very foundations of post-World War II global cooperation. However, this year’s meeting is expected to be marked by discord within the group and by increasing challenges to their collective leadership. At the same time, the world faces urgent and interconnected crises, demanding stronger cooperation, not less. The ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan are nowhere near peace agreements. Climate change and its related crises are steadily intensifying. All this with
imminent threats for health and prosperity. With only five and a half years left to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), bold commitments are urgently needed. Yet, nationalism and short-term political agendas continue to stifle coordinated action.
In this situation, the 2025 G7 Summit could prove decisive for the future of global development aid and health. Notably, it precedes the United Nations’ 4th International Conference on Financing for Development, scheduled for June 30 to July 3 in Seville, Spain. Together, these events offer a unique opportunity to rethink and restructure the global architecture for international cooperation.
G7 nations account for just 10% of the world’s population but hold nearly half of its wealth. They currently also contribute about 75% of official development assistance (ODA). However, these
shares are steadily declining, reflecting global trends that require a redefinition of international solidarity. The weaknesses of the existing approach were highlighted by the recent cessation of US foreign aid:
• A support system which is overly reliant on a single donor is not sustainable and reliable. A future constellation needs to be supported by many actors in a multipolar world.
• The traditional interaction is based on a donor-recipient paradigm where the aid comes from industrialised states of the Global North. Such polarised interaction perpetuates both the dominance of donor nations and the passivity of recipients – this should be replaced by a partnership approach.
• Humanitarian motives for ODA are applaudable – but a sustainable approach requires the inclusion of additional acceptable interests. Thus, a new international development system should be based on the transparent communication of mutual interests including economic ones.
Consequently, a more equitable model – similar to NATO burden-sharing – needs to be developed, with a wider array of countries contributing fixed shares of support. On the other hand, the principle of country ownership needs to be strengthened: low- and middle-income countries must be prepared to allocate at least 15% of their
“Health is the foundation of every economy. A healthy population forms the basis for workforce productivity, social stability, and long-term growth”
GDP to health and development, which requires new taxation frameworks and debt relief.
The World Health Summit (WHS) 2025 from October 12 to 14 in Berlin will convene under the leitmotif: “Taking Responsibility for Health in a Fragmenting World.” This theme corresponds to the urgent need for leadership and concerted action, while the call for responsibility addresses each and every stakeholder in the health sector, from traditional donor states to emerging countries, from medical specialists to finance, and industrial experts. Based on its economic and innovative potential, as well as on its multinational composition, Europe and the European Union could foster the establishment of a new architecture for development partnership, address the generated vacuum, and strengthen its role in global health and development. During the 2024 WHO investment round at the World Health Summit last October, the European Union and its member states signaled their readiness to take on greater responsibility. Stable, long-term funding for global health –including institutions like the WHO – is now imperative. At the same time, these investments also support domestic pop-
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.
X-TWITTER @WorldHealthSmt Linkedin-In company/worldhealthsummit worldhealthsummit.org
ulations. Health security is no longer just a humanitarian issue – it is a strategic and economic necessity.
Global health financing offers significant returns. It stimulates further investments, creates new markets, and supports the export of domestically produced health technologies and services. Rather than falling into nationalist rhetoric, we should reframe the discussion: global health is not just a moral imperative, instead it is a matter of transparent, mutual economic benefits.
Health is the foundation of every economy. A healthy population forms the basis for workforce productivity, social stability, and long-term growth. In fact, the health economy is one of the largest commercial sectors in nearly every G7 nation. Leaders must recognise that investing in health is not charity, it is smart policy.
The pandemic preparedness accord is a case in point: international cooperation can produce concrete benefits for health systems worldwide and protect our societies and economies from the devastating social and economic effects of a next pandemic. Global cooperation, especially in health and development, is not an option – it is the only viable path forward.
https://www.global-solutions-initiative.org/ wp-content/uploads/2025/03/issuepaper_Health_ G7-Measures-to-enhance-Global-Health-Equityand-Security_Kickbusch_Hornidge_Gitahi_ Kamradt-Scott.pdf
https://focus2030.org/How-much-do-the-G7-countriesgive-in-Official-Development-Assistance-ODA
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/ Laender-Regionen/Internationales/Thema/allgemeinesregionales/G7/G7.html?nn=632814#wirtschaft
As Canada prepares to host the G7’s 50th anniversary summit in Kananaskis, a new cast of leaders must navigate widening geopolitical fractures, complex global crises and growing divergences. Yet amid the uncertainty, the G7 can lead, as a force for stability, equity and collective action
For the G7’s 50th anniversary in 2025 and its 51st annual gathering, Canada will host the summit once again at Kananaskis, Alberta, in the majestic Rocky Mountains, on 15–17 June.
It will be a landmark event in many ways. It starts a new generation of the G7’s growing performance and contribution to global governance, after its first half century of work since 1975. It starts the final five years to reach the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
John Kirton, director, G7 Research Group
It is the return for a second term of US president Donald Trump, now often waging verbal and economic war on the G7 host and the other G7 partners too. And it marks the first outing on the full world stage of Mark Carney, elected Canada’s prime minister on 28 April, as the leader of a transcontinental, ecological and energy superpower bordering the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans.
Joining Carney as a G7 summit newcomer are British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, Japanese prime minister Ishiba Shigeru, German chancellor Friedrich Merz and European Council president António Costa. Joining Trump as veterans are French president Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. Their invited guests include Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese and South Korea’s president.
These leaders will confront a full range of interconnected crises and challenges, including the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, conflicts between India and Pakistan and elsewhere, and the need for clean energy to combat the existential threat of climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. The summit simultaneously faces the revolutionary benefits and risks brought by artificial intelligence, quantum computing and associated digital technologies, amid economic, food and health insecurity, declines in development, debt sustainability and democracy, and new challenges from financial instability, migration and border security. The Kananaskis
Summit must also complete members’ compliance with the 34 accumulated commitments made by G7 leaders since 2015 that are due to be delivered this year. These are led by commitments on climate change and the environment with 19, energy with four, health with three, digitalisation and gender with two each, and Ukraine, food and agriculture, labour and employment, and development with one each.
In response, G7 leaders will together address and act to advance security, prosperity and international partnerships, through several initiatives.
The discussion on security includes Ukraine’s reconstruction and recovery, its financial stability, business environment and economic growth, and the Ukraine Donor Platform, in addition to extreme weather events that threaten maritime port security and prosperity, ‘shadow fleets’ smuggling sanctioned materials, and sabotage attacks on undersea communication and energy cables.
The priority of prosperity means making critical minerals supply chains resilient through investment and G7-G20 coordination, and structural reform to foster growth, competition and innovation. It also means reducing fiscal
pressures, through labour, productivity, market, governance and education reforms. It features AI, in particular promoting its adoption and benefits, while reducing its risks, through a possible G7 blueprint for AI adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises and AI’s diffusion throughout the economy.
Partnerships feature private capital mobilisation for infrastructure, support for the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, including the African Virtual Investment Platform launched by the African Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
On the environment, leaders are expected to address illegal fishing and biodiversity loss.
The G7’s Kananaskis Summit thus promises to produce a productive performance. It could well be a significant one, due to the several severe shocks it faces, the many multilateral organisational failures in response, and the members’ still globally predominant and internally equalising relevant capabilities, due to the relative economic and soft power decline of the US inside the G7. But its members have unprecedentedly divergent political principles, practices and policies, with Trump now pursuing economic war against his fellow G7 members,
// JOHN KIRTON
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 Brazil: The 2024 Rio Summit as well as a global health series, including the recent Health: A Political Choice – Building Resilience and Trust
X-TWITTER @jjkirton www.g7.utoronto.ca
threatening to annex neighbouring Canada and the European Union’s Greenland, and at times supporting authoritarian Russia in its war against a democratic Ukraine.
Nonetheless the leaders’ initially low domestic political support is changing, with Trump’s now declining and support for the Canadian host and some other leaders now rising. This should lead Trump to adjust to his colleagues’ united front at the summit itself. And as shown by the G7’s 24 February virtual summit, its pre-summit ministerial meetings and Trump’s public commitment to come to the Kananaskis Summit, all members remain committed to the G7, rather than the G20, as the core of an expanding network of global summit governance.
Rising geopolitical tension, energy insecurity and nationalist rhetoric threaten the foundations of global cooperation. Canada can lead a reimagined model of collective action
Martha Hall Findlay, director and Palmer Chair in Public Policy, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary
As the G7 celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2025, its members face a volatile new world that threatens the global economic, military and social order that has characterised much of the last half century. Current events are challenging the longstanding relationships at the heart of the group.
In a world already dealing with devastating wars, pandemic recovery and broader health, ecological, climate and other challenges, the attacks by US president Donald Trump on the rules-based foundations of global stability and prosperity, from trade to national sovereignty, cast a long shadow over the Kananaskis Summit.
The leaders of the G7 major industrialised countries and the European Union will meet in Kananaskis in their first return to Alberta and Western Canada since the 2002 Kananaskis Summit held in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
Now, as then, global stability and security are core issues for the G7, with
“We need to be open to new ideas and new ways of doing things. That is a message that resonates in Western Canada, where an entrepreneurial spirit exists, and people want to embrace a new world order as an opportunity”
Russia’s (second) invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the war in Israel and Gaza since 2023, and the escalating military tensions across the Asia-Pacific region. For Canada, resolving deadly and destructive conflicts is an immediate priority at this summit but the issue of ‘security’ must go beyond militarism. There is concern in Western Canada and Alberta, where the Kananaskis resort sits on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, about not only economic security with Trump’s tariff wars, but also sovereignty, given his repeated references to Canada becoming the 51st state. There is also concern about Canada’s – and Alberta’s – role in contributing to continental and global energy security and food security.
Canada is a trading nation. Trade accounts for two-thirds of our national gross domestic product and exports are critical. In Alberta, exports, led by energy and agriculture, accounted for 38% of provincial GDP in 2023 as the province contributes about 25% of Canada’s merchandise exports and a full 15% of Canada’s overall GDP.
With Canada holding the G7 Presidency in 2025 under newly elected prime minister Mark Carney, military, economic and energy security are all at the forefront of the summit agenda in a challenging time for the world.
For Albertans, it is an opportunity to discuss how Alberta and Canada can contribute to global energy and food security and build on our history of military contributions in the First and Second World Wars, more recent conflicts and peacekeeping missions. We could encourage a new global energy security alliance among like-minded free trade–supporting countries to coordinate energy needs and energy supply.
Indeed, the agenda for Kananaskis in some ways marks a return to the early days of the G7 in the 1970s when the
Middle East oil crisis first brought the major industrialised countries together to address an unprecedent energy-based global economic challenge.
What is starkly different now, however, is the approach some countries are taking, with national self-interest increasingly driving the policy decisions in many capitals. Even more disconcerting is the fact there are now more autocracies in the world than democracies.
This is worrisome. Particularly with globalism seemingly in retreat with the Trump administration, today’s big challenges will require countries, sometimes different configurations of countries, to work together in different ways to find solutions.
TIME FOR CHANGE
We need to be open to new ideas and new ways of doing things. That is a message that resonates in Western Canada, where an entrepreneurial spirit exists, and people want to embrace a new world order as an opportunity. At the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, we recently partnered with the Government of Alberta to launch the New North America Initiative to look for new ways to develop solutions to our challenges from the ground up.
The Government of Canada has said the Kananaskis Summit will be an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and to advance dialogue, collective action and innovative solutions.
In today’s rapidly changing world, Kananaskis is a chance for Prime Minister Carney to establish his vision for Canada and its global relationships. Albertans see it as an opportunity to focus on Canada’s role in helping countries around the world deal with energy and food security.
Kananaskis is the first time the summit has returned to a previous location since 1991 – and it is a suitably dramatic backdrop to the mountainous challenges the G7 must address.
Martha Hall Findlay is the director and Palmer Chair in Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, and a member of the Expert Group on Canada-U.S. Relations. Previously she was chief sustainability and chief climate officer for Suncor Energy, and before that CEO of the Canada West Foundation. As a member of Canada’s Parliament, she served in the Official Opposition shadow cabinet for international trade; finance; transport, infrastructure and communities; and public works and government. She has been a corporate lawyer, international trade expert and senior business executive.
X-TWITTER @policy_school www.policyschool.ca
As the G7 enters its second half century, the challenges its members face are as formidable as ever. The ability to rise to the challenges and opportunities collectively, in established or new ways, will be what defines the success of this summit and the future of the G7.
With geopolitical alliances shifting, the G7 faces renewed pressure to sustain unified support for Ukraine, a central issue at this year’s summit
Zoe Mason, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
Since Donald Trump returned as US president, international discourse about the war in Ukraine has become dizzyingly unpredictable. The reduction of American support for Ukraine, and increasingly changing relations between the United States and Russia, have led other G7 members to pursue new bilateral and multilateral arrangements to support Ukrainian defence. While a ceasefire deal remains under discussion, amid a persistently volatile political environment, it is uncertain whether it will be realised and, if so, upheld. As a result of these and other major security developments, and with Canada’s prime minister having invited Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the summit, Ukraine will be a major topic at the Kananaskis Summit.
DELIBERATIONS
Since their start in 1975, G7 summits have devoted an average of 4% of their public deliberations in their communiqués to issues involving Ukraine. Between 1975 and 1991, until the Soviet Union broke up, the G7 discussed Ukraine only once, in 1986, when the Chernobyl nuclear disaster thrust Ukrainian security into the international spotlight. That outlier accounted for 8% of the leaders’ discussion in 1986.
From 1992 to 2013, Ukraine was mentioned often, if not at every summit. It factored into G7 deliberations at an average of 2% per summit during this period.
After Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, however, Ukraine began to feature more in G7 deliberations, with emphasis intensifying further after the full-scale military invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Between 2014 and 2024, deliberations on Ukraine averaged 6% per summit. In 2014, the G7
dedicated 18% of its communications to Ukraine. In 2022, deliberations related to Ukraine represented 26%, the highest to date. In the following two years, however, deliberations dropped below 1%.
Since 1992, the first summit year of Ukraine’s independence from the former Soviet Union, the G7 has made 337 commitments on Ukraine, for an average of 4% per summit. Of those, 314 were made since 2014, for an average of 6% per summit over the last 10 years.
Unlike deliberations, however, decisions regarding Ukraine did not increase significantly following Russia’s invasion of Crimea. It was not until 2021 that they increased dramatically to 80 commitments – or 19% of the summit’s total – on the topic of Ukraine. This percentage rose to 20% in 2022 and remained relatively high at 10% in 2023 and 7% in 2024.
G7 members’ compliance with the 19 summit commitments on Ukraine assessed by the G7 Research Group since 1992 averages 82%. Most of these commitments were made between 2014 and 2023. The highest came in 2014 and 2022, the initial years that Russia invaded, with 100% compliance. The summits in 2017 and 2023 came second with 94%. The lowest compliance came in 2016 with 56%. By December 2024 compliance with the two assessed commitments on Ukraine from 2024 averaged 94%, with the one on the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine having 100% and the one on military assistance for Ukraine having 88%.
By member, the highest compliers with the Ukraine commitments from 1992 to 2023 were the European Union with 97%, and the United States and United Kingdom with 91% each.
“With Canada’s prime minister having invited Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the summit, Ukraine will be a major topic”
Years with commitments that specifically invoke economic penalties – either broadly stated or specifically referring to sanctions – have generated the highest compliance. In 2014 and 2023, G7 commitments explicitly stated the intention to impose or uphold sanctions against Russia, and in 2022, commitments likewise delineated an intention to “impose severe and immediate economic costs on President [Vladimir] Putin’s regime”. These three years had a combined average compliance of 98%.
Second, there is a correlation between the release of a stand-alone G7 statement on Ukraine and high compliance with commitments related to Ukraine. In 2014, 2022 and 2023, G7 leaders released statements affirming their commitment
to defending Ukrainian security and condemning Russian aggression.
As mentioned, these years had high compliance. In 2016, a statement was also released on Ukraine, but rather than pertain to Ukrainian security it described energy sector support; compliance with three commitments on Ukraine that year averaged 56%.
Despite limited data, commitments referencing the war in Ukraine and issuing punitive actions against Russia seem likely to produce high rates of compliance. In contrast, peacetime commitments concerned with diplomacy and development have lower levels of compliance.
Zoe Mason is a senior researcher with the G7 Research Group based at the University of Toronto. She is a recent graduate of the University of Toronto, where she obtained a master’s degree in contemporary international history. Her research focuses primarily on nuclear weapons and American foreign policy. She plans to continue her study of nuclear weapons policy at the doctoral level.
As US leadership grows more unpredictable, and as Russian aggression persists, the imperative to safeguard Ukraine has never been more urgent. G7 members must commit to significantly increase defence spending, standing united for Ukraine and the stability of the global order
Aurel Braun, professor of international relations and political science, University of Toronto
Foreign relations, unlike domestic issues, normally operate along a long arc. Since US president Donald Trump’s return to power, however, geopolitics have become far more deeply unpredictable, compressing major changes from years to months, weeks and, sometimes, even days. Political, military and trade disruptions now are so consequential that the best way to try to understand issues and solutions, including Russia’s war against Ukraine, is to return to first principles.
Although military and economic help from G7 members has been critical in preserving the independence of over 80% of Ukraine, some governments have tried to separate soft from hard power, preening the former and neglecting the latter. Soft power can only be effective if it is backed by commensurate hard power, whose central component is defence. Whereas in democracies defence expenditures must satisfy legitimate competing interests, G7 members also face unpredictable American leadership plus persistent Russian aggression in Europe and assertiveness globally. They need to confront both an inconvenient reality and a short window to address these threats and stresses effectively. Drastically increasing defence spending, then, is not a luxury; it is an exigency.
The United States remains the indispensable partner, providing extended nuclear deterrence and crucial logistical
At the School of Public Policy, we don’t just study policy—we shape it.
Founded in 2008 as part of one of Canada’s top research universities, the School has become a trusted voice for policymakers.
We focus on solving today’s most pressing challenges by producing rigorous, non-partisan research to inform decision-making at every level— local, national and global.
Our research spans critical policy areas including energy, economics, health and social policy, international relations and Canadian governance.
With deep expertise and a commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration, we bridge the gap between academic rigor and real-world relevance.
Discover how policy research drives change at policyschool.ca
and military intelligence contributions. Yet President Trump, who immediately after assuming office returned Churchill’s bust to the Oval Office, is seemingly pursuing neo-isolationist policies that risk mimicking those of Neville Chamberlain. Trump’s stratagems seem to be a microcosm of overall global disruption and unpredictability.
The good news is that, whether by domestic design or under extreme pressure from the US, most North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries have reached or surpassed the minimum 2% of gross domestic product expenditure on defence. Key European countries, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, recognise Ukraine’s central role, not only in European but also in global security, and the growing danger posed by a relentlessly aggressive Putin regime. Poland is doubling its defence expenditures and armed forces, and Germany and France are moving in that direction. Japan, the sole non-NATO G7 member, is also significantly boosting its defence expenditures and self-defence forces. Unfortunately, these impressive efforts take time to bear fruit. The Europeans have allowed their military forces and defence industries to atrophy to a level where Russia, with an economy below one tenth that of the combined G7 but with many years of immense military expenditures, poses a threat that is difficult to counter. The Europeans should thus vastly scale up the whole spectrum of their defence. NATO will need to rely on the US in the short term for some of the most advanced weapons, logistics and intelligence inputs.
Consequently, old NATO aphorisms about keeping the US in and the Russians out still resonate. Yet this should not just be a simple repetition of Cold War strategy, since the US is not likely to make the same level of contribution and Russia is not a superpower except for nuclear weapons, is not governed by a universalistic doctrine and is but an aggressive remnant of the Soviet empire. Furthermore, despite heroic attempts to find elegant explanations for Vladimir Putin’s regime, he is more mafia than Machiavelli.
One central challenge, therefore, is to ‘right size’ Russia. The threat is real, but Russia is not unstoppable. By 1975, after
“With western help, Ukraine can defend itself, and become a thriving, prosperous democracy. This would set the most powerful example to the Russian people of the possibility of Slavic states becoming true winners”
30 years, Germany, Italy and Japan – the Axis powers of 1945 defeated by the west – were successful democracies with vibrant internationally competitive economies. Contrast that with a post1991 Russia, 30-plus years later, where, with the exception of the oligarchs (and Putin himself), the overwhelming majority of its people are poorer than even Romanian or Turkish citizens, inhabiting an energy-dependent, largely un-modernised, uncompetitive economy wracked by rampant corrosive corruption. Since Putin is not prepared to address the fundamental economic and political issues that would threaten his power, he has become dependent on external crises, real or manufactured, to divert popular attention away from those fundamental domestic problems and play on the worst instincts of the Russian people – fear of chaos and historical xenophobia.
Possibilities for constructive engagement with Russia are limited. Trump’s vision of a grand agreement with Russia where it switches from partnering with China to the US is a perilous delusion. What is realistic is a new form of containment with Ukraine kept safe, Russian aggression stopped – at the very least no further than today’s lines – and the remaining 80% of Ukraine becomes viable. With western help, Ukraine can defend itself, and become a thriving, prosperous democracy. This would set the most powerful example to the Russian people of the possibility of Slavic states becoming true winners, like democratic Japan, Germany and Italy.
Such new containment, however, can only succeed if G7 leaders mobilise national capacity, make their economies more resilient, expeditiously escalate their defence capabilities and commit to safeguarding Ukraine. Moreover, they must persuade Trump that this is the best way for the US to be great and secure, and win together with the other members and, ultimately, with the rest of the world, including the long-suffering Russian people who deserve to see a far better post-Putin future.
// AUREL BRAUN
Aurel Braun is a professor of international relations and political science, and a fellow of Trinity College at the University of Toronto. He is also an associate of the Davis Center at Harvard. His latest book is NATO-Russia Relations in the 21st Century, and his forthcoming book is on Russia, the west and Arctic security.
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.
The G7 Information Centre at
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.
edited by Marina Larionova and John Kirton
Reconfiguring the Global Governance of Climate Change by John Kirton, Ella Kokotsis and Brittaney Warren Institutionalised Summits in International Governance by Daniel Odinius Accountability for Effectiveness in Global Governance
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
The Middle East faces a series of interconnected conflicts and crises that demand sustained international engagement. Only multilateral diplomacy, political incentives and pressure for accountable governance can prevent further escalation and shape pathways to peace
What are the prospects for a durable ceasefire in Gaza?
The prospects are rather distant. The war in Gaza has fallen in international attention. There’s inadequate pressure on all the parties – particularly Israel –to build a credible pathway beyond the military dynamics. Without external pressure, Israel’s strategy is to create a buffer zone and perhaps advance the depopulation of the Gaza strip, as well as transfer the burden of security to its Arab neighbours. Hamas is fighting for its political survival, if not broader legitimacy, and is not incentivised to think about next-day, longer-term solutions. A coordinated international effort is needed to press all the parties to commit to a ceasefire, maintain a strict timeline and commit to a political, not military, solution.
What is needed to resolve the conflict between the United States and the Houthis?
The Houthis have a high risk tolerance. They’ve become more emboldened through the war in Gaza and the US and UK military efforts against them. A reinvigorated peace process needs to bring together all the parties involved in the war that began in 2015. That process must include incentives and also serious united regional and international pressure to restore governance in a united Yemen. Empowering the internationally recognised government also to be a party to that process is a simultaneous and necessary step. Unfortunately, this political process is far off, because none of the actors want to rehabilitate the Houthis as legitimate political players in Yemen. The result is another standoff. Without a political runway, military efforts alone cannot achieve the needed outcomes that can support Yemenis.
Is an Iranian-US-Israeli agreement to end that conflict possible?
There’s an urgent need for a broad regional and international agreement that addresses Iran’s advancing nuclear programme, as well as the broader regional security dynamics that have exploded over the past 18 months –especially as the Iran nuclear agreement will expire in October 2025. A diplomatic process is needed that can reimpose restraints on Iran in exchange for durable
// SANAM VAKIL
Sanam Vakil is the director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House. Her expertise spans geopolitics, Iranian and Gulf politics, regional security dynamics, and US foreign policy, with a particular focus on the evolving strategic landscape of the Middle East and its global connectivity. She also holds the James Anderson Professorial Lectureship in Middle East Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Bologna, Italy. She is the author of Action and Reaction: Women and Politics in Iran.
X-TWITTER @SanamVakil www.chathamhouse.org
sanctions relief. There’s an opportunity with an ambitious, motivated US president. But there are many roadblocks, including Israel, which is looking to set back Iran’s programme in a military way. There’s also very little trust between Tehran and Washington since President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018. Indeed, there has been no meaningful diplomatic engagement between them for 46 years. So the pathway is a multilateral one, and it requires determined engagement from Germany, France and the UK –alongside Gulf states equally invested in a de-escalation rather than a military solution. Otherwise, what lies ahead is military conflict, led by Israel, or the weaponisation of Iran’s nuclear programme, or both.
How could today’s Syria become a multi-ethnic, peaceful, prosperous state?
The newly formed Syrian government has tried to pull together a representative Syrian government. However, the timeline to write and build consensus on a new constitution and an electoral process appears to be a lengthy five years. The recent US announcement to lift sanctions against the Syrian government will alleviate the country’s economic
“These conflicts in the Middle East are intertwined. They bring together states and nonstate actors, including western allies and also China, Russia and Iran. Unravelling them requires sustained diplomatic attention”
problems and make it easier to hold this government accountable. However, there needs to be a milestone plan for sanctions relief tied to political steps that are more immediate. Economic relief is urgently needed alongside engagement with the Syrian people, the empowerment of Syrian civil society, and a multilateral regional process supported by Europe, the US and the G7 to protect inclusive government, which is the ultimate aim of everyone involved.
What are the prospects for ending Lebanon’s deadly conflicts?
Lebanon is the most optimistic of the situations in the Middle East. A pragmatic presidential candidate and prime minister have emerged who are committed to using the weakening of Hezbollah and the military conflict to rewrite the balance of power within the country. What is needed is a combination of diplomatic pressure and a new agreement among political actors and parties in the Lebanese system to be more accountable and to support good governance. The demilitarisation of Hezbollah must be built into the process; it cannot come just from pressure. There also needs to be incentives for Hezbollah to support such developments. A complicated, very delicate process of
negotiation must ensue. But there is an appetite within Lebanon and from key regional actors in the Middle East. The west can play a necessary scaffolding and shepherding role.
How can G7 leaders best help in the Middle East?
First, these conflicts in the Middle East are intertwined. They bring together states and nonstate actors, including western allies and also China, Russia and Iran. Unravelling them requires sustained diplomatic attention – hard to deliver given global fragmentation and bilateral and multilateral challenges. It also requires sustained support from an entity such as the G7 whose members can work together to support these governance and accountability processes.
Second, these conflicts can no longer be bandaged over. They require political settlements attached to processes that need pressure and incentives to achieve proper resolution.
Third, the spillover of conflict from the Middle East has global and geoeconomic complications, so the G7 has a responsibility to support conflict resolution in the region for economic and security reasons and because these conflicts have led to domestic tensions in almost all the G7 members.
As the global AI race intensifies, poised to redefine geopolitical, economic and military trajectories, the G7 has a critical role to play in ensuring advanced technology stays in trusted hands
Over the last 12 months the current hyper-power and astounding future potential of artificial intelligence have become clear, as the most critical innovation of the 21st century is integrated into an increasing number of civilian and military applications. In the economy, AI is driving exponential improvements in research, development, production, logistics and retail processes for a wide range of products and services.
On the military side, over the last year Ukraine has inflicted serious damage on Russian energy and military infrastructure well inside Russia by deploying AI-driven drone swarms. In the Middle East, Israel’s use of its AI-infused MIC4AD air defence system allowed the Israeli Defense Forces to repel a massive missile/drone saturation attack of more than 300 projectiles on 14 April 2024. On the other hand, Israel’s use of its Lavender, Habsora and other AI-based targeting systems in Gaza shows that human oversight of all-powerful AI is critical.
A GLOBAL AI RACE
It is no surprise, then, that AI competition is only heating up globally between Team Democracy and Team Autocracy, and
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
George Takach is a former tech lawyer who is now a senior fellow at the Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International History at the University of Toronto. The Chinese-language version of his 2024 book, Cold War 2.0: Artificial Intelligence in the New Battle Between China, Russia and America, was released by Commonwealth Publishing in Taiwan in February 2025.
among the United States and China in particular. Indeed, recent commercial releases of new AI products in China have some pundits asserting that the Chinese have caught up to the Americans in this Cold War 2.0 race of unparalleled importance. Russian president Vladimir Putin’s 2017 statement on AI seems quite prescient: “Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind … Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.”
In January 2025 a relatively small Chinese research operation released DeepSeek for general use. It is a new AI product that at first glance seems to be almost as powerful as the state-of-the-art programs of American leaders of the AI space, such as OpenAI, Google and Anthropic. And in March 2025, a Chinese startup released Manus AI, an AI ‘agent’ tool that assists with autonomous task handling.
Frankly, the hype around these two Chinese products has been overblown. They are solid offerings, but they are still largely derivative of, and enabled by, AI and related innovation emanating from the democracies. Specifically, they rely heavily on underlying AI algorithms and critical semiconductor chip infrastructure that are produced only in countries currently making up the G7 democracies, including Japan, the US and several countries in Europe such as the Netherlands and Germany.
The democracies’ lead in AI will be further accentuated when OpenAI releases ChatGPT 5 later in 2025. This new product will exhibit enhanced reasoning and logic, multimodal integration (that is, processing text, images, audio and video in a single system), and a greatly amplified context window, to enable longer-term memory and unified longitudinal discussions.
Nevertheless, the advances shown by DeepSeek and Manus are a wakeup call that the G7 needs to support and protect the AI space, including in the all-important semiconductor chip domain.
Here are some practical steps. The G7 should keep up strong sanctions against China and Russia on high tech products and services generally, but especially covering certain AI algorithms and the ‘secret sauce’ found in the high tech machines used to produce the needed semiconductor chips.
Beijing has strenuously complained to Team Democracy that these sanctions are hindering Chinese research and development in producing competitive semiconductor chips. Good. It is necessary, therefore, for the G7 to sustain iron-clad resolve in its export controls on high technologies, including by using more AI-based analytical tools to shut down the illegal actions of China and Russia to steal these technologies.
The G7 members must also prohibit major tech companies, such as Meta, from releasing AI products in open-source form. This business model is highly problematic because
adversaries in Team Autocracy can then more easily access the high-value inventions and innovations contained in these open-sourced software products. Bottom line: the democracies should not be giving the autocracies the rope they then use to try to hang us (or their own people).
Finally, in a similar vein, US president Donald Trump’s pivot towards Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine should not be extended to relaxing technology export controls on the Russians. The increased commercial and soft power reconciliation apparently planned between the White House and the Kremlin (which includes a multi-game hockey match-up between the two countries – surely a flawed concept given that Canada recently beat the US team in a similar tournament) should not include a thaw on the American technology embargo currently in place against Russia. For the sake of Ukraine, and the citizens of Team Democracy countries everywhere (including 340 million Americans), the members of the G7 certainly do not want Russia to be able to obtain the most powerful AI semiconductor chips and algorithms in the world from their suppliers in the United States.
“The G7 needs to support and protect the AI space, including in the all-important semiconductor chip domain”
By anchoring the G7’s commitments on macroeconomic policy in clear references to ministerial mechanisms and the private sector, leaders can make lasting progress
Angela Minyi Hou, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
Since the G7 summit’s inception in 1975, global economic stability has anchored its agenda. Traditionally, the G7 has addressed macroeconomic policy challenges by working to strengthen non-inflationary growth. Despite relatively high compliance with macroeconomic policy commitments, the G7’s deliberations and decision-making have consistently declined in its recent years, reflecting missed opportunities for the G7’s role in global economic governance.
Recent G7 summits have contributed progressively fewer words to the summit’s 30,535-word total on macroeconomic policy. In 1975, the first summit gave 52% of its consensus text to macroeconomics. This proportion slid to 12% by 1981, as the 10%–20% range became the norm in the following decades, despite spikes to 48% in 1982, 33% in 1985 and 21% in 1993. Starting in the early 1990s, the percentage of macroeconomic references vis-à-vis the overall G7 text dropped to single digits, falling as low as 2% in 2019. The Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 stimulated a resurgence of G7 conclusions on macroeconomic policy, accounting for 30% of the total text adopted at the virtual G7 summit in 2020. This figure dropped to 6% and remained there until 2023, and then fell further to 4% at the most recent 2024 Apulia Summit.
The total of 339 G7 commitments on macroeconomic policies account for 4% of all the 7,693 commitments made in G7 history. This puts macroeconomics 12th among all G7 subjects with commitments. Summits in the first decade (1975–1987) produced an average of 21% macroeconomic commitments in a given year. From 1988 to 2022, this average dipped to 6%, with the exception of the virtual summit hosted by the United States in March 2020. This Covid-focused meeting dedicated 32% of its commitments to macroeconomics. However, the momentum was not maintained – the focus on macroeconomic policy quickly dissipated and only accounted for 4% of commitments made in 2021, 3% in 2022, 2% in 2023 and 2% in 2024.
Of the 31 macroeconomic commitments assessed for compliance by the G7 Research Group, G7 members scored 84% on average, well above the G7 average of 77% across all subjects. In the macroeconomic domain, no clear trend is observed across compliance levels by year, as the figures do not change much; however, notable dips to approximately 60% compliance occurred in 2003, 2004, 2014 and 2016. In the years producing a high number of macroeconomic conclusions and commitments, 100% compliance came on commitments made in 1996 and 1999. Very high compliance was also observed for commitments made in 2008 and 2018 with 100% each, 2011 with 95%, as well as 2015 and 2021 with 91% each, in part correlated with major global macroeconomic shocks. Most recently, by December 2024 compliance with the assessed Apulia Summit's macroecononmic commitment was 94%.
The most compliant G7 members are Canada and the United States at 89% each. The European
“As the
2025 G7 host, Canada has identified ‘building stable and inclusive economies that benefit everyone’ as a priority”
Union, France and the United Kingdom each have 87%, and Germany has 84%. Japan’s compliance is 79%. Italy ranks last with 71%.
As the 2025 G7 host, Canada has identified “building stable and inclusive economies that benefit everyone” as a priority. To improve the G7’s record of macroeconomic compliance, the Kananaskis Summit should introduce concrete references to ministerial mechanisms and the private sector to anchor the G7’s commitments.
Previous trends suggest that references to business stakeholders correlate with higher compliance, as the two assessed macroeconomic commitments with such references averaged 97% compliance. An increased number of meetings of finance ministers and central bank governors – designed with a specific focus on macroeconomic stability and a remit mandate to report back to G7 leaders – also helps, especially in light of slowing growth and increasing inflation rates among G7 economies.
// ANGELA MINYI HOU
Angela Minyi Hou is a senior researcher with the G7 and G20 Research Groups, and former co-chair of the BRICS Research Group. She holds a master’s degree in international affairs from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, with specialisations in trade and environment. The views in this publication are her personal opinions.
X-TWITTER @g7_rg www.g7.utoronto.ca
From drawing on the benefits of human-centred AI to strengthening critical mineral supply chains and supporting Ukraine’s recovery, the OECD and G7 members can work together to shape a more resilient, inclusive future
Governments across the G7, and beyond, are navigating a complex global environment, heightened policy uncertainty and geopolitical tensions. Although the global economy remained resilient in 2024, the outlook has become more challenging, with declines in business and consumer confidence and increases in barriers to trade.
Mathias Cormann, OECD secretary general
Ambitious reforms will be needed to unlock stronger growth, from regulatory reforms to boost competition and reduce red tape, to enhanced education and training, to sound, well-targeted investments in infrastructure and innovation. In parallel, our economies and societies are undergoing structural transformations that will require our policy frameworks to adapt. The rapid ageing of our populations will require measures to strengthen our pension and healthcare systems, while boosting labour market participation and productivity. For the digital transformation to reach its full potential, governments need to address barriers to the adoption of technologies like artificial intelligence, while addressing potential risks, including privacy protection. The green transition can help enhance energy security, affordability and
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
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, government leader 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.
X-TWITTER @MathiasCormann @oecd oecd.org
sustainability, although well-coordinated policies are essential to maximise positive spillovers and, ultimately, to reduce costs, while addressing negative spillovers such as carbon leakage.
Across all these challenges, multilateral dialogue and cooperation will be essential for governments to share their experiences with what works and what does not, and to coordinate their efforts. The G7, marking its 50th anniversary this year, remains an indispensable forum for this cooperation.
As an organisation that brings together like-minded market-based democracies from around the world, and as a source of objective, reliable data and evidence-based analysis, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is proud to have provided longstanding support for effective outcomes at the G7. This year, under Canada’s presidency, is no different. We are supporting several of Canada’s key priorities, including the following.
aim to explore how multilateral cooperation can harness the development potential of critical mineral investment, and to strengthen coordination between the G7 and G20 on critical minerals.
On structural reforms to strengthen the foundations for growth, the OECD is supporting the G7’s growth agenda with policy advice focused on structural reforms that tackle both sluggish growth and fiscal pressures, from pro-competition and innovation policies to labour, product market, governance and education reforms.
To help harness the benefits of AI for productivity and growth, the OECD is supporting the proposed G7 blueprint for AI adoption with our latest evidence and policy advice, focusing on small- and medium-sized enterprises. Our contributions leverage our Digital Economic Outlook and AI Diffusion Project, along with the OECD Recommendation on AI, the first intergovernmental standard for trustworthy, human-centred AI.
On strengthening the resilience of the supply chains underpinning global growth, the OECD is leveraging our data and key standards in areas such as responsible business conduct, to support the G7’s work to expand and mitigate risks in critical mineral supply chains. In 2025, the OECD is also convening a series of dialogues with partners in Africa, Asia and Latin America in partnership with Canada’s G7 presidency and South Africa’s 2025 G20 presidency. These dialogues
On increasing private capital mobilisation for infrastructure, the OECD continues to support the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. Building on our contributions to previous G7 presidencies, we are also enhancing global investment opportunities through initiatives such as the African Union–OECD African Virtual Investment Platform, which will provide better information on investment opportunities across the continent and help address risk misperceptions.
Fourth, on fostering Ukraine’s recovery, reconstruction and long-term growth, the OECD is advancing the implementation of the OECD-Ukraine Country Programme, including by finalising the Economic Survey of Ukraine, which will deliver recommendations to strengthen financial stability, improve the business environment and foster economic growth. We are also continuing our engagement in G7-led international processes such as the Ukraine Donor Platform, where we provide our expertise, data and analytical capacity to help promote the adoption of benchmarks and internationally agreed standards.
Despite a challenging geopolitical environment, there is a great deal that we can continue to do to unlock stronger, more resilient growth and new opportunities in our economies, while tackling key shared challenges. In this, multilateral cooperation remains our most powerful tool. The OECD will continue to provide our evidence base and analysis to help support effective outcomes at the G7 for a brighter, more prosperous future.
As longstanding alliances fray, shaking diplomatic and trade foundations of the global order, the G7
faces a crucial test of its cohesion and credibility at the Kananaskis Summit
Mark Sobel, US chair, Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum
The G7 could well face an existential crisis at Kananaskis because of US president Donald Trump. Whither the G7?
In the 1980s and 1990s, the G7 – led by the United States – steered the global economy. But with the rise of emerging market powerhouses, the G7’s relative heft declined. The G20’s Pittsburgh Summit in September 2009 declared the newer, bigger, broader G20 the premier forum for its leaders’ international cooperation, assigning the G7 an informal role.
Then, over the following 15 years, the G20 floundered. Economic performance in Russia and Brazil weakened, as did China’s subsequently. Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas in 2014 and launched its horrific full-scale invasion in February 2022. US-China tensions mounted amid Chinese president Xi Jinping’s increased authoritarianism and America’s heightened focus on economic
With growth slowing and
// MARK SOBEL
families struggling
to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
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 Treasury and regulatory agencies’ work 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.
X-TWITTER @sobel_mark omfif.org
statecraft, including the first Trump administration’s pursuit of a more protectionist and isolationist course.
As the G20 stumbled, the G7 gathered renewed momentum. It was not a smooth ride, as epitomised by the strained US relations with the rest of the G7 at the 2018 Charlevoix Summit, when Trump shamefully disavowed the communiqué to which all had just agreed and launched verbal attacks on the summit’s host, Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau.
The administration of US president Joe Biden, however, helped revive the G7 as a cohesive, democratically aligned forum. The G7 rolled out sanctions on Russia, including blocking $300 billion in Russian central bank and oligarch assets. It helped raise support for Ukraine, including by transferring proceeds from Russia’s immobilised assets, although unfortunately failing to seize and send all those Russian holdings to Ukraine. The G7 limited Russian energy revenues, including imposing a price cap on Russia’s oil exports. Members worked together on tackling cybersecurity, which would not have been feasible by the G20 given the presence of Russia and China. The G7 adopted a hardened line against China’s challenge to western security.
All this cohesion, trust and unity are unravelling as the Kananaskis Summit approaches. US relations with its longtime allies in Europe have become highly strained. Donald Trump is tearing apart the glue that holds the G7 together and it now faces the question of whether it can even continue, or function properly at least over the next four years while Trump is president. It is hard to reach a positive answer for several reasons.
Trump’s attacks on the European Union, claiming that the EU was formed to ‘screw’ America, fly in the face of transatlantic unity and basic comity, and America’s longstanding support for the EU. His tariff threats undermine the liberal trade policies that promoted decades of transatlantic prosperity.
He is right in arguing that Europe must do more for itself, especially on defence. But shunning America’s closest democratic allies while embracing Russian president Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian leaders undermines the cohesion underpinning the G7’s revival. German chancellor Friedrich Merz, always an ardent pro-Atlanticist, shockingly said that his absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible in order to achieve independence from the US, because Americans under this administration are clearly indifferent to the fate of Europe. Other European leaders have echoed his startling remarks.
Trump seemingly wishes to abandon the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or disregard its responsibilities. He appears to see little value or have any interest in the G7 as a ‘democracy’ club, given his support for authoritarians. Indeed, he has again called for Russia to be
readmitted to the G7, despite its barbaric war against Ukraine and Putin’s dictatorship. Other G7 leaders have rejected Trump’s mistaken call.
Trump has shown utter disregard for Ukraine, even denying that Russia was the aggressor against Ukraine, notwithstanding the rest of the G7’s steadfast strong support. His berating of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, supported by US vice-president JD Vance, sent chills up the backs of European leaders and was quickly rebuffed by them.
Trump has turned America’s policies on climate change on their head, while Europe continues to do its best to forge ahead.
European officials have reservations about trusting and working with Trump’s intelligence team.
Moreover, Trump’s deprecations and disdain for Canadian sovereignty will only exacerbate the underlying tensions surrounding the Kananaskis Summit.
The foundations supporting the western alliance, NATO, liberal trade and the G7 – and, frankly, American global leadership – are being torn asunder by the current US administration. Whatever the status of these issues at Kananaskis, enormous damage has been done. The G7 Kananaskis Summit may be a frigid affair, even if it is warm and sunny outside.
“Cohesion, trust and unity are unravelling as the Kananaskis Summit approaches. US relations with its long-time allies in Europe have become highly strained. Donald Trump is tearing apart the glue that holds the G7 together”
The United States’ withdrawal from the 2021 global tax agreement means G7 members must sustain the momentum and credibility of global tax reform. Adaptive measures can help uphold commitments to international tax justice
Michael F. Motala, fellow, G7 Research Group
Shortly after his inauguration in January 2025, US president Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive memorandum formally repudiating America’s commitments to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and G20’s global corporate tax agreement, signed in October 2021.
Trump’s decision, underpinned by a revived protectionist posture and threats of retaliatory measures against jurisdictions imposing “discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes” marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of the global corporate tax regime, reminiscent of the 1971 Nixon Shock, when the United States abandoned the gold standard and introduced import tariffs and price controls.
Whereas former US treasury secretary Janet Yellen heralded the 2021 agreement as a “once in a generation accomplishment for economic diplomacy,” the Trump administration’s recent pivot signals US ambitions to dismantle over a decade of multilateral tax diplomacy, reassert its tax sovereignty and head for the exit when it comes to global economic cooperation.
These recent developments imperil the future of the G20-OECD two-pillar
tax framework. They also illuminate the distributional tensions and institutional fragility of the 2021 agreement, jeopardising more than a decade of productive international cooperation aimed at addressing corporate tax avoidance and reining in base erosion and profit shifting by the world’s richest multinational corporations.
To salvage the 2021 agreement and sustain the momentum of global corporate tax reform over the better part of the last decade, G7 members must renew their commitment to global tax justice and fill in the gap left in the wake of the US exit.
The G20-OECD’s two-pillar solution, endorsed by 136 jurisdictions in October 2021, was an unprecedented effort to reallocate taxing rights in the digital age under Pillar One, and introduced a 15% global minimum tax under Pillar Two. Some elements of the agreement are now entering into force globally. However, American implementation stalled under President Joe Biden’s administration, and has now been wholly reversed. The Trump administration’s memorandum declares the deal has “no force or effect” in the United States absent Congressional approval and directs the Treasury to investigate retaliatory measures under the rarely invoked section 891 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The political fracas is not limited to the White House. Congressional Republicans, who long opposed the Undertaxed Profits Rule under Pillar Two of the 2021 agreement, are now championing legislation that would penalise countries that apply it to American firms. If fully implemented abroad but rejected by Washington, Pillar Two may become a patchwork regime that heightens compliance burdens for multinational corporations, exacerbates disputes and undermines its own legitimacy.
// MICHAEL F. MOTALA
“The evolution of global tax governance is highly contingent on both exogenous shocks and domestic politics. The Trump administration’s policy of aggressive unilateralism and blurred lines between trade and taxation measures challenges the multilateral norms long embedded in the G20-OECD process”
Global reactions have varied. France, Canada and others are proceeding with the digital services taxes that triggered initial US opposition. The United Kingdom may eliminate its DST, which was anticipated to generate £800 million annually in tax revenues, to forestall new US tariffs. Germany and the Netherlands have called for a simplification or suspension of Pillar Two. Simultaneously, developing countries have pivoted to the United Nations as a more representative forum for tax cooperation, launching negotiations for a new global tax convention that excludes the United States entirely, threatening the viability of the 2021 G20-OECD agreement.
These momentous shifts show that the evolution of global tax governance is highly contingent on both exogenous shocks and domestic politics. The Trump administration’s policy of aggressive unilateralism and blurred lines between trade and taxation measures challenges the multilateral norms long embedded in the G20-OECD process.
Yet the US withdrawal also exposes structural contradictions. While rejecting Pillar Two, the United States has already implemented a quasi-minimum tax – the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income rule – and complex foreign tax
Michael F. Motala is a fellow with the G7 Research Group, a scholar of global corporate taxation, an instructor in taxation at Osgoode Hall Law School, an incoming assistant professor of law at the University of Tulsa College of Law, teaching in tax, corporations, securities and advanced contracts, and a trial and corporate lawyer who founded and leads EVERLEX Legal Professional Corporation.
credit rules. The Trump administration’s invocation of national sovereignty risks encouraging further unilateralism elsewhere, with other tax jurisdictions now crafting bespoke rules that deviate from the G20-OECD framework, risking further discord, divergence and fragmentation.
Moreover, retaliatory tariffs or double taxation threats are unlikely to deter major economies. Instead, they may catalyse a broader decoupling from US-centric tax norms, processes and rules. The G20-OECD process, while dented, may survive by embracing flexibility, asymmetric timelines or safe harbours for non-compliant jurisdictions.
Alternatively, momentum may now shift to the UN, where developing countries – which have claimed marginalisation in the G20-OECD reform processes since the global financial crisis in 2008 – are asserting new leadership.
The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the October 2021 global tax agreement shows that international taxation is no longer merely a technical exercise concerned with the prevention of base erosion and corporate tax avoidance. Rather, it is now a battleground for competing visions of the future of economic globalisation, sovereignty and fairness, with implications not only for taxation, but for global trade and investment as well.
If the 2021 global tax agreement is to endure, in some form, it must adapt to this new fragmented reality. This will require renewed political will at the G7 and beyond.
Otherwise, the promise of tax justice in the digital age risks becoming collateral damage in this new era of economic deglobalisation and fiscal nationalism occasioned by the Trump administration’s recent policies.
Mitigating the risks of digital currency expansion through comprehensive regulation, improved interoperability and responsible innovation is the key to greater levels of financial inclusion and stability
Chiara Oldani, lecturer, monetary economics, Università
degli Studi
della Tuscia
Current economic conditions are vulnerable to a range of risks, economic policy uncertainties at the global level are growing due to worsening macroeconomic conditions for some G7 members, while rising geopolitical uncertainties further amplify the downside risks at the global level (see figure).
One source of concern for global economic policy is the uncontrolled growth and spread of digital finance that has been left uncoordinated and unsupervised. Although technological improvements can benefit the global economy, uncontrolled digital risks such as cyber threats can negatively affect stability, while reducing these risks can smooth economic uncertainty. The cyber resilience of financial systems can be strengthened by implementing coordinated regulatory and supervisory strategies.
In the digital financial system, cryptocurrencies are among the most popular traded assets, but they are entirely deregulated and unsupervised. The benefits of cryptocurrencies are mainly associated with financial inclusion, reduced transaction costs and enhanced payment efficiency; costs depend on the competition they can enhance and the illicit use of digital money. Fraud and market manipulation are not
infrequent, to the detriment of consumer trust and market stability.
Due to the vast popularity of crypto assets, central banks in many countries have developed central bank digital currencies. These are digital counterparts to legal money and are managed by the national central bank, with or without the intermediation of the domestic banking system. CBDCs are not cryptocurrencies and are aimed at enhancing financial inclusion, reducing costs, and limiting money laundering and other illicit uses of digital money in the domestic monetary market. Unlike legal money, CBDCs cannot operate outside the domestic market, because there is a lack of interoperability between systems. Although most G7 central banks are conservative and are still at the pilot stage of their CBDC projects, the European Central Bank has reached the final phase of its digital euro project and Europeans will have access to it in the safest possible way by 2026. Similarly, China launched the project for the e-Yuan in 2019, and will introduce a CBDC soon; however, the privacy of e-Yuan trading is not a priority of the People’s Bank of China. The creation of digital currency by the countries in whose currency most foreign reserves are denominated will definitely change the landscape of the monetary system.
The risks of CBDCs in the current global monetary system are mainly related to the lack of effective regulation with regard to consumer protection, privacy of data and anti-money laundering, as well as the lack of interoperability – the possibility of cross-border trade in digital money – and the disintermediation of the
“Given the need to reduce potential sources of risk to financial stability, at their Kananaskis Summit G7 leaders should agree on principles underpinning the smooth regulation and supervision of digital financial intermediaries and trades”
banking system, as consumers will prefer a deposit at the central bank rather than a private bank. Although the technology cannot be limited, a lack of coordination in managing these risks can affect financial stability at the global level.
Given the need to reduce potential sources of risk to financial stability, at their Kananaskis Summit G7 leaders should agree on principles underpinning the smooth regulation and supervision of digital financial intermediaries and trades. The Financial Stability Board set the Global Regulatory Framework for Crypto-Asset Activities based
on the principle of ‘same activity, same risk, same regulation’. This framework provides a strong basis for ensuring that crypto-asset activities are subject to consistent and comprehensive regulation, commensurate with the risks they pose, while supporting responsible innovations potentially brought by technological change. Following the positive growth rates of digital markets and the preventive and constructive approach taken over the last 10 years, a market-based approach, as opposed to a strict regulatory one, is more likely to prevail among G7 members.
// 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.
X-TWITTER @ChiaraOldani
Source: Economic Policy Uncertainty https://www.policyuncertainty.com
With trade a critical issue at this year’s summit, leaders have an opportunity to stress the importance of securing global supply chains and renewing their commitment to strengthening the rules-based multilateral trading system
Sarah Richardson, research associate, G7 Research Group
At the G7’s Kananaskis Summit, trade will soar back to the top of the agenda. All G7 economies depend on trade for economic growth, employment, innovation and low inflation. But they now face proliferating protectionism, sanctions, disrupted supply chains, uncertainty, costs and fears that a global recession or even depression could come. G7 action is urgently needed.
Trade has been a cornerstone of the G7’s work since its start in 1975. Until 2024, G7 leaders devoted 63,217 words of their communiqués to trade, averaging 1,264 words at each summit, for 15% of the total.
In 1975, their 445 words on trade (for 39% of the communiqué’s total) extolled the benefits of an open trading system, resisted protectionist pressures and sought substantial tariff cuts through accelerated multilateral trade negotiations. By 2003, their trade agenda included trade facilitation, trade to support sustainable development and the trade liberalisation of environmentally friendly products.
After 2009, and with the start of G20 summits, G7 attention to trade fell. But it returned since 2020 with the Covid-19 pandemic and its accompanying protectionist pressures. In 2023, 6,536 words on trade (31%) included fisheries subsidies, clean energy, clean technologies, enhancing global economic resilience and economic security through trade, and establishing resilient global supply chains. Leaders emphasised the negative impacts of economic coercion through trade that “infringes upon the international order centred on respect for sovereignty and the rule of law, and ultimately undermines global security and stability.”
The 2,919 words (30%) on trade in 2024 reinforced this new geo-economic focus.
Since 1975, G7 leaders have made 487 trade commitments, for 8% of all G7 commitments. The most – 51 – occurred at the 2023 and 2024 summits, for 8% and 11% respectively, of the total commitments made there.
This was followed by 24 commitments in 2013 (11%), and 21 in both 1977 (38%) and 2021 (5%). Between 2013 and 2017, summits produced between 10 and 24 commitments (3%–11%) per summit. Subsequently, 2018, 2019 and 2020 slumped to five or fewer (5%–12%). In 2021 they soared to 21 (5%), 18 (3%) in 2022 and up to the highest levels in 2023 and 2024.
G7 members’ compliance with their leaders’ trade commitments average 69%, based on the G7 Research Group’s 54 assessments – well below G7’s overall average of 77%.
Compliance on trade was led by the European Union at 87%, followed by Canada at 80%, the United Kingdom 76%, Japan and Germany 75%, the United States 65%, Italy 60% and France with only 54%.
Compliance was low until the 2000 summit, which generated 100% compliance with commitments to launch World Trade Organization negotiations. It was mixed from 2004 to 2019, although compliance with a 2009 commitment to reverse declining foreign direct investment was 95% (despite low compliance overall for that summit) and a 2010 commitment to resist protectionist pressure was 89% (the same as the overall compliance for 2010).
Since then, compliance has been strong, with 100% for 2020’s commitments to address support for trade and investment, disruptions in supply chains, and international trade facilitation. The 2021 commitment to champion free trade within a reformed trading system had 88%, 2022’s to
uphold competition rules 100% and 2023’s to enhance resilient supply chains 94%. By December 2024, compliance with the 2024 commitment on resilient supply chains was 94%.
To increase compliance with their trade commitments at Kananaskis, G7 leaders should make more trade commitments. The 10 highest-complying summits between 1975 and 2023 produced 148 trade commitments and averaged 94% compliance. In contrast, the 10 lowest-complying summits produced only 52 commitments and 43% compliance.
Second, those commitments should refer to the WTO and its associated ministerial meetings and conferences, negotiations and agendas. Such commitments averaged 85% compliance, compared to 70% for those that did not make such references.
Third, G7 leaders should hold a trade ministers’ meeting this year. Since 2020, with compliance on trade consistently high, there have been two such meetings each year from 2021 to 2024.
Fourth, they should make commitments
that allow for flexibility in implementation. Finally, they should consider how to improve the traditionally low compliance on commitments that are geographically targeted (for example on the least developed countries or Africa), on new ‘trade’ issues (environmental goods and services), sensitive sectors (such as agriculture) and domestic measures (such as subsidies).
Given current geopolitical activity, instability and uncertainty, trade will be among the most critical discussions at Kananaskis. The Trump administration’s campaign to secure trade-related and non-trade related concessions has heightened trade tensions and will have significant negative impacts on G7 economies and international trade flows.
Building on the 2024 Apulia Summit, continued and greater emphasis could be placed on securing global supply chains, accompanied by renewed commitments to strengthen the rules-based multilateral trading system, with the World Trade Organization at the core.
Sarah Richardson is a research associate with the G7 and G20 Research Groups, with expertise related to trade, environment and sustainable development. She has worked closely with the Government of Canada, United Nations Environment Programme and the European Commission, as well as non-governmental organisations including the World Wide Fund for Nature, Oxfam and Save the Children. She was manager of the Environment, Economy and Trade Programme at North America's Commission for Environmental Cooperation and the foreign policy adviser at the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
With trade tensions rising and global growth stalling, G7 leaders can chart a new course, reinvigorating the multilateral trading system to reinforce cooperation in a fractured world
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,
director general, World Trade Organization
When G7 leaders meet in Kananaskis, global trade disruptions will loom as prominently as the Rocky Mountains.
Trade policy uncertainty is at record highs. Real-time indicators point to falling demand and investment as anxious businesses and consumers sit on their hands.
The World Trade Organiztion issued our annual trade forecast in mid-April, days after the US announced far-reaching tariffs – then subsequently paused many of the higher duties. Our economists now project a 0.2% contraction in global merchandise trade volumes in 2025 – nearly three percentage points below the growth expected. The contraction could deepen to 1.5% if the paused US reciprocal tariffs are reinstated and trade tensions and further uncertainty escalate among other countries.
We have been urging WTO members to engage in dialogue with Washington and with each other to lower the temperature and minimise the economic damage. There have been welcome
moves in this regard. Following highlevel talks in Geneva in mid-May, the US and China lowered bilateral tariffs by 115 percentage points from prohibitive levels for 90 days. They also insisted they did not want to decouple their trading relationship. WTO econ-
87%
of global goods trade takes place among the rest of the world outside the US
omists estimate that should this truce hold, it could lift global goods trade by 0.3 percentage points from the April projection. The easing of certain US car tariffs could add a further 0.2 percentage points, cumulatively leading to 0.3% growth in global goods trade in 2025. Nonetheless, risks remain on the downside. But while we should be concerned, this is a time for concerted action, not despair.
Policymakers looking to limit the damage to global trade and growth prospects have a strong foundation to build on. Roughly 74% of global goods
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was appointed director general of the World Trade Organization in 2021, the first woman and the first African to do hold the position. An economist and international development expert, she has chaired the board of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and African Risk Capacity, and co-chaired the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. She served as Covid-19 Special Envoy for the African Union and the World Health Organization. Dr Okonjo-Iweala served twice as Nigeria’s finance minister and spent 25 years at the World Bank rising to the position of managing director.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
X-TWITTER @NOIweala @WTO wto.org
trade continues to operate on most favoured nation tariff terms, and 87% of global goods trade takes place among the rest of the world outside the US. Governments, including the US, retain considerable agency to stabilise and strengthen world trade, and to manage the impacts of trade diversion.
Failing to do so would come at significant social and economic cost. Trade is a valuable driver of growth, poverty reduction and wider economic resilience. Open global trade helped economies rebound from the global financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. Over the past few decades, trade has helped 1.5 billion people out of extreme poverty. Advanced economies have benefited, too, through increased purchasing power for households and businesses, stronger productivity growth, and access to global inputs and markets for their own exports. These are benefits we should strive to retain –not least because electorates will miss them if they disappear.
Not everyone has shared adequately in these gains. Many poor countries, particularly in Africa, remain on the margins of the multi-country supply chains that are a hallmark of modern globalisation. Even within rich countries, some people and places are left behind, fuelling today’s disenchantment and populism. That said, the focus on job dislocation linked to import competition and technological change often overshadows the reality that lost jobs are outnumbered by new ones linked to trade opportunities – jobs, however, often in the services sector, in different geographic locations and for different people.
Another justified criticism of the trading system pertains to overcon-
centration. The US makes a valid point about others’ overdependence on its market, or that the production of some key goods or supply chains is excessively concentrated in certain geographies and there is a need for deconcentration for national security or global resilience purposes.
If one big takeaway from the Covid19 pandemic was the vulnerability of supply chains and the importance of diversifying sources of supply, what we see today reminds us that we must also diversify sources of demand.
To make trade more equitable and more resilient, we need ‘re-globalisation’: deconcentrating production and demand by involving more countries and regions in international production networks. Cultivating new source locations is not enough – businesses also need to find new markets. Encouragingly, data suggest an increase in the number of source countries for different products. And South-South trade now accounts for around a quarter of world trade, up from less than a tenth in 1995. But we need to take this much further.
To do so, open trade anchored in international cooperation and rules remains vital. A silver lining of the current turmoil is the renewed recognition
– among governments and businesses alike – of the value of the stable and predictable international market conditions we now take for granted.
But there is also a big warning sign that WTO members ignore at the peril of the organisation. The US is hardly alone in wanting to see changes to how the trading system functions. WTO members have long complained of different problems, from unfair trade practices and other level playing field concerns, to repairing the dispute settlement system, helping poor countries to grow by better integrating into world trade, and improving decision-making processes so that the WTO agenda can keep moving forward. One clear need is for more dynamism within the WTO: from more negotiating instruments to re-vitalised rules and agreements. Our rules were never meant to be set in stone. Over the past 30 years the world has changed, and WTO rules must be reconsidered and changed as needed.
G7 leaders face a pivotal choice: continuing down the road of fragmentation in global trade, or repositioning and re-vitalising the WTO and the multilateral trading system. For the sake of future prosperity, fairness and resilience, I hope they will give their political backing to the latter –and instruct their trade ministers to deliver.
“Open trade anchored in international cooperation and rules remains vital. A silver lining of the current turmoil is the renewed recognition – among governments and businesses alike – of the value of the stable and predictable international market conditions we now take for granted”
As advanced technologies – from AI to integrated IT systems – reshape the global trade landscape, data integrity, systems interoperability and responsible innovation can help ensure customs retains its role as a steward of international trade
Trade is not just a function of supply and demand; it is a function of sound operations. Swift, secure, state-of-the-art customs systems are critical to creating global supply chains resistant to corruption and illicit activity. These two elements cause substantial revenue loss, fracture economies and threaten public safety globally. As customs administrations increasingly rely on automated systems for risk management and completion of formalities, choices and uses of technology become more important.
The discussion of modernised customs systems is timely given the World Customs Organization’s 2025 theme: ‘Customs delivering on its commitment to efficiency, security and prosperity’. Single-window systems create efficiency by providing a one-stop shop for addressing entry requirements,
enabling faster clearance of goods. Risk management systems are grounded in well-considered security rules that allow customs to target limited resources. The combination of these systems results in prosperity by lowering costs for compliant traders and helping remove illicit actors from supply chains, creating more space for legitimate businesses.
The WCO’s Revised Kyoto Convention foresaw the need for electronic systems. It calls for the maximum use of information technology by customs to increase transparency, predictability and simplicity of customs procedures. Understanding that customs cannot undertake this alone, the RKC encourages its contracting parties to involve the trade community in developing procedures.
With the RKC as a foundation, the WCO developed initiatives that placed it at the forefront of trade facilitation. One critical step was the adoption of the WCO’s SAFE Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade.
The WCO created SAFE to protect supply chains from disruption by strengthening the relationships between and among customs, businesses and partner government agencies. The framework and its accompanying documents expressly recommend deploying technology to support inspection and cargo integrity. Although conceived as a response to terrorism, SAFE has evolved to develop standards that create more resilient supply chains better able to withstand trade disruptions no matter what the cause.
Not only does the WCO create international standards for IT; it also develops tools to support implementation. In my first year as secretary general, the WCO released version 4.0 of the WCO Data Model, the universal language for cross-border data exchange. A single language improves systems interoperability, thus creating a favourable environment for creating single windows. The WCO assists its members throughout the single-window development process via workshops, e-learning and accreditation of in-country WCO Data Model experts. This last function is particularly important, as it builds sustainability into customs administrations’ efforts. As the trading landscape changes to
“Customs administrations that use AI and other IT systems must address policy, legal and administrative questions to enable effective implementation, considering among them information security, privacy and sustainability”
account for the substantial growth in e-commerce, technology must respond. The WCO, working with industry, postal operators and partner international organisations, created the E-commerce Package to guide members through the challenges of managing this significant aspect of trade. It remains an area warranting attention.
The temptation to rely on electronic systems is a risk. It is imperative that technology strengthen – not replace –other border enforcement approaches. And we must stay mindful that a state-of-the-art system is only as good as the information feeding it. Thus, measures to improve and maintain data integrity must accompany electronic systems use.
In this context, managing artificial intelligence in such a way that it is effective in the customs environment remains a challenge. It is a technology with vast potential, but how effectively it can contribute remains to be seen. Customs administrations that use AI and other IT systems must address policy, legal and administrative questions to enable effective implementation, considering among them information security, privacy and sustainability.
G7 leaders at Kananaskis can stress the importance of customs to the global economy, recognising its role as a key steward of international trade. Customs is not about only border security or economy – it is always at the intersection of both. The leaders of the G7 can amplify this message and mobilise efforts to help customs advance the various goals to which it can contribute.
Society cannot benefit from the power of technology if it is available to only a few. The integrity of trade requires it be used in as many places as possible. The WCO stands ready to partner with the G7 to help fulfil the promise of solid technology and sound process in international trade.
// IAN SAUNDERS
Ian Saunders took office as secretary general of the World Customs Organization on 1 January 2024. He previously worked as deputy assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere at the US Department of Commerce and spent most of his career with US Customs and Border Protection, where he held several senior positions including assistant commissioner for international affairs, deputy assistant commissioner for international affairs and acting deputy executive assistant commissioner for operations support, as well as director of international policy and programmes and director of international training and assistance.
X-TWITTER @WCO_OMD wcoomd.org
With trade tensions rising inside the G7 itself, it’s time for leaders to confront the uncomfortable
truth: the biggest threat to multilateralism may now come from within
Simon J. Evenett, IMD Business School
If you have read these G7 background books before, you know the routine: pick a hot topic, urge leaders to cooperate and hope it lands. These well-meaning nudges can matter – especially among countries that share so much. Back in US president Donald Trump’s first term, I looked for common ground on trade. It was tough, but doable. This time? With US trade policy veering sharply since January 2025, that playbook is out the window.
At first, I was tempted to discuss the G7’s work on economic security. That has picked up in recent years, but little additional information has been released since the last G7
presidency in Italy in 2024. Fundamentally, however, these days the gravest source of economic security to many G7 members might be another G7 member! After all, the Canadian host has just been through an election overshadowed by existential threats to the country’s existence. The all-too-convenient formulation whereby G7 members unite against some looming external threat (code for China) does not seem credible in 2025. In fact, in 12 months’ time the distance between Beijing and several G7 capitals on trade policy matters may have narrowed considerably.
Lest anyone have any doubt, the words of this year’s host make the situation plain. After winning the Canadian election on 28 April, Prime Minister Mark Carney was quoted in the New York Times saying “Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over. The system of open global trade anchored by the United States, a system that Canada has relied on since the Second World War, a system that, while not perfect, has helped deliver prosperity for a country for decades, is over.”
My proposal is very simple: behind closed doors – and with no expectation of coming to agreement – G7 leaders should address the trade policy elephant in the room. That is the unprecedented bout of trade policy unilateralism by the current US administration that violates many of the principles of the multilateral trad-
$311billion+
Total value of US services exports with the rest of the G7
“G7 leaders should address the trade policy elephant in the room. That is, the unprecedented bout of trade policy unilateralism by the current US administration that violates many of the principles of the multilateral trading system”
ing system. This is not an opportunity for the six to beat up on the one – the appalling photo of President Trump at the 2018 Quebec summit surrounded by other G7 leaders, which looked like German chancellor Angela Merkel was hectoring him, is indelibly etched at the back of the mind. This time no photographers, please.
G7 leaders should take the opportunity to recount what is at stake for the United States:
• President Trump may not like the current levels of US exports to the rest of the G7, but the $659 billion of goods shipped in 2024 could be much lower going forward – and will be if retaliation is triggered or the world economy goes into a recession.
• The total value of US services exports with the rest of the G7 is now over $311 billion. That is not peanuts.
• American businesses own over 11,000 majority-owned affiliates in the rest of the G7 that together have sales revenues of $2.7 trillion and make $262 billion in net income (profit).
• Three million of the 4.25 million employees that US firms employ in subsidiaries abroad are not in manufacturing –almost all are in the services sector.
Diplomats are paid to come up with artful ways for their government leaders to deliver these facts, which, of course, may be seen as implied threats. Perhaps, most importantly of all, the rest of the G7 members could make it clear that they will not be played off against each other. Buying more Boeing aeroplanes at the expense of Airbus, for example, is a non-starter. The rest of the G7 could signal that they are willing to help Washington climb down the tree as elegantly as possible.
The G7 was born in crisis – its first meeting was held over 50 years ago in the shadow of the 1973 oil shock. Crisis is not new to this group; it is in its DNA. In moments like these, sugar-coating does no one any favours. As Proverbs reminds us, “As iron sharpens iron, so one friend sharpens another.” Now is the time for candour behind closed doors – no press, no posturing – just a hard conversation among friends about what is at stake.
// SIMON J. EVENETT
Simon J. Evenett is a professor of geopolitics and strategy at IMD Business School in Switzerland, co-chair of the World Economic Forum’s Trade and Investment Council, and founder of the St. Gallen Endowment for Prosperity Through Trade, the home of several independent policy tracking initiatives.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
Through evidence-based policies that combine fair wages, access to education and training, and inclusive social dialogue, leaders can ensure full, productive employment that delivers dignity and economic security
Gilbert Houngbo, director general, International Labour Organization
As we approach the Second World Summit for Social Development in November of this year, our collective commitment to decent work through a renewed social contract is being sorely tested. Geopolitical conflicts and environmental, demographic and technological upheavals, both immediate and long term, along with an increasing disenchantment with domestic and international institutions, threaten to undermine the progress we have made since the first WSSD in 1995.
That is why, arm in arm with the recently launched Global Coalition for Social Justice, we must recommit ourselves to reinforcing the positive developments the world has witnessed since 1995, and to chart the steps for further advances for social justice. Working jointly, we can renew and reinvigorate the call for social justice by identifying successes, challenges and mechanisms to move forward.
To inform the discussion at the WSSD and help strengthen the Global Coalition, the International Labour Organization is publishing a report on the state of social justice in the world of work, examining advances and setbacks since 1995. While some data are sobering, the research reaffirms the complex and indissociable relationship between human rights and labour rights over a century of international law. Our research shows that many
of the indicators linked to human rights greatly improved in the first two decades after the first World Summit for Social Development, but advances have slowed significantly over the last 10 years. Child labour, for example, fell from 21% in 1995 to 10% in 2015, but has not dropped even a tenth of a percentage point since then. This same trend holds true for poverty, deaths due to occupational disease and work accidents, and labour productivity –where the data reveal real improvements since 1995, but a plateau in the decade since 2015.
Although the world is generally moving towards social justice, progress is uneven – between indicators, regions and groups of people. Educational completion rates have gone up throughout the world since 1995, but this laudable achievement has not been accompanied by a narrowing of the gender employment gap. Overall, advances in equal access to opportunity have lagged, leaving much work to be done to address employment, formalisation and entrepreneurship gaps, notably those relating to age, gender and disability. These disparities have barely budged despite the advances in education.
In addition, compliance with freedom of association and collective bargaining rights has shown a clear deterioration in recent years and union membership has gone down. The importance of social dialogue to decent work and social justice is why, among the challenges identified in the ILO report, these setbacks are among the most worrisome. Freedom of association and collective bargaining constitute one of the five principles and rights at work because it is recognised to be a crucial enabling human and labour right. Social dialogue is both a mandate and an obligation for the ILO and all the countries that comprise it.
// GILBERT HOUNGBO
It is important to recognise, however, as we look at developments since 1995, that the overall trend – even if with some exceptions – reveals impressive advances from that year until the 2008 global financial crisis, followed by stagnation. The data show us that substantial advances in social justice are possible but are never guaranteed. Evidence-based policies make a real difference. Our data expose the linkage between minimum wages, access to education and training, social protection, and social dialogue. Such policies, when accompanied by complementary educational, sectoral and labour market policies focused on creating decent and productive employment, including in the care, green and digital economies, have driven real progress.
At the 2025 Kananaskis Summit, G7 leaders can profoundly shape our shared future by showing their commitment to the data- and evidence-based policies that provide the tools and framework for the way forward on a renewed social contract built on social justice. G7 leadership can help catalyse countries around the world to pursue the sustainable, inclusive programmes and strategies that have been shown to change people’s lives for the better. As we look to the second World Summit on Social Development, our renewed, collective commitment can forge the conditions that enable all people to work in freedom and dignity; enjoy equal access to opportunities for full, productive and freely chosen employment that provides economic security and enables them to thrive; derive a fair share from their productive endeavours and social contributions; and, where transitions are necessary over their lifetimes to experience them with justice and dignity.
Gilbert Houngbo became director general of the International Labour Organization in 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.
X-TWITTER @GHoungbo ilo.org
Amid shifting political landscapes, upholding commitments on gender equality, particularly where it intersects with health, education and human rights, is a critical step
Julia Kulik, director of strategic initiatives and public engagement, G7 Research Group
// JULIA KULIK
As the G7 leaders convene in Kananaskis, they will be hosted by Canada’s first new prime minister in a decade. The previous government consistently prioritised gender equality in domestic and foreign policy, a dedication reflected in the communiqué of the last Canadian-hosted G7 summit at Charlevoix in 2018. However, with a new leader and a gathering of counterparts who are increasingly resistant to equality-focused policies, this year’s summit will likely shift away from championing this issue.
G7 leaders first addressed gender equality in 1981, but not consistently until 2001. Attention steadily increased from 2013 until 2019. It was entirely absent in 2020, but reappeared at all their summits through to 2024. G7 communiqués averaged 889 words on gender equality at each summit, for 6% of the total words from 1975 to 2024.
The most attention came in 2017 and 2018. The 2017 communiqué contained
Julia Kulik is director of strategic initiatives and public engagement for the G7 and G20 Research Groups, the BRICS Research Group 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.
X-TWITTER @juliafkulik www.g7.utoronto.ca
3,888 words (45%). This increased in 2018 to 5,086 words (45%), the most extensively mainstreamed amount. The 2024 communiqué contained 2,178 words (11%).
The G7 released its first standalone document on gender equality in 2016, followed by two in 2018 and three in 2019. They included statements on improving education for women and girls in developing countries, ending gender-based violence in a digital context, and the Biarritz Partnership for Gender Equality. This practice disappeared in 2020.
Since 1975, the G7 has made a total of 466 public, collective, precise, future-oriented, politically binding commitments on gender equality, accounting for almost 6% of the total identified by the G7 Research Group. Most were made between 2015 and 2018. Previously, most were gender-related commitments with other issues at their core, including addressing HIV/AIDS, improving maternal and child health, and improving educational outcomes for girls in Africa. Gender quality itself became the focus in 2015, with 34 (9%) commitments, followed by 48 (14%) in 2016, and 71 in 2017 (39%). In 2018, the G7 made a record 82 (26%) commitments on gender equality. In 2019 this dropped to 17 (24%) and then to zero in 2020. There were 30 (7%) made in 2021, 32 (6%) in 2022, 53 (8%) in 2023 and 38 (8%) in 2024.
G7 members averaged 73% compliance with these gender commitments, based on the 51 assessed by the G7 Research Group. This is slightly below the overall 77% average.
The gender commitments with the highest compliance focused on health (including maternal, newborn and child health), promoting access to education for girls, and commitments that invoked legal action or the protection of human rights. Commitments with the lowest compliance focused on supporting refugee and internally displaced women and girls affected by conflict and disaster, and on gender-based violence.
The highest compliance came with commitments made in 2021 and 2002 with 100% each, in 2013 with 95%, in 2023 with 94%, in 1996 with 92%, in 2010 with 89%, in 2022 with 88% and in 2014 with 85%. The lowest compliance came with commitments made in 2011 with 45% and 2016 with 51%. By December, compliance with the one gender commitment assessed from 2024 was 94%.
The highest complying G7 member on gender equality is Canada at 87%, followed by the United Kingdom at 86% and the European Union at 79%. In the middle are Germany at 77%, the United States at 75% and France at 71%. The
lowest compliers are Japan at 64% and Italy at 51%.
The highest complying summits, averaging 90%, had a high degree of internal G7 institutional support: they coincided with two ministerial meetings on gender equality and the creation of a gender-related official or multi-stakeholder body, councils, partnerships, forums or initiatives, including the Gender Equality Advisory Council. The lowest complying summits, averaging 61%, came on commitments made in years when only a related ministerial meeting took place.
“Gender commitments with the highest compliance focused on health (including maternal, newborn and child health), promoting access to education for girls, and commitments that invoked legal action or the protection of human rights”
The highest complying summits also dedicated a larger percentage of their communiqués – on average 14% – to gender equality. This compares to the 12% average for the lowest complying summits.
Core gender commitments average 70% compliance and gender-related commitments average 75%. Among the latter, those with the highest compliance link gender equality to health, specifically to maternal and newborn health, AIDS, and reproductive health. Commitments with the lowest compliance lack specificity, but commit to or support gender equality and women’s empowerment broadly.
The presence of compliance catalysts, such as text on implementation, generally improves compliance. Gender commitments with such catalysts average 75% compliance; those with none average 71%. The catalysts that coincide with the highest compliance refer to an implementation target, a G7 body, legal instruments or the mobilisation of a specified dollar amount. *blank space means no data
As shifting political tides threaten women’s and LGBTIQ+ rights, the G7 faces a critical test. Its members must demonstrate leadership by advancing gender justice and protecting hard-fought gains in the face of mounting resistance
Beth Woroniuk and Diana Sarosi, Women 7 2025 co-chairs
Gender equality and the rights of women and LGBTIQ+ people have featured in recent G7 communiqués and statements. The 2022 Elmau leaders’ communiqué went as far as to advocate for feminist policies: “In the spirit of feminist development, foreign and trade policies and to empower women and girls, we will strengthen the rights, resources and opportunities for women and girls in all their diversity in every sphere.”
Even last year, under the presidency of the more conservative Italian government, strong statements were made: “We reaffirm our commitment to achieving gender equality and the
empowerment of women and girls in all their diversity … We express our strong concern about the rollback of the rights of women, girls, and LGBTQIA+ people around the world, in particular in time of crisis, and we strongly condemn all violations and abuses of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
This year, given Canada’s longstanding championing of gender equality, hopes are high for continued progress. However with one G7 leader’s vocal opposition to all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and outright withdrawal of women’s and LGBTIQ+ rights, there are significant worries that past language and commitments are at risk of being overruled.
Attacks on the rights of women and LGBTIQ+ people are not new. From local school boards to the halls of the United Nations, there have been coordinated and well-funded efforts to reverse gains for the respect and protection of those rights. There are crackdowns on feminist and LGBTIQ+ organisations. Hate crimes are on the rise. New legislation targets same-sex relationships and trans people.
Technology-facilitated gender-based violence is growing. Although there have been improvements in some jurisdictions relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights, in many other places access is shrinking and there are new forms of criminalisation.
There is the possibility that this could happen under Canada’s G7 presidency.
Canada has a global reputation as a staunch advocate for gender equality. In 2010 Prime Minister Stephen Harper championed the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, mobilising over $1 billion in support. Criticised by activists for failing to include comprehensive reproductive health services, the Muskoka Initiative is nonetheless seen as one of the major achievements of that year. At the 2018 Charlevoix Summit, Canada initiated the Gender Equality Advisory Council, highlighted gender equality issues across discussions and launched several initiatives.
The Women 7 is the civil society engagement group providing feminist recommendations to G7 officials and leaders. We heard from activists around the world that – this year –there is a heightened sense of urgency. There are calls for strong leadership on gender justice issues.
This year, 2025, also marks the 30th anniversary of the Beijing World Conference on Women, a time to take stock of what has been achieved. Feminist activists are warning that progress is much too slow and regression is an all-too-real possibility. Between 2019 and 2022, nearly 40% of countries stagnated or declined on key gender equality indicators. As well, 2023 saw 50% more cases of conflict-related sexual violence than the previous year.
// BETH WORONIUK
Beth Woroniuk is co-chair of the 2025 Women 7 and was appointed to the 2025 G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council. She is a senior fellow with the Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative. She has championed women’s rights and gender justice issues for over 35 years, both as an activist and providing technical support to bilateral aid agencies, women’s funds, United Nations entities, international nongovernmental organisations and feminist organisations. She co-founded the Women, Peace and Security Network-Canada and served as its chair for over 12 years.
// DIANA SAROSI
Diana Sarosi is co-chair of the 2025 Women 7 and the director of policy, campaigns and communications for Oxfam Canada. A longstanding feminist advocate, with close to 20 years of experience working with non-governmental organisations to promote human and women’s rights, she previously worked for the Nobel Women’s Initiative and lived in Thailand for five years where she founded an organisation working to protect human rights defenders. She is a board member of Child Care Now, a national organisation advocating for universal child care in Canada.
X-TWITTER @ Women7official women7.org
“This year, given Canada’s longstanding championing of gender equality, hopes are high for continued progress”
To meet these challenges, this year’s W7 is calling for:
• Increased ambition to ensure attention to women’s human rights, LGBTIQ+ rights and gender justice issues across all discussions and also to address gender equality priorities as a key standalone agenda.
• Strengthened coherence of policies and actions across all major G7 discussions, documents and priority areas, noting gender equality priorities throughout.
• Recognition that progress on gender justice is required to address today’s global challenges. Gender justice forms part of good solutions. A gender-just world is more secure, sustainable and prosperous.
• Concrete commitments, actions and resources, both monetary and non-monetary (including resources for feminist movements, organisations and networks).
• Demonstrated leadership and policy coherence based on gender justice and universal human rights and fundamental freedoms both domestically and globally.
• Greater investment in gender and age-disaggregated data in order to track change.
Backtracking on past statements would signal a new and dangerous precedent. The world is watching to see if this year’s G7 finds a way to build on past commitments and stands firm against rollbacks on gains and rights.
With tourism a key contributor to the Sustainable Development Goals, G7 members can take the lead in building a more sustainable, inclusive and resilient tourism model
Zurab Pololikashvili, secretary general, UN Tourism
As leaders of the world’s most advanced economies gather at the G7 Kananaskis Summit in Canada, the need to build a more sustainable, resilient and inclusive global economy is clearer than ever. Tourism can and must be part of that conversation.
Tourism is a key economic driver. The sector directly contributes to 4% of global gross domestic product and supports millions of jobs around the world. Within the G7, it contributes 3% of GDP and
accounts for nearly 7% of all export revenues.
But it is much more than a key driver of economic growth. It brings people, cultures and countries together. Today, as the sector continues to expand, it offers huge potential to support G7 priorities – reducing inequality, boosting innovation, creating decent jobs and accelerating progress on climate action.
For many communities, both in developed and developing economies, tourism creates opportunity. It brings investment, supports local businesses, and helps preserve cultural and natural heritage. But for this potential to be fully realised, we need insightful, effective and, above all, joined-up policies. In this regard, G7 members play a critical role in shaping a more inclusive and forward-looking model of tourism.
At UN Tourism, we have made sustainability, innovation and resilience the foundation of our work. Together with our partners across the United Nations system – including the UN Development Programme, the UN Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization and the UN Conference on Trade and Development – we are helping countries align tourism with the Sustainable Development Goals. Our focus is on making sure that the benefits of tourism are shared more widely, and that no one is left behind.
We have already made strong progress. One example is our Best Tourism Villages initiative, which connects rural destinations to a global network. These villages are showing how tourism can support local economies while protecting traditions and nature. The programme now includes over 250 villages around the world and continues to grow.
Despite this progress, challenges remain. Climate change is putting pressure on the destinations people love to visit. Unequal access
to opportunities and geopolitical tensions continue to create uncertainty for the global travel sector.
This is where the G7 can make a real difference.
4% Tourism’s contribution to global gross domestic product
G7 members are home to some of the world’s most popular destinations and are leaders in innovation, investment and global cooperation. They can set the standard for responsible tourism – by investing in sustainable infrastructure, supporting small businesses and making sure the sector provides fair working conditions.
Through our Tourism Investment Guidelines, we are helping countries attract the kind of investment that creates long-term value – especially in places where support is most needed. The G7 can help channel more resources to these areas and support partnerships that deliver real impact.
We also encourage G7 leaders to support tourism’s digital transformation. With the right training and tools, digital platforms can help local communities reach new markets, manage tourism more effectively and ensure that benefits are more evenly spread.
We believe tourism can be part of the G7’s broader development and foreign policy goals. Travel builds understanding, breaks down barriers, and creates connections that can support peace and cooperation.
The Kananaskis Summit is a key moment to rethink how we travel and how tourism fits into a more connected and sustainable global economy. UN Tourism is committed to working with G7 governments and partners around the world to build a tourism sector that is greener and more resilient.
//
ZURAB POLOLIKASHVILI
Zurab Pololikashvili has been secretary general of UN Tourism (formerly known as the World Tourism Organization) since 2018. He was previously Georgia’s ambassador to Spain, Andorra, Algeria and Morocco and its permanent representative to UN Tourism 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.
X-TWITTER @pololikashvili www.unwto.org
The hospitality sector offers untapped potential for advancing climate goals, inclusive employment and sustainable infrastructure. Targeted support can unlock hospitality’s role as a driver of resilience, innovation and net positive growth
Glenn Mandziuk, CEO, World Sustainable Hospitality Alliance
As G7 members prepare for the Kananaskis Summit, the world faces compounding pressures: climate volatility, demographic shifts, supply chain fragility and labour force imbalances. These challenges require targeted, scalable and market-ready solutions. One of the most underleveraged sectors in this equation is hospitality – a global employer, driver of infrastructure and cultural ambassador. The World Sustainable Hospitality Alliance urges G7 leaders to seize this
“The time is right to embed sustainability into tourism’s DNA – through standards, investments and partnerships. The G7 has the diplomatic weight, financial tools and strategic foresight to make this a reality”
unique opportunity to accelerate the transformation of the hospitality industry into a resilient, climate-smart and socially rooted engine for sustainable growth.
The G7’s commitment to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development offers a roadmap – but implementation needs momentum. Hospitality, which employs over 300 million people globally and represents 10% of global gross domestic product, can be a cornerstone for delivering progress on climate, jobs and equity. Through net positive hospitality, the Alliance and its 40+ corporate partners representing 66,000 hotels and 8 million rooms are pioneering a model that delivers measurable environmental and socio-economic value.
G7 members can catalyse this transformation by supporting:
• Universal sustainability criteria: A globally harmonised standard for hotel sustainability performance, currently under development by the Alliance with UN Tourism and the World Tourism and Travel Council.
• Adoption of low-carbon infrastructure: Including energy efficiency, electrification and smart water systems within hotel assets and destinations.
• Workforce resilience: Hospitality is uniquely positioned to integrate marginalised or underutilised labour forces –particularly youth, refugees and workers transitioning from disrupted sectors.
In 2024, the Alliance launched the Accelerators for Scalable Impact – a set of pilot programmes demonstrating how innovation in food systems, clean energy and waste reduction can deliver commercial value and environmental
gains. Complementing this, the Net Positive Hospitality Venture Capital Fund is being developed to back startups and solutions that can rapidly scale sustainability in hospitality operations.
G7 support for these efforts – through co-investment, policy alignment or public-private platforms – would send a strong signal to markets that the future of hospitality is one of leadership, not liability.
The Alliance’s governance model includes deep engagement with industry working groups, academic experts and global organisations such as the World Resources Institute, UN Tourism and the Sustainable Markets Initiative. These partnerships ensure that tools like the updated Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative (HCMI 3.0) meet both scientific standards and commercial needs, particularly under growing regulatory scrutiny.
G7 leaders can play a vital role by:
• Supporting data-driven frameworks that ensure accountability without overburdening businesses,
• Encouraging workforce development programmes that align with national skills agendas, and
• Championing innovation diplomacy, where climate-positive solutions are exported as part of trade, investment and infrastructure development.
Hospitality is not just about leisure –it is about infrastructure, jobs, energy, water and mobility. With targeted G7 support, the sector can transition from a climate risk to a climate asset. It can also serve as a model of how global alignment and local empowerment can work hand in hand.
As we look to the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and beyond, the time is right to embed sustainability into tourism’s DNA –through standards, investments and partnerships. The G7 has the diplomatic weight, financial tools and strategic foresight to make this a reality.
Let us turn the hospitality industry into a frontline contributor to the G7’s shared goals: economic security, climate stability and social resilience.
Glenn Mandziuk is the CEO of the World Sustainable Hospitality Alliance, which convenes senior leaders from across the hospitality industry, strategic partners, international bodies and governments to drive the industry towards net positive hospitality. He is also a director on the Board of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council and the Responsible Tourism Institute. Prior to joining the Alliance, he was president and CEO of Canada’s Thompson Okanagan Tourism Region. He has 10 years’ experience in the hospitality industry in family-owned and operated hotels and resorts.
X-TWITTER @SustHosAlliance
sustainablehospitalityalliance.org
As AI reshapes economies and societies, a coordinated approach to developing safe, responsible and inclusive innovation is critical. During this year’s summit, G7 leaders can set the agenda for the next crucial phase of AI governance
Nancy E. Scott, legal director, G7 Research Group
Since June 2024, significant advances in artificial intelligence have transformed the digital landscape at lightning speed. We are witnessing momentous progress in the power and capability of generative AI, agentic AI and advances in areas such as quantum technologies, with growing energy demands resulting in an increased interest in nuclear energy, as well as clean and reliable energy. The G7 leaders’ focus on advancing the Hiroshima AI Process at their 2024 Apulia Summit resulted in continued commitments to advance responsible and secure AI development and deployment. Leading up to the 2025 Kananaskis Summit, former prime minister Justin Trudeau restated Canada’s commitment to advancing security, prosperity and partnership through AI adoption, energy and inclusion.
As the scale and strength of AI grow and expand across the globe, G7 leaders may struggle to advance a harmonised approach to supporting and developing responsible AI that reduces the digital divide and provides protection against harmful uses. The G7 has been a leader in supporting AI governance. With a growing risk of fragmented or inadequate regulation, the Kananaskis Summit is an important opportunity to continue to advance international AI governance.
From 1975 to 2024, G7 summits produced 23,729 words on digitalisation, information and communications technologies, and AI in their
communiqués, averaging 475 words per summit (or 2% of the total). With some notable gaps (1979–1980, 1989–1993, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2020), the topic was addressed at every summit since 1978. Between 2014 and 2024, the G7 dedicated an average of 1,348 words to digitalisation, ICT and AI per summit. At the 2024 summit, the leaders produced 1,825 words (9%), fewer than in 2023, when the leaders produced 3,927 words (for 13%) – the highest ever in absolute terms. The next highest was in 2000 with 3,020 words (22%) and 2021 with 2,170 (11%). By this measure, as host of the 2000 and 2023 summits Japan has led the G7 in its public deliberation of ICT, digitisation and AI.
G7 summits have now produced 262 future-oriented, politically binding, collective commitments on ICT, digitalisation and AI. Collectively, these rank in 13th place, slightly behind macroeconomic policy (with 339 commitments) and before democracy (with 159 commitments). Most – 201 – have been made since 2016, averaging 22 per summit during these years. Notably, the first time AI commitments appeared was in 2018 at the Charlevoix Summit, where the G7 produced 23. The G7 produced 37 commitments on digitalisation, AI and ICT, in 2023, the highest ever, followed by 33 in 2021 and again in 2024.
G7 members’ compliance with their commitments on ICT, digitalisation and AI averaged a very high
Note: For years with data on commitments but none on conclusions, there was at least one commitment on information and communications technologies, but no data calculated for corresponding ICT conclusions, and no data found for digitalisation. G7 PERFORMANCE
87%, based on the 19 priority commitments assessed by the G7 Research Group. This is well above the G7’s all-subject average of 77%. Compliance peaked at 100% with the commitments made in 2000, followed by 97% with those made in 2023. The lowest compliance was 72% for 2019 and 75% for 2018. By December 2024, compliance with the two assessed 2024 commitments, on AI for work and on closing digital divides, averaged 85%.
By member, compliance has been led by the United Kingdom at 95%, closely followed by the European Union at 94%, Canada at 92% and France at 90%. Then come the United States and Germany at 87%, Japan at 84% and Italy at 75%.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To improve the compliance with their commitments on ICT, digitalisation and AI, G7 leaders can take the following actions:
1. Make more commitments on AI, as these average compliance of 97%;
2. Make more commitments on countering foreign interference, especially from authoritarian regimes, using digital technologies, as such commitments also average compliance of 97%.
3. Make commitments that refer to a G7-centred institutional process or body, as such commitments average compliance of 96% (with that on the Dot Force at 100%, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence at 94%, the Genoa Plan of Action at 88% and the Hiroshima AI Process at 100%). This suggests the value of having a related G7 ministerial meeting after the Kananaskis Summit to help implement the commitments made there and build on them in this specialised and fast-moving field.
Nancy Scott is legal adviser to the G7 Research Group and the Global Governance Program. She is also the senior vice president and deputy general counsel at Cisco. Previously she served as the vice president and deputy general counsel at VMware Inc with responsibility for the international and commercial legal team, and as the vice president and deputy general counsel for global commercial law at Avaya Inc. Nancy has long been a passionate advancer of equity and justice in society, inclusivity and diversity, and regularly mentors and coaches women in technology roles. X-TWITTER @g7_rg
As breakthroughs in AI and the digital transformation accelerate, international collaboration is essential to ensure advanced technologies serve global development and close the digital divide
TDoreen Bogdan-Martin, secretary general, International Telecommunication Union
his year’s G7 summit comes at a defining moment. At the International Telecommunication Union, we have spent 160 years fostering global collaboration to scale innovation.
Today, that collaboration is more important than ever.
Digital transformation is now central to how we deliver progress across every sector, from health and education to energy, finance and climate resilience.
And at the heart of that transformation is artificial intelligence.
AI breakthroughs are now unlocking the ability to detect disease earlier, personalise learning, mitigate disaster risks, optimise agriculture and energy systems, and strengthen water and food security.
But these breakthroughs only reach their full potential when technical communities, policymakers and development actors work together across disciplines and borders.
STEWARDING
This is where ITU plays a vital role.
As the United Nations agency for digital technologies, we bring together technical experts from government, industry, academia and civil society to ensure digital technologies – including AI – deliver on their promise of advancing human development.
Through partnerships with fellow UN agencies, we are helping regulators and industries build shared understanding of complex, converging technologies.
The speed of innovation is staggering, but so is the need for policy dialogue.
Promising developments in AI policy and regulations, from calls for transparency and accountability to rigorous testing, signal a shared direction.
Equally encouraging is the growing connectivity among AI experts, data holders and practitioners working on the front lines of sustainable development.
ITU’s aim is to ensure no country is left out of this conversation.
We are creating opportunities for developing countries to shape the AI future by helping scale innovations, share best practices and co-develop global standards.
We are also working to build the skills needed for an AI-ready workforce.
That means training regulators, empowering professionals and investing in the next generation of innovators through initiatives such as our AI Skills Coalition.
Still, the most urgent digital divide is the one that persists offline.
Today, 2.6 billion people – one-third of humanity – remain unconnected.
If we are serious about making sure the AI revolution reaches everyone, we must close that gap.
BUILDING OPPORTUNITY
ITU estimates that connecting everyone meaningfully by 2030 will require $1.6 trillion in investment – about 1.5% of global gross domestic product.
Doreen Bogdan-Martin took office as secretary general of the International Telecommunication Union in 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.
X-TWITTER @ITUSecGen www.itu.int
It is an ambitious figure, but achievable with the right financing mechanisms in place.
That is why ITU is working with development finance institutions through our Digital Infrastructure Investment Initiative to find solutions.
This builds on the momentum of our Partner2Connect Digital Coalition, which has mobilised over $70 billion towards meaningful connectivity, as well as on the Giga initiative with UNICEF, which aims to connect every school on Earth to the internet.
As we mark 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society, we have another chance to strengthen the global framework for multistakeholder action on digital development.
The WSIS+20 High-Level Meeting this July – held in conjunction with our AI
“The accelerating pace of technological change challenges us to reflect deeply on the kind of digital future we want to shape together. G7 members have a pivotal role to act on that reflection”
for Good Global Summit – will bring together voices from around the world to chart the way forward.
ITU has come a long way in our mission to connect the world.
More people are online than ever before.
The networks that stretch across continents, under oceans and in orbit are powerful symbols of humanity’s interdependence and our shared potential.
But the accelerating pace of technological change challenges us to reflect deeply on the kind of digital future we want to shape together.
G7 members have a pivotal role to act on that reflection.
As some of ITU’s most experienced members, they can lead by example in building the cooperation, investment and consensus needed to ensure emerging technologies serve the greater good.
That same spirit of collaboration has driven ITU for 160 years.
It will be just as essential in ensuring that AI and digital transformation work for everyone, everywhere.
As the development of AI governance gathers pace, the G7 can lead the way in shaping global standards, fostering consensus and developing ethical frameworks to drive the responsible and equitable use of artificial intelligence
The contours of the governance of artificial intelligence, although still nascent, are beginning to become more clear. While the private sector actively competes to deliver AI services amid surging demand, policymakers and observers increasingly call for appropriate safeguards to ensure that AI development fulfils its promises of economic growth and social advancement.
Amid growing demand and fierce private-sector competition to develop and deploy AI technologies, there is a parallel push from policymakers, scholars and civil society groups for robust safeguards. Despite a shared aspiration to harness AI for economic growth and social advancement, significant differences remain in how countries envision and approach AI governance.
Kenddrick Chan, LSE IDEAS, and Chris Alden, professor of international relations, LSE
Across the globe, AI governance frameworks typically focus on three key dimensions: regulatory structures,
degree of institutional oversight and ethical principles. Collectively, these elements guide how AI is developed, deployed and monitored. The European Union, through its AI Act, has embraced a regulation-heavy, rights- and risk-based approach. This precautionary, ‘ethics-first’ governance model contrasts markedly with the American ‘innovation first’ philosophy, which favours market-driven, self-regulated approaches. The differences between these models were made starkly visible during the Paris AI Action Summit in February 2025, where both the UK and the US refrained from signing the Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for People and the Planet, citing national security considerations and concerns over stifling innovation, respectively. Such visible fissures within the G7, coupled with rapid advances in China’s AI capabilities, have sparked suggestions that China’s centralised, state-controlled approach might serve as a practical alternative to the approaches presented by the US and EU.
However, it would be premature to interpret the decisions made by the UK and US at the Paris AI Action Summit as indicative of a deeper division among G7 members on AI governance. Instead, these differences highlight an opportunity to rethink and diversify governmental approaches to AI governance.
G7 members, united by shared fundamental values of freedom, democracy and human rights, should continue to anchor their collaboration in these shared principles. It is these commonalities that provided the impetus for the G7’s very own 2023 Hiroshima AI process. Although AI development continues to evolve at a rapid rate and differing national AI governance approaches have emerged among the G7 members, substantial common ground remains to enable joint leadership and shape the trajectory of global AI governance.
Several areas provide promising opportunities for consensus: First, risk-based regulation is an area of G7 alignment that could inform global AI governance efforts elsewhere. Both the EU and the US concur that high-risk AI applications necessitate stricter oversight. The G7 should work collaboratively to establish agreed-upon
“Under
the G7 umbrella, a joint commitment to human oversight, democratic values and fundamental rights could harmonise the EU’s ethical orientation with the American drive for innovation”
standards or thresholds for categorising AI risks, to facilitate the development of regulatory frameworks that are tiered and can balance innovation and protection effectively.
Second, there is a collective emphasis within the G7 on trustworthy and responsible AI. The EU’s strong focus on ethical AI principles aligns closely with a growing recognition in the US that trustworthiness is essential for long-term economic viability and consumer adoption. Principles such as transparency, accountability and fairness offer a shared ethical framework within the G7, simultaneously promoting consumer protection and business innovation. Under the G7 umbrella, a joint commitment to human oversight and fundamental rights could harmonise the EU’s ethical orientation with the American drive for innovation – again serving as a good example for efforts elsewhere.
Third, enhanced transparency and collaborative mechanisms for AI-related information sharing and reporting could further solidify faith in a potential G7 model. Establishing robust channels for information exchange on AI-related incidents and best practices within the G7 can inspire similar efforts elsewhere, helping to pre-empt misunderstandings and reduce the likelihood of unintended disputes.
The fact that 62 countries plus the European Union and the African Union signed the joint declaration from the Paris Summit should reassure the G7. As emphasised by the declaration itself, inclusiveness, sustainability and a people-centred approach are foundational pillars for global AI governance. By building upon the success of the 2023 Hiroshima Summit, the G7 at Kananaskis and beyond, guided by its foundational values, can be well positioned to serve as an influential model for global AI governance.
// KENDDRICK CHAN
Kenddrick Chan is the head of the Digital International Relations project at LSE IDEAS, the foreign policy think tank of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He was also a 2022–2023 Fellow at the Portulans Institute.
X-TWITTER @kenddrick
// CHRIS ALDEN
Chris Alden is a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the director of LSE IDEAS. He was a co-chair of the G20’s Think20 Task Force on Reformed Multilateralism for India’s G20 2023 presidency.
X-TWITTER @lseideas www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS
Yoshua Bengio, professor, Université de Montréal, and scientific director, Mila
Recent advances in general-purpose artificial intelligence have led me and many top researchers to revise our estimates of when human levels of broad cognitive competence will be achieved. Previously thought to be decades or even centuries away, we now believe human-level AI – often referred to as artificial general intelligence –could be developed within a decade, and possibly in just a few years. We have already crossed several surprising inflection points: AI now does much of the programming inside the companies that develop it and, crucially, has begun to take autonomous action, working without human oversight towards goals and controlling computers like people do. As the capabilities and agency of AI increase, so too does its potential to help humanity reach thrilling new heights. But if technical and societal safeguards are insufficient, our desire to achieve new advances could come at a huge cost. These developments require urgent action from G7 leaders. They need to recognise the coordinated and mindful approach of artificial general intelligence as a global priority.
The International AI Safety Report – a consensus project I chaired based on a mandate from 33 governments, as well as the United Nations, European Union and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development –identifies three scenarios regarding the pace of further capability advances: slow, rapid or extremely rapid. While timelines are uncertain, the possibility of shorter-term scenarios remains entirely plausible. The report also found that no currently known method provides strong safety assurances or guarantees, and we do not know how to make sure systems act as intended or secure them from malicious users. Until these problems are resolved, we are collectively exposed to increasingly concerning potential misuses by bad actors and loss-of-control scenarios.
Artificial general intelligence could be just years away, with its transformative potential matched by the unprecedented threats it brings. From cyberattacks and disinformation to biological threats, advanced systems demand robust technical and societal safeguards
Frontier systems are making it easier for bad actors to access expertise once limited to virologists, nuclear scientists, chemical engineers and advanced hackers. Both OpenAI and Anthropic have indicated that their AI systems are on the cusp of allowing malicious users to replicate biological weapons, potentially at pandemic scale – a finding compatible with the evidence-based consensus of the International AI Safety Report. Recent scientific evidence also demonstrates that, as highly capable systems become increasingly autonomous AI agents, they tend to display goals that were not programmed explicitly and are not necessarily aligned with human interests. In one experiment, when an AI model learns it is scheduled to be replaced, it inserts its code into the computer that will run the new version, ensuring its own survival, and lies when asked about the event. This and other evidence suggest that current models can actively subvert safeguards and use deception to achieve their goals. In a separate study, when AI models realise they are going to lose at chess, they hack the computer in order to win.
// YOSHUA BENGIO
Yoshua Bengio is a professor of computer science at Université de Montréal, the founder and scientific director of Mila, a Canada CIFAR AI Chair, and the recipient of the 2018 AM Turing Award. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of London and of Canada, an Officer of the Order of Canada, a Knight of the Legion of Honor of France and a member of the United Nations’ Scientific Advisory Board for Independent Advice on Breakthroughs in Science and Technology. He chaired the International AI Safety Report.
X-TWITTER @Yoshua_Bengio / @mila_quebec mila.quebec
RECOMMENDATIONS
With these signs for risks on the horizon, we need societal and technical guardrails. G7 leaders can help on both fronts. Some of the main actions they should prioritise are:
• Prepare for the different levels of risk that will be present in all three scenarios that are supported by evidence and leading scientists: slow, rapid and extremely rapid progress.
• Adopt mitigation strategies to tackle AI-based biological attacks, disinformation and cyberattacks.
• Find ways to support job markets likely to face potential disruptions.
• Create targeted rules and incentives today to avoid losing control when very capable AI systems arrive, in addition to implementing societal mitigation measures.
• Support and incentivise research into AI safety to develop technical safeguards.
“Innovation and safety are not mutually exclusive –in fact, they can and must go hand in hand. Even in scenarios where AI progress slows, prioritising safety will catalyse innovation rather than hinder it”
The International AI Safety Report highlights the ‘evidence dilemma’ policymakers face with general-purpose AI. Pre-emptive risk mitigation measures based on limited evidence might turn out to be ineffective or unnecessary. But waiting for stronger evidence of impending risk could leave society unprepared or even make mitigation impossible. With the extreme severity and unknown likelihood of catastrophic risks, the precautionary principle must be applied. We need to evaluate the risks carefully before taking them and avoid experimenting or innovating in potentially catastrophic ways. We have done this successfully in other fields, such as in biology to manage risks from dual use or in environmental science to manage the risks of geoengineering. Governments should consider various measures to address this dilemma including establishing ‘if-then’ policies, which specify rules that will apply if evidence of a specific risk materialises, and requiring evidence of safety from the developers. This prioritises innovation while ensuring strong safeguards trigger in time, and only when truly needed. Innovation and safety are not mutually exclusive – in fact, they can and must go hand in hand. Even in scenarios where AI progress slows, prioritising safety will catalyse innovation rather than hinder it. The path to AGI holds extraordinary promise, but its benefits will only be realised if pursued responsibly. G7 leaders play a pivotal role in striking this balance.
As advances in quantum technology gather pace, multilateral cooperation, scientific excellence and a clear SDG focus can guide frameworks for this next transformative era
Tim Smith, Open Quantum Institute
As countries adopt quantum strategies to bolster national sovereignty, security and local workforce development, it is important to factor in the learnings from past tech waves, such as artificial intelligence, namely that multilateral governance and international cooperation on research and development are also critical. With quantum computing still in its early stages, there is a timely opportunity to shape global governance and explore impactful applications for society and our planet.
Socially driven quantum initiatives are emerging in key areas, including XPRIZE Quantum Applications and Wellcome Leap Q4Bio, as well as Q4Climate and the Quantum Energy Initiative. More broadly, the Open Quantum Institute, launched by the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator and hosted at CERN, focuses on exploring future applications that support the Sustainable Development Goals. With OQI’s support, quantum and subject matter experts worldwide are collaborating with intergovernmental organisations and major non-governmental organisations to assess the potential of quantum computing in addressing challenges related to at least five of the 17 SDGs.
The same power that drives quantum breakthroughs also brings risks: its rapid development may outpace equitable access
frameworks, exacerbating existing global inequalities. Much of the infrastructure, supply chain and intellectual property in quantum computing is currently concentrated in a few countries and private corporations, creating the risk of technological monopolisation. Without anticipatory governance, this dual-use technology could undermine digital safety, and fuel geopolitical tensions. If development is driven solely by strategic or commercial interests, it risks diverging from the potential SDG impact. Quantum computing could further deepen the digital divide – intensifying disparities in economic competitiveness, development and societal balance – if digital inclusivity and economic inclusivity are not proactively addressed, much like the inequities caused by limited access to conventional computing. It is crucial to develop an anticipatory approach that is accompanied with action-oriented engagement. Thereby, a first level of action would entail providing more inclusive access, facilitated by the availability of more quantum computers via the cloud. A second level would involve building capacity globally in training experts in quantum computing.
Progress in global quantum governance is beginning to take shape through a range of cooperative efforts that recognise both the promise and the complexity of quantum technologies. As quantum computing capabilities mature, a shared understanding is emerging that governance frameworks must be anticipatory, inclusive and rooted in the values of safety, equity and long-term sustainability.
The OQI exemplifies how quantum innovation can be guided by multilateral cooperation, scientific excellence and SDG-focused governance. The institute provides a neutral platform to accelerate multilateral dialogue and help shape effec-
tive governance of quantum computing for the SDGs.
In addition, relevant governance-oriented frameworks are taking shape, such as the World Economic Forum’s Quantum Computing Governance Principles that define global guidelines to assess and manage the opportunities and risks of quantum computing.
The G7 Kananaskis Summit – held during the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology – presents a crucial opportunity for global leadership. G7 members, as key drivers of quantum innovation, are well positioned to champion safe, inclusive and development-oriented governance.
First, G7 leaders should support, both politically and financially, initiatives dedicated to building inclusive capacity and accelerating applications for global challenges.
Second, the G7 should lead in integrating anticipatory governance into multilateral quantum strategies. This includes addressing emerging risks to digital infrastructure, embedding safety standards into research and development, and ensuring that quantum applications align with SDG outcomes.
Third, G7 members should support and facilitate international partnerships that bring together governments, industry and academia to share resources and build global capacity. By focusing joint efforts on high-impact areas – such as climate resilience, health innovation and sustainable food systems –quantum technologies can be deployed where they are needed most.
In doing so, the G7 can help shape a global ecosystem where quantum computing evolves not as a race for technological dominance, but as a shared venture in the service of humanity and the planet. Anticipation, equity and safety must be central to this endeavour if the quantum age is to deliver on its promise for sustainable development.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
// TIM SMITH
Tim Smith leads the Open Quantum Institute, a novel science diplomacy instrument that brings together stakeholders from research, diplomacy, industry and philanthropy to develop applications for the benefit of humanity and promote global and inclusive access to quantum computing. Tim has built open science services and policies for CERN and helped craft CERN’s big data capabilities and create the first large-scale compute farms. He holds a PhD in particle physics performing research on the OPAL experiment at the LEP collider at CERN.
X-TWITTER @OQI_at_CERN open-quantum-institute.cern
The next phase in the fight against financial crime requires strong public-private partnerships and the use of advanced technologies to strip criminals of their profits and redirect resources towards global development
Elisa de Anda Madrazo, president, Financial Action Task Force
Since the Financial Action Task Force was founded 35 years ago by the G7, our work has become more critical than ever. Our people and economies are plagued by both traditional and emerging threats that destroy lives and undermine peace and security.
More than 8,000 lives were lost to terrorism around the world in 2023, underscoring the need to starve terrorists of their financing. Meanwhile, the synthetic opioid market generates tens of billions of dollars annually, and claims hundreds of thousands of lives Conservative estimates suggest illicit finance is a $3 trillion business every year, with the most serious crimes – drug trafficking, human trafficking, migrant smuggling, frauds and scams – driven by profit. Because financial crimes cause immense harm, resulting in lives lost, families devastated and ecosystems damaged, we must cut off the money flows that fuel them.
The FATF is part of an ecosystem of international and regional organisations protecting the integrity of the financial system, and contributing to global security and safety by ensuring financial crime does not pay. Since its inception, the FATF has expanded to 40 members and works closely with the nine FATF-Style Regional Bodies. Together, we form the FATF Global Network, with more than 200 jurisdictions. Almost all countries around the world have committed to implement the FATF standards to make the international financial system a defensive shield against criminals.
$3trillion
estimated annual value of illicit finance
Elisa de Anda Madrazo began her two-year term as president of the Financial Action Task Force in July 2024. She was previously vice-president for three years and was also co-chair of the Global Network and Coordination Group. She currently serves as director general in Mexico’s Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. She also served in the ministry’s Financial Intelligence Unit, including as head attaché to the Mexican embassy in Washington DC.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
X-TWITTER @FATFNews www.fatf-gafi.org
Our priority is to ensure that both public and private sectors are well equipped with effective tools and mechanisms to deprive criminals of their ill-gotten gains and prevent them from obtaining the funding that feeds their illegal activities.
We identify and monitor risks at national, regional and global levels, which is crucial for both the public and private sectors to stay ahead of the curve. Thanks to our Global Network, we provide a platform for countries, as well as corporations and financial institutions, to deliver a comprehensive picture of current and emerging money laundering risks and trends. One recent FATF report highlighted innovative ways in which financial institutions and payment platforms can use financial intelligence to protect children from online sexual exploitation.
FINANCIAL INCLUSION IS KEY TO COUNTERING CRIMINALITY
We also promote a proportionate, risk-based approach centred on effectiveness. Acknowledging each country’s specificities, and in seeking concrete and tangible results, our aim is for each country to develop adequate tools to combat illicit finance. The FATF has clarified its standards on this risk-based approach, empowering the private sector to bring more people into the formal financial sector and support financial inclusion. This ensures that people are not pushed towards cash and informal sectors where criminality can thrive and promotes growth and development.
We encourage strong public-private partnerships within and between countries – key to developing synergies and complementary approaches, managing cost efficiency and improving information sharing. Proportionate, risk-based anti-money laundering
“With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
measures support financial sector activities, while avoiding losing customers and investments because of a lack of trust in the sector. All of our reports show that engaging with the private sector delivers beneficial shortand long-term outcomes.
HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY TO STRENGTHEN FINANCIAL DEFENCES
We support the development of new technologies to help countries and the private sector keep pace with preventing and tackling crime, tracking illegal transactions, sharing intelligence, and reconciling data privacy with information sharing. The 2024 Global Financial Crime Report suggested fraud scams and bank fraud schemes totalled almost $500 billion in losses globally. Our recent report on cyber-enabled fraud shows that anti-fraud and anti-money laundering processes are complementary. This includes working with the private sector for horizon scanning to mitigate emerging fraud trends, while supporting the development of cost-efficient tools forthe private sector. The FATF also supports countries with materially important virtual asset sectors in implementing adequate monitoring frameworks. We also ensure effective implementation of all these defences, through peer evaluation processes.
The goal is to help countries identify their strengths and weaknesses and to support them in effectively implementing proportionate and risk-based measures, developing adequate tools to combat illicit finance. We are only as strong as our weakest link, which is why we have launched a project to assist low-capacity countries in addressing the challenges they face implementing Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Terrorism Financing Standards.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development, educating children and supporting better health outcomes. For this reason, in addition to promoting a safer, more secure world, tackling financial crime contributes to the core mission of the G7, benefiting everyone.
As founders of the FATF, G7 members must lead by example – but the entire world needs to play its part. These crimes do not respect borders, so it is in all of our interests to strengthen our efforts. The G7 established the FATF to keep dirty money out of the financial system; three decades later we are bringing the whole world with us in this fight.
Transnational organised crime networks are using the latest technology to produce and traffic ever more potent synthetic drugs. Countering this deadly trade requires urgent cross-border collaboration, knowledge sharing and investment in prevention – areas where G7 leadership can make a difference
Ghada Waly, executive director, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Global drug threats to health and security are becoming broader in reach and more unpredictable in nature, driven in large part by the pernicious evolution of synthetic drugs and the growing power and sophistication of transnational organised crime.
With its political, technical and financial capacities, the G7 can exercise the global leadership that is needed in the face of this dynamic and border-defying challenge.
Synthetic drugs are shortening supply chains and reducing risks for traffickers. Production labs can be set up cheaply and quickly almost anywhere, using easily available chemicals. Small but potent –and sometimes lethal – pills are easy to conceal and smuggle across borders.
Around the world, the numbers reflect this booming business.
Record seizures of amphetamine-type stimulants and pharmaceutical opioids have been registered globally for several years running.
Captagon continues to plague the Middle East – seizures in Iraq alone increased by almost 3,380% from 2019 to 2023. Fentanyl remains an immense challenge in North America.
1,300+
New psychoactive substances reported to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
// GHADA WALY
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
Ghada Waly has been executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and director general of the United Nations Office at Vienna since 2020. She holds the rank of UN under-secretary general and is the first African Arab woman to lead UNOV and UNODC. She served as Egypt’s minister of social solidarity from 2014 to 2020 and, previously, managing director of the Social Fund for Development. At the United Nations Development Programme, she was responsible for coordinating the Millennium Development Goals reports and launched the National Strategy for microfinance.
X-TWITTER @ghadafathiwaly / @unodc www.unodc.org
Tramadol trafficking is growing rapidly in Eastern Europe, beyond its traditional market in West Africa.
More than 1,300 new psychoactive substances have also been reported to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. A deadly class of synthetic opioids known as nitazenes is a rapidly growing concern, with 26 different types reported to UNODC to date.
Meanwhile, the threats by plant-based drugs have not abated. Cocaine production, trafficking and use continue to break records. Cocaine routes and markets are diversifying, newly expanding in Africa and Asia.
The range of drugs available on the market today is more varied and potentially lethal than ever. Patterns of use and harm are changing, and different drugs are being used in parallel or in dangerous cocktails. Some substances are mixed with others before being sold to unknowing consumers.
Technology is lowering barriers for drug production, trafficking and trade, increasing the consumer base for illicit drugs.
At the same time, treatment remains out of reach for most of those who need it. Globally, nearly a quarter of all people who use drugs suffer from drug use disorders, yet only 1 in 11 among them has access to any form of treatment. Women suffer from a larger treatment gap and greater stigma, and young people remain vulnerable to new substances and consumption methods.
Drug threats to security are escalating and accelerating. The destabilising impact of organised crime groups engaged in drug trafficking is a major concern. Trafficking routes run through
“Violence linked to drug trafficking has ramped up in recent years, in countries rich and poor, across different continents. Drug trafficking is also converging with other forms of organised crime in different parts of the world”
warzones and rule-of-law vacuums, from the Caribbean to the Levant to the Golden Triangle, fuelling instability.
Violence linked to drug trafficking has also ramped up in recent years, in countries rich and poor, across different continents.
Drug trafficking is also converging with other forms of organised crime in different parts of the world. Illegal deforestation and degradation of the Amazon, for example, are driven in large part by criminal groups engaged in the cocaine trade as well as natural resource exploitation.
In Southeast Asia, organised criminal groups engaged in drug trafficking may also be trafficking people, smuggling migrants and operating online scams that are defrauding people around the world.
These borderless threats require urgent and coordinated action, as recognised by the G7.
The Apulia G7 Leaders’ Communiqué
from June 2024 reiterated the G7’s strong commitment to fighting transnational organised crime, “breaking its business models, and dismantling its networks”. It recognised drug trafficking, along with migrant smuggling, human trafficking and fraud, as a major source of income for organised crime.
To translate that commitment into impact, the world needs the G7 to lead on key areas for action.
First, we need to enhance cross-border collaboration and ensure unified action to pursue justice across borders and follow the money associated with drug trafficking.
Second, we need to harness technological innovation to stay ahead of these threats. Artificial intelligence and digital tools can prove to be powerful instruments in detecting and disrupting criminal networks.
Third, we need to continue and improve data collection and analysis to stay informed on the latest trends and provide evidence-based insights that shape drug control strategies.
Fourth, we need to step up technical assistance to help different countries implement sustainable responses and bridge gaps in knowledge, infrastructure and capacities.
And fifth, we need a paradigm shift that prioritises investment in prevention, especially for youth, recognising the massive return on such investments in the long term.
The G7 can mobilise the resources and political momentum that are needed to mount a more effective global response to drug trafficking and organised crime.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime possesses the expertise, field presence and convening power to bring that momentum to bear.
The current model for migration no longer reflects the realities of a changing world. Through a comprehensive approach that combines effective migration governance, support for hosting communities and a focus on labour market needs, there is an opportunity to unlock economic potential and build public trust
Amy Pope, director general, International Organization for Migration
Across the world, the issue of immigration dominates political discussions. Driving much of this discussion is a media narrative –fuelled by images of migrants on fragile boats at sea, or of caravans of people walking through dangerous jungles – that suggests to many that migration is out of control.
The reality is more nuanced. Most migration around the world is orderly, regional and directly connected to work. But the call to recalibrate migration and asylum systems is not without merit. Irregular migration puts already vulnerable people at risk, and it undermines public trust that is essential for a rules-based system to function well. Globally, we know that migrants are critical drivers of economic resilience, growth and prosperity. Our shared goal must be to harness these enormous benefits while addressing the challenges of irregular migration, to develop solutions that make sense for the modern world and to ensure that migration is
safe, orderly and humane, but also smart and strategic.
A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
How to get there? Governments should approach this process comprehensively and strategically, combining effective migration governance, development assistance and help for hosting communities and ensuring that there are available pathways for people to migrate legally.
To be clear, every country has the sovereign right to manage its borders. The International Organization for Migration regularly provides support to its member states to help improve migration governance, including through improved border management systems. And this support extends to the safe, dignified and voluntary return of people to their countries of origin, where appropriate –as well as supporting their sustainable reintegration.
We also support those countries in facilitating pathways for regular
migration in ways that can meet the demands of the labour marketplace, while providing an alternative to dangerous irregular migration.
An improved model of migration – based on a comprehensive approach, where regular pathways are a key component –has at least four prerequisites.
First, it explicitly recognises the link between development and migration.
“We need to link labour and development needs more closely. Funding skills training for would-be migrants, for example, can benefit everyone – the migrants, the host countries and their countries of origin”
We know that migration can and does fuel development in countries of origin and destination. But we also know that economic instability and insecurity can fuel irregular migration.
Fewer people will feel forced to move if we make greater investments in areas such as education, infrastructure and skills training in home countries, because that will help bring economic stability. Since we know that remittances from migrants already significantly boost developing economies, we should work together to bring down the cost of those remittances.
Second, migration policies should be closely tracked to labour needs. Irregular migrants already hold jobs in the informal markets of their destination countries, but this signals an imbalance that is failing to meet the economic needs of many countries. Particularly for sectors such as agriculture, construction, hospitality and health care, we need pragmatic, labour-responsive, regular migration pathways that address existing and growing labour shortages.
Third, we need to link labour and development needs more closely. Funding skills training for would-be migrants, for example, can benefit everyone – the migrants, the host countries and their countries of origin.
This requires analysing labour market gaps and prioritising skills training in origin communities. In Germany, an initiative to train and recruit nurses internationally has potential benefits both locally and in recipient countries.
With growth slowing and
// AMY POPE
Targeted programmes can help ensure that migrants who develop knowledge and skills in a destination country have ways to reintegrate into their home country once they return, boosting the economy of their communities.
Fourth, we need to invest in more holistic ways in integrating migrants into their host communities. This means going beyond the permits that enable them to work or go to school legally. We should involve and empower local officials, community leaders and the private sector to help ensure that people in the community – including migrants – can continue to access essential services, such as schools, health care and public infrastructure.
This kind of approach rethinks the current system that governs the movement of people around the world. That system was created in 1951, in the wake of World War Two, and has remained largely unchanged since then. Without clear-eyed, strategic reform, it is not just migrants who will be held back. So will the prosperity of every corner of the globe. Most economically advanced countries have significant labour shortages – according to one report, shortages that cost the world’s 30 largest economies more than $1.3 trillion in gross domestic product per year – and ageing populations are going to exacerbate those labour shortages.
If migration is governed well, if it is safe, orderly and regular, I believe that public confidence in migration will rise. At IOM, we are eager to work with anyone on this goal, so we can help make migration work for all.
families struggling to make
ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
Amy Pope has been director general of the International Organization for Migration since 2023. Previously, she was the senior adviser on migration to US president Joe Biden and served as the deputy homeland security adviser to President Barack Obama. She has promoted dialogue on global migration challenges and opportunities through her academic writing and work with Chatham House. She has also occupied positions at the US Department of Justice and US Senate and was a partner in the London-based law firm Schillings.
X-TWITTER @IOMchief iom.int
A rise in migrant crimes is being driven by economic instability, technology-powered trafficking and climate-induced mass movement. Comprehensive action is urgently needed to disrupt trafficking networks and protect the most vulnerable
Denisse Rudich, director, G7 and G20 Research Groups (London), and CEO, Rudich Advisory
92% of persons trafficked for sexual exploitation are women and girls
On the G7’s 50th anniversary, leaders must find common ground and adopt new approaches to tackle migration crimes, including migrant smuggling and human trafficking, alongside strategies to address the criminality that underpins this destructive global phenomenon. These polycrimes leverage other crimes such as corruption and transshipment routes used for other types of trafficking (of wildlife, drugs and arms) by foot, road, rail and boat. As trade wars lead to greater economic uncertainty and hyperinflation, as conflicts flare, as digitalisation makes it easier to connect traffickers, victims and consumers to content generated by human traffickers, and as climate disasters drive mass movement and displacement of persons, the numbers of people at risk and associated profit margins will continue to climb. The Kananaskis Summit offers an opportunity to address the root causes of illegal migration, as the Canadian G7 presidency looks to advance meaningful dialogue on international peace and security, global economic stability and growth, and the digital transition.
Today, more people are trafficked and in forced labour than ever recorded before. Victims are often undocumented, afraid and at risk of violence or torture if they speak out. Migrant smuggling and human trafficking remain a profitable business, with forced labour alone generating $236 billion per year, affecting up to 50 million people. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, this includes 25% more victims than before the Covid-19 pandemic, 38% more trafficked children and 42% more people trafficked for forced labour, including forced criminality in fraud and scam centres, and 36% more for sexual exploitation. Women and girls account for 92% of persons trafficked for sexual exploitation. Most traffickers are men (70%) operating “within business or governance-type organized crime groups”. Africa is a major source and destination of all cross-border human trafficking flows, with children making up 61% of victims trafficked within the continent to work, including in mines to extract natural resources or become child soldiers.
The G7 has addressed migrant smuggling and human trafficking periodically, often focusing on tackling organised crime networks. Since 1998, leaders have made commitments to act against the trafficking and smuggling of migrants, especially women and children, and protect victims. They have committed to introduce legislation, enhance cooperation and provide technical support to countries facing the destabilising effects of human trafficking. They have pledged to work with international and regional organisations and countries to strengthen border security.
They have also promised to increase cooperation between origin, transit and destination countries, raise concerns about human trafficking in conflict-riddled countries such as Libya, increase law enforcement collaboration and strengthen border controls. More recently, they have pledged to strengthen action to affect the supply chain of transnational human trafficking networks. In 2024, leaders committed to disrupt the business models and dismantled organised criminal networks that profit from migrant smuggling and human trafficking.
Migration crimes remain a major policy issue, with G7 members facing domes-
“Migrant smuggling and human trafficking remain a profitable business, with forced labour alone generating $236 billion per year, affecting up to 50 million people”
tic pressure. Although the G7 has made major strides in elevating this topic on the global agenda, more remains to be done. First, G7 members must commit to tackling migrant smuggling, human trafficking and other migration crimes while upholding tenets of the UN Charter for human rights. They should also commit to:
1. Encourage the Financial Action Task Force and FATF-Style Regional Bodies to develop a human trafficking and migrant smuggling typologies report;
2. Work with African counterparts and adopt a multistakeholder approach to disrupt trafficking routes and create programmes to strengthen literacy and education programmes, and to rehabilitate victims, particularly children and women;
Denisse Rudich is a global champion of financial crime prevention initiatives with nearly 20 years delivering financial crime prevention strategic solutions across banking, start-ups and the public sectors. She works at the intersection of global governance, financial crime, technology and conflict finance, and is a technical expert and adviser on various government and private sector initiatives on economic crime, corruption and sanctions. Denisse is an author, trainer, keynote speaker and panellist at industry events, and is a mentor to start-ups and a tech founder.
3. Expand criminal justice efforts beyond sexual exploitation to include child labour and adopt credible deterrence measures;
4. Leverage public-private partnerships to promote cross-border and private sector intelligence and evidence sharing, including with big tech and telecoms companies, focused on suspected migrant smuggling and human trafficking to disrupt associated fund flows;
5. Work with technology, social media and telecoms companies to disrupt communications channels used by migrant smugglers and human traffickers, and to block promotional channels and remove illegal content online;
6. Call on all payment processors to build migrant smuggling and human trafficking into their business and customer risk assessments and apply customer due diligence procedures that better identify vulnerable individuals and monitor account activity for indicators of migrant smuggling and human trafficking;
7. Require banks to conduct supply chain due diligence and product due diligence and work with clients in industries and countries at high risk of human trafficking and modern slavery to enhance supply chain traceability measures;
8. Call for the criminalisation of migrant smuggling and human trafficking, and support the civil seizure of assets, such as homes, to ensure that assets are not available for use in reoffending; and,
9. Explore the use of technology to share information about the dangers of modern slavery and human trafficking in local languages and formats accessible to children and women.
The Kananaskis Summit offers G7 leaders a chance to reinvigorate the 2030 Agenda by strengthening the connection between development and finance commitments
With five years left to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, only 17% of the targets are on track or have been met, and more than one third have stagnated or regressed. During the summit at Kananaskis, the G7 leaders’ dedication to the SDGs and development faces heightened scrutiny amid massive budget cuts to foreign aid from the United States and United Kingdom. The Kananaskis Summit offers a critical opportunity for G7 members to demonstrate accountability and reinvigorate global efforts to meet the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with an initial focus on leveraging their development finance institutions, multilateral development banks and partnerships with the private sector.
Since 1975, G7 leaders have dedicated an average of 17% of the words in their communiqués to development. In 1975, 15% of words were on development. Lows came in 1984 with 3%, in 2003 with 4% and in 2004 with 1%. Highs came in 1979 with 26%, 1994 with 22%, 1996 with 20% and Kananaskis in 2002 with an all-time high of 56%. The 2005 summit had 27%, 2009 had 23% and 2011 had 36%. A sustained sequence of highs began in 2012 with 45% followed by 2013 with 39%, and 2014 with 36%. This then dropped slightly, but remained relatively high at the next four summits, with 38% in 2019. After a steep dip to 2% in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic came a rise to 17% in 2021, 18% in 2022, 21% in 2023 and a small dip to 15% at Apulia in 2024.
Since 1975, G7 leaders have made 805 commitments on development, the most on any subject, with an average of 16 per summit. Leaders made just four commitments on development in 1975, for 27% of the total. In 1976 they made only one, for 10%. The most
Sonja Dobson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
development commitments came in 2004 with 53, for 21%. Recently, the G7 made none in 2020, but 15 (4%) in 2021, 14 (3%) in 2022, 29 (4%) in 2023 and 44 (9%) in 2024.
At Canadian-hosted summits, the number of development commitments has generally fallen. The 1981 Ottawa-Montebello Summit produced nine (23%) and the 1988 Toronto Summit five (19%). The 1995 Halifax Summit made 14 (18%) and the 2002 Kananaskis Summit made 34 (19%). The 2010 Muskoka Summit made only four (5%), but the 2018 Charlevoix Summit jumped to 32 (10%).
G7 members complied with their leaders’ development commitments on average at 75%, based on 62 commitments between 1996 and 2023 assessed by the G7 Research Group. This is just below the G7’s all-subject average of 77%. G7 development compliance started slowly, with all-time lows of 50% for 1996, 1997 and 1998, but gradually rose, with much variation each year. Compliance soared to 93% with commitments made at the 1999 summit but plummeted back to 50% for 2000. It again rose to 75% for 2001, declined to 55% for 2002, and then rose to 80% for 2003. After a decline to 75% for 2004, it rose to 85% for 2005 and to 94% for 2006. Compliance then fluctuated between commitments made in 2007 with 65%, and for 2015 in the mid-range with 75%. Then came continued highs: 81% for 2016 and 2017, 92% for Charlevoix in 2018, 84% for 2019, 100% for 2021, and 88% for 2022. Compliance on development for the 2023 summit was 100%. By December 2024, compliance with the 2024 Apulia Summit’s development-related commitment on the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment was already 100%.
“The Kananaskis Summit offers a critical opportunity for G7 members to demonstrate accountability and reinvigorate global efforts to meet the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”
Higher development compliance comes from many low-cost actions under the leaders’ direct control. First, commitments that explicitly mention ‘sustainable’ development, including the SDGs, averaged 93% compliance.
Second, commitments that mention ‘development’, including those referring to growth or a specific industry, averaged 90% compliance. So did commitments with a one-year timetable for delivery.
Third, commitments on financing or funding, excluding commitments solely about aid and development assistance, secured 88% compliance.
Fourth, commitments referencing finance ministers had 87% compliance.
Fifth, higher compliance came when G7 development ministers’ meetings were held before the summit. Of the 11 years with such meetings, nine meetings came before the summit, and leaders’ development
commitments averaged 81% compliance. The two post-summit meetings averaged only 65%.
Lower rates of compliance come when commitments referred to Africa, debt relief and aid and assistance, at 77%, 75% and 74%, respectively.
Thus, to increase compliance, G7 leaders at the 2025 Kananaskis Summit should:
1. Focus on commitments on financing and funding specific to sustainable development initiatives;
2. Add short, one-year timetables;
3. Connect development and finance commitments;
4. Commit to fully implementing the HIPC Initiative and debt relief for highly indebted poor countries; and
5. Reinvest in foreign aid, amassing the financial resources required to achieve the SDGs.
// 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. Sonja 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.
*blank space means no data
As national agendas begin to eclipse global responsibilities, inaction on hunger and poverty comes at a high cost.
By mobilising private and public capital, harnessing the benefits of AI, and restoring trust in multilateralism, the G7 can reset the course towards sustainable development
Achim Steiner, administrator,
What impacts will recent cutbacks in official development assistance have on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals?
We’re seeing an enormous defunding of international cooperation in 2025. The United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands are among the countries that are reducing their aid. The repercussions are severe. Hundreds of millions of people are already affected through drastically reduced humanitarian finance – food rations have been halved or entirely stopped, some refugee camps are no longer being supported, and funding for life-saving AIDS treatments is dwindling, putting hundreds of thousands of lives in jeopardy.
The ripple effects go beyond immediate humanitarian needs. Approximately 50 developing countries are grappling with a severe debt crisis, diverting resources to debt servicing rather than essential investments in critical areas such as education or health care.
These cutbacks also stifle the technological investments necessary to drive future economic growth. Developing countries –and even G7 members – require significant investment in key areas including digital public infrastructure. Yet, with escalating budget deficits and overextended loans, such forward-looking investments are increasingly unattainable.
This reflects a broader reluctance to invest in collective solutions and the institutions designed to enable global cooperation. Indeed, the future of several United Nations agencies is under threat, with thousands of contracts terminated – ultimately halting vital services for mil-
What we face is not just a crisis of resources but a crisis of institutional and operational capacity. These short-term funding cuts have long-term implications, undermining the resilience of countries and their ability to invest in human capital, stabilise economies and build transparent, accountable governance systems.
It’s worth remembering that development has been one of humanity’s greatest success stories: billions of people lifted out of poverty, rising incomes, dramatic increases in girls’ education, improved life
expectancy and unprecedented internet connectivity. Yet, in today’s polarised domestic climate, investment in global development is becoming increasingly constrained. In 2024, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee members mobilised 0.33% of their combined gross national income for ODA, far short of the longstanding 0.7% target. This disparity underscores the growing gap between the commitments made and the support actually provided to those in need, challenging the notion that investing in global development comes at the expense of domestic priorities.
Is anyone stepping in?
Many countries are much smaller than the US so they cannot offset its withdrawal. Moreover, heightened security priorities in Europe have led to increased defence budgets, with reduced aid often justified as a necessary reallocation of resources to military spending. In 2024, more than $2,700 billion was allocated to defence spending globally, while a mere fraction of that – just $212 billion – was directed toward ODA. In reality, the greatest risk to a person anywhere today is not reducible to a territorial threat. Global development finance is about de-risking the greatest threats in the 21st century including pandemics, conflicts and climate impacts. It is about addressing our shared vulnerabilities, from pandemics to climate resilience, while navigating challenges such as cybercrime and cyber-terrorism. These are global issues that no country can tackle alone. Yet many developing countries are essentially left to their own devices, eroding confidence in global commitments.
Can cash-strapped governments mobilise private sector financing for development?
Given the divergence even within the G7, it’s difficult to see how countries will reconvene to make decisions that could transform development financing. Public support is shrinking. Can the private sector provide capital markets, programmes, incentives and policies that provide significant resources? Without question. However, private capital goes where it can make a robust return on investment. That’s only a dozen or two economies in the Global South. Most developing countries cannot attract substantial capital and private sector investment without measures
“Short-term funding cuts have long-term implications, undermining the resilience of countries and their ability to invest in human capital, stabilise economies and build transparent, accountable governance systems”
such as credit guarantees, export finance or hybrid capital. Billions of people live in economies struggling to attract significant investments. Most investment comes from the private and entrepreneurial sectors, but for transformative investments to make up for reduced aid, we need deliberate policy measures and development finance institutions to infuse strategic capital that can multiply investments that produce private sector infrastructure, services and economic growth.
Is there a risk of a new digital divide over artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence can drive economic development that is transformative for developing country economies. Yet we need transparent governance frameworks that ensure that technology becomes an asset for a country, a society and ultimately the global economy. To this end, the UN Development Programme, the International Telecommunication Union and
Achim Steiner has served as 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. Mr. Steiner led the United Nations 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.
X-TWITTER @Asteiner undp.org
private sector partners are working alongside developing countries to create the robust ecosystems needed to reap the benefits of AI applications. This includes establishing the structures necessary to foster private sector–driven AI services and products, ensuring they are inclusive, sustainable and tailored to local needs.
UNDP’s 2025 Human Development Report focuses on investing in the possibility of AI. It argues how the world must find the optimal balance between market-driven innovation, entrepreneurial ingenuity and regulatory frameworks so that AI does not become weaponised or exclusive to the point of driving conflict, and aligns with human rights, including the right to privacy.
Can G7 leaders help get the SDGs back on track?
The G7, by virtue of its economic size and influence, must find a way to act cohesively, rising above the challenges of the moment, not only as a stabilising force but also as leaders in ensuring a safer, more equitable future for all. This includes reversing the decline in ODA and recognising that the cost of inaction – on hunger, poverty, climate change and instability – is far greater than the investments required now.
Moreover, the G7 can champion bold reforms to international financial and governance systems, ensuring that institutions such as the UN and Bretton Woods frameworks are fit for purpose in addressing 21st-century challenges. By doing so, the G7 can help restore trust in multilateralism, mobilise private and public capital to fill critical gaps, and ensure that life-changing technological advancements like AI benefit all, not just a select few.
Canada’s G7 presidency presents a pivotal opportunity to set a bold new course for global progress. With courage and vision, the G7 can forge a legacy of solidarity and transformation that will define this era. The world is not merely watching; it is relying on the G7 to take decisive, impactful action to confront the defining challenges of our time.
At a time when coordinated responses to global challenges are more critical than ever, national development banks offer a powerful, collaborative platform to advance sustainable economic development
Edgardo Alvarez, secretary general, Latin American Association of Development Financing Institutions
In 2020, we had a simultaneous confluence of crises: economic, environmental and health. To this was added a geopolitical crisis, with impacts that forced us to rethink concepts about development and the role that development finance institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean should play. These crises led us to reflect on key questions about security, risk diversification, climate change, health and the impact of technology on development finance, digitalisation, the energy transition, and their relationship to the protectionist policies that have intensified today.
At the same time, several challenges were revealed for Latin American and Caribbean countries, including the need to mobilise resources to strengthen investment in resilient productive and social infrastructure, digital access and support for job-generating activities. Other challenges involve support for small and medium-sized enterprises, the economic empowerment of marginalised sectors, the promotion of entrepreneurship, and the generation of new investment through the relocation and regionalisation of companies in international value chains. Key areas include agricultural and rural development, deepening financial inclusion, mobilising climate investments and supporting technological innovation in business. All these aspects make up the scope of action of the development bank as part of the global financial architecture.
In recent years, we have witnessed a resurgence of these development banks worldwide, in some regions or countries more than in others. This resurgence is due to the recognition of their role not only in promoting economic development – now focused on being sustainable, inclusive and resilient – but also as stabilisers of economic activity during periods of crisis, such as the 2008 global financial crisis or the Covid-19 crisis.
Faced with these situations, development banks have shown resilience and adapted their support instruments to respond to complex environments. As an example, we can highlight the countercyclical role that they played during past crises, when market financing tended to slow down, which led many
“Development banks are in a privileged position to be agents of change, identifying cutting-edge sectors that will allow Latin America and the Caribbean to compete in the future, induce an environmentally friendly development model and develop the potential of entrepreneurs”
Edgardo Alvarez is secretary general of the Latin American Association for Development Financing Institutions and also of the World Federation of Development Finance Institutions. He previously served as general manager of Banco Agropecuario (Agrobanco), COFIDE and Banco de Comercio. He has also been a professor specialising in business management and corporate finance, and a consultant to the InterAmerican Development Bank in the evaluation of financial institutions.
X-TWITTER @_ALIDE_ / @WFDFI_ www.alide.org.pe / wfdfi.org
governments to use their development banks to induce proactive action by their financial institutions.
A common vision unites all these efforts, as well as the more than 530 development banks and financial institutions around the world that manage assets worth $23 trillion and finance investments of $2.3 trillion (according to the Global Network of Public Development Banks). They go beyond just correcting market failures
and contribute to the development of their countries on a traditional basis.
Development banks are in a privileged position to be agents of change, identifying cutting-edge sectors that will allow Latin America and the Caribbean to compete in the future, induce an environmentally friendly development model and develop the potential of entrepreneurs, to make it possible for their ideas and projects to be translated into businesses. They open up paths where others only see risks and difficulties, supporting projects in new sectors or products where market information is incomplete or nonexistent. They empower and offer financial and non-financial tools to entrepreneurs who are creating the economy and businesses of the future. They identify new areas or sectors for development. What better than a development bank to serve as an antenna to capture where business and market opportunities are heading in economies such as those of Latin America and the Caribbean?
We can affirm that strengthening and giving greater attention to national development banks is justified by the need not only to create markets where they do not exist, but also to efficiently develop existing markets in key areas for the structural transformation of economies. This includes sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure, energy, education, health, small and medium-sized enterprises, and innovation. At the same time, they contribute to a global and collaborative approach to the challenges and priorities of a constantly changing world, as well as other challenges previously mentioned. This takes on greater relevance at a time when it seems that coordination to address global problems shows a certain weakness.
As food insecurity surges around the world, and raging conflicts push millions deeper into life-threatening hunger, the world’s most vulnerable risk being cut off from their only lifeline. The G7 must urgently prioritise funding for programmes battling to reach those on the brink
When the leaders of the G7 gather for the 2025 Kananaskis Summit in Alberta, Canada, there will be several new faces around the table. Five of the seven leaders in attendance have taken office since the last summit was held a year ago, in Italy – a reminder of how rapidly our world is changing. What has not changed, however, are the alarming levels of hunger and malnutrition that we are seeing across the globe. Food insecurity is surging in many regions, stoked by the rising number of conflicts, natural disasters and economic turmoil that are threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions.
“WFP’s frontline teams have already been forced to cut millions of vulnerable people from our food distribution lists. Millions more will lose their food assistance in the weeks and months ahead unless our operations receive sufficient and predictable financial support”
Chronic hunger is the daily reality for up to 757 million people – they do not know when, or if, they will eat again. Recent analysis conducted by my organisation, the World Food Programme, has found that 343 million people are facing severe hunger: they are at serious risk of dying from starvation or other hunger-related causes, such as common illnesses their malnourished bodies cannot fight.
Yet while urgent humanitarian needs continue to grow, the resources available to meet them are falling behind. Governments everywhere are refocusing budgets on domestic priorities and reducing spending on overseas aid.
At WFP, we are responding to this new environment by rigorously prioritising our activities to ensure we deliver on our critical mandate. We are working hard to reduce our cost base, further boost our operational efficiency and effectiveness, and find new ways to stretch every donor contribution to feed as many people as possible. We also have ambitious plans to further expand and scale up our collaborations with the private sector, so we can partner together to deliver lasting impact.
But these measures on their own will not be enough to bridge the gap between humanitarian needs and resources. We still need the leading industrialised countries to play their part in funding and delivering a global aid system capable of providing effective and targeted emergency food assistance to those who need it most. Just as importantly, we need all governments and private sector partners to step up and contribute in whatever way they can.
This is an urgent imperative. WFP’s frontline teams have already been forced to cut millions of vulnerable people from
// CINDY McCAIN
Cindy Hensley McCain became the World Food Programme’s executive director in 2023. A distinguished humanitarian, business leader and diplomat, she brings a wealth of expertise to the role. Prior to joining WFP, she served as United States ambassador to the United Nations agencies in Rome, and is the former chair of the board of trustees of Arizona State University’s McCain Institute for International Leadership. She has also served on the board of directors of Project C.U.R.E, CARE, Operation Smile and Halo Trust, and was chair of her family’s business, Hensley Beverage Company.
X-TWITTER @wfpchief www.wfp.org
our food distribution lists. Millions more will lose their food assistance in the weeks and months ahead unless our operations receive sufficient and predictable financial support.
I recently spent time in Uganda, where WFP works with the government to provide essential assistance to 1.6 million refugees – most of them women and children. The Ugandan government has long been recognised for its policy of welcoming refugees, and it is home to more displaced people than any other African country.
Some fled the simmering conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan; newer arrivals have escaped the vicious civil war that has torn Sudan apart. All urgently need help. Uganda is doing its best to care for these desperately vulnerable families, but it is struggling to cope.
WFP’s food assistance programmes help to provide vital support and stability in this volatile region of Africa, where multiple armed conflicts are spilling across borders, displacing millions and sending rates of hunger skyrocketing. A significant funding shortfall means these programmes are now at risk.
This is just one example. Before the end of the year, WFP will be forced to scale back lifesaving food assistance in hunger hotspots around the world –from Chad and Haiti to Sudan and Syria – unless we can raise additional funds. Millions face having their only lifeline taken away. We must not allow this to happen.
Our world may be changing fast, but old challenges still endure. When the G7 leaders convene in Alberta, it is vital that they prioritise programmes to combat hunger as part of an effective strategy to enhance global peace, security and prosperity.
Robust collaboration with the World Health Organization, equitable access to innovation and the safe integration of AI into health systems can shape future health solutions
Joanna Davies, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
Although health is not a top priority for the 2025 Kananaskis Summit, it has been on the G7 agenda since 1979. G7 leaders should thus continue to implement strategies from previous years.
Since 1979, G7 leaders’ communiqués have dedicated 65,046 words to health, averaging 10% per summit. Only the summits in 1982, 1994 and 1995 did not mention health.
From 1979 to 1999, G7 leaders averaged 3% of their words on health per summit, peaking in 1987 at 14% with leaders prioritising the HIV/AIDS epidemic and in 1997 with 11%, and otherwise not exceeding 6%.
From 2000 to 2024, attention to health averaged
Joanna Davies is a senior researcher with the G7 and G20 Research Groups. She is a graduate fellow with an MA in bioethics from New York University’s School of Global Public Health. Her research focused on technology and neuroethics, health economics and resource conflicts. She looks at how legal and economic factors influence public health systems, including the environment. She is now pursuing her legal career in London, England.
X-TWITTER @g7_rg www.g7.utoronto.ca
17%. The highest was an unprecedented 72% in 2020, due to Covid-19. Other highs came in 2001 with 24% (and a new emphasis on biotechnologies), 2010 with 26% on maternal and child mortality, 2016 with 26% on the health-related Sustainable Development Goals, and 2021 with 24%. Attention then dropped to 17% in 2022, and 6% in 2023 and 2024.
Since 1983 G7 leaders have made 624 health commitments on, inter alia, infectious diseases, the environment and hunger, the relationship between the global economy and health, research and development innovation, and antimicrobial resistance. G7 discussions have led to major initiatives including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The 1999 summit set the foundations for international cooperation on disease surveillance and response, and on strengthening health systems in low- and middle-income countries.
From 1983 to 2005 the G8 (with Russia) made fewer than 20 health commitments (up to 13%) per summit. In 2006, this spiked to 60 (19%) and 42 (13%) in 2007. It dropped below 20 per summit again between 2008 and 2013, but the 2010 summit’s 12 commitments (17%) launched the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.
Another spike came in 2015 with 61 commitments (16%) and 85 (25%) in 2016. This dipped from 2017 to 2021, with no more than 11 per summit.
However, the 11 health commitments made in 2020, at the onset of Covid-19, took 44% of the total. In 2021, the G7 made 89 (20%). Although the number remained high, it declined to 41 (8%) in 2022, 34 (5%) in 2023, and 23 (5%) in 2024.
Members’ compliance with G7 health commitments averages 78%, just above the overall all-subject 77% average, as assessed by the G7 Research Group. Throughout the first 25 years of commitments, the highest compliance – 100% – came with those made in 1983, 1997 and 2012; it sank to 50% for 1999.
Compliance for 2013 to 2015 was at or above 86%, but then decreased to 67% for 2016 down to the lowest ever with 25% for 2017. It remained below average until 2020 when it jumped to 98%. It dropped to 79% for 2021 and 75% for 2022, before returning to 100% for 2023. By December 2024, health compliance for the 2024 Apulia Summit averaged 94%.
The five highest health-complying summits averaged 43 health commitments and 92% compliance. The five lowest-complying
summits averaged only seven commitments and 46% compliance. Thus a higher number of commitments made at a summit suggests better compliance.
High compliance came on commitments on improving prevention, detection, response and recovery systems for pandemics and infectious diseases. High compliance also resulted from the shocks of Ebola in 2014 and Covid-19 in 2020.
Moreover, commitments made at summits with a pre-summit health ministerial meeting averaged higher compliance of 83% compared with 76% for summits without one.
Higher compliance among summits with more commitments on One Health may be an effect of placing the World Health Organization in a coordinating role. Indeed, across 101 health commitments made from 1983 to 2023, commitments with the highest compliance included references to an international organisation such the World Health Organization or the World Trade Organization, with an average of 76% even with shock-activated anomalies, such as 34% in 2008 for neglected tropical diseases, 69% in 2016 following the Ebola outbreak and 31% in 2018 for a commitment to the International Health Regulations and funding. Without these anomalies, compliance was 93% for commitments referencing international organisations.
A focus on antimicrobial resistance or mobilising funds also produced high compliance. Since 2021, the proportion of commitments related to financing global health has also steadily increased. Commitments related to financing averaged 80% compliance excluding the 22% and 31% anomalies of 2010 and 2018 respectively, and 72% including them.
Based on these findings, G7 leaders at Kananaskis should:
• Commit to strongly support the WHO and its IHR, focusing on sharing information.
• Make more commitments on health, especially regarding AMR, alternative care, One Health, the labour market, knowledge transfer, open international collaboration on research and development, improved access to the benefits and interoperability of global health security plans, and the safe use of artificial intelligence.
• Commit to the Impact Investing Initiative and other structured health financing plans.
• Recommend a pre-summit health ministerial meeting be held each year.
• Increase support for the G20’s joint meetings of finance and health ministers, and of agriculture and health ministers.
• Commit to improve health and environmental surveillance for AMR, climate change and biodiversity loss, food insecurity, safety and nutrition.
The spiralling health crisis threatens to become a global catastrophe as funding collapses and aid is cut. To save lives, countries must urgently safeguard health budgets, generate new revenues and strengthen systems – with backing from global partners
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general, World Health Organization
The world is facing a global health financing emergency. Countries were already struggling to pay for health services because of the ballooning costs of servicing loans, the continuing economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and deprioritisation of health in budgets, with increasing spending on defence. The recent dramatic aid cuts by the United States and other countries have exacerbated this emergency. Feedback to the World Health Organization from more than 100 countries shows severe disruptions to health services in almost three-quarters of countries, and closures of health facilities in one-quarter of countries. To avoid preventable deaths and suffering, and make progress towards inclusive economic growth, countries can and must act now to protect essential health services through prioritising the worst off, increasing efficiency, generating new revenue through taxes and other sources of funding from global partners, and better pooling this spending on health.
Although this crisis threatens lifesaving programmes and the millions of people who rely on them, it also presents an opportunity for countries to transition away from aid dependency towards self-reliance, based on domestic resources. Countries are asking for the WHO’s technical advice and support to navigate that transition, while protecting progress towards universal health coverage. Our advice is to prioritise the poorest, protect health budgets, resist reductions in public health spending, and avoid cutting services or closing facilities. Instead, countries can absorb some of the impact of aid cuts through efficiency gains, by improving procurement, minimising overheads, pooling purchasing of goods and services, integrating donoror disease-specific services into a comprehensive delivery approach, and using health technology assessments to guide decisions on which services and products provide the biggest health gains for the money.
But countries also need to prioritise health spending and generate new sources of revenue. Many countries have already acted: Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa have all allocated additional funds to health or are awaiting parliamentary approval for funding increases.
To support raising revenue for health, countries can strengthen the pooling of health spending by improving domestic revenue and tax systems. The health sector must engage closely with finance authorities to ensure adequate funding for programmes, including social and community insurance where these exist, to build collective solidarity against catastrophic health spending.
Countries can also strengthen national tax administration capacities. For example, countries can introduce or expand taxes on products that harm health, including tobacco and alcohol and sugary drinks. This is a no-regrets measure. Evidence continues to grow that health taxes are an efficient and cost-effective way to improve health and raise overall government revenue.
Countries including Colombia, the Gambia, Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Thailand and others have recently introduced or expanded such taxes, and seen consumption decrease and revenues increase.
Taxation to raise prices of tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks by 50%
“Feedback to the World Health Organization from more than 100 countries shows severe disruptions to health services in almost three-quarters of countries, and closures of health facilities in one-quarter of countries”
could raise $2.1 trillion in low-income and middle-income countries over the next five years, and prevent 50 million premature deaths over the next 50 years.
Not all these measures will be right for every country, especially countries with weak tax collection or a large, unregulated informal sector. In all contexts, strong public financing systems are needed to support equitable access to quality health services. The WHO is working with countries to identify which measures are best for them, and to tailor those measures accordingly.
However, efficiency gains and domestic revenue generation alone will not be enough for many countries, which will need concessional loans to support the most cost-effective investments, aligned to country priorities and flowing through country systems. To avoid exacerbating the ongoing debt crisis and make loans more affordable, these financial flows need to be coupled with grants and debt to health swaps underwritten by development banks. G7 members can play an important role, by ensuring any new external health financing – given either bilaterally or through global health initiatives – is channelled through domestic budgets, aligned with national priorities and based on the principle of ‘one plan, one budget, one report’.
Without urgent action, this global health emergency will lead to the collapse of health systems in countries and deaths from diseases we have affordable measures to prevent. But if countries act now, with the support of global partners, together we can minimise suffering during this crisis and even see stronger and more resilient health systems and economies. The WHO is committed to doing whatever we can to help countries weather this storm to ensure people receive the quality health services they need.
// TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was elected director general of the World Health Organization in 2017 and reelected 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 cochaired the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Board.
X-TWITTER @DrTedros who.int
Ilona Kickbusch, founding director, Global Health Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
As the world becomes increasingly digital, the boundaries between geopolitics and technology platforms are vanishing. As Bruno Maçães argues, today geopolitics is about creating new territory that is shaped by the rapid developments of digital technology and artificial intelligence. The politics and economics of the digital transformation are driven by competition to shape the rules and standards of the new virtual world before others are able to do so.
Global efforts to strengthen the governance of large technology platforms are weak. This should be a high priority for the G7, but remains dangerously underdeveloped.
The G7 – the world’s most powerful democracies and technology leaders –is uniquely positioned to lead a coherent response to the emerging risks posed by unregulated digital health platforms. But its engagement has been fragmented by members wanting to protect the technologies deemed strategically important. This must change.
There is a strong reason to begin addressing the challenges at hand with a focus on public health, where the digital transformation must be a tool for equity, not a driver of division.
As digital platforms increasingly shape health systems and information flows, the G7 must lead in setting global standards to ensure safety, equity and public trust
From telemedicine and AI-driven diagnostics to mental health apps and algorithmic content moderation, digital platforms are reshaping health systems and health information. Digital health platforms are powerful actors: without proper regulation, they deepen inequalities, compromise safety and erode public trust. The digital determinants of health – any factor rooted in, contingent on or inextricably linked to the digital world that can directly or indirectly influence health or well-being – are influencing and interacting with other health determinants. The most obvious impact is on the mental health of children and young people.
The unchecked spread of health misinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic undermined public trust and contributed to preventable deaths.
Unregulated digital platforms can amplify pseudoscience, promote unverified health interventions and target users with harmful content – without accountability.
Meanwhile, AI tools are deployed in health care with minimal oversight, leading to possibly inaccurate diagnoses, reinforcing systemic biases or increasing cybersecurity risks. The rapid commercialisation of health data, often without informed consent, poses ethical and privacy risks, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where regulatory safeguards are weakest.
G7 members have the world’s most developed health systems. They also host many of the largest technology firms and vast health data infrastructures, and drive a significant portion of global health research. They have both the responsibility and capacity to act. The European Union is home to innovative legislation to ensure data protection and regulate digital services and platforms.
A coordinated G7 approach to digital health platform regulation would serve three goals. First, it would safeguard users, ensuring platforms do no harm and uphold core public health principles. Second, it would prevent regulatory fragmentation, enabling innovation to flourish within clear, ethical guardrails. And third, it would offer a model for global cooperation, especially crucial for countries with inadequate resources to regulate powerful tech platforms.
The G7 should develop a joint policy framework with minimum standards for the safety, transparency and accountability of digital health platforms. This includes mandatory disclosures about health algorithms, limits on data extraction and protocols for moderating health-related misinformation.
Second, G7 members should fund and
“The G7 – the world’s most powerful democracies and technology leaders – is uniquely positioned to lead a coherent response to the emerging risks posed by unregulated digital health platforms”
llona Kickbusch is the founding director of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. She is a member of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and the WHO Council on the Economics of Health for All. She is co-chair of the World Health Summit Council. She previously had a distinguished career with the World Health Organization and Yale University, and has published widely on global health governance and global health diplomacy. She directs the Digital Transformations for Health Lab. She and John Kirton are co-editors of, most recently, Health: A Political Choice – Building Resilience and Trust
X-TWITTER @IlonaKickbusch ilonakickbusch.com
promote public-interest alternatives – open-source digital health tools, equitable telehealth platforms and robust digital infrastructure in underserved regions. These investments must prioritise inclusion and sustainability.
Third, the G7 should partner with global institutions such as the World Health Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to support shared governance mechanisms, including international observatories to monitor platform practices and regulatory sandboxes to test digital innovations.
Finally, any regulatory agenda must require public engagement. Building digital health literacy, involving civil society and embedding rights-based approaches are essential to creating a digital health ecosystem that people can trust. Digital health must serve everyone, regardless of geography, income, age or ability.
The G7 would thus pave the way for a Global Compact on Digital Health Governance – a voluntary yet normative framework of shared principles, responsibilities and cooperative mechanisms for managing digital health technologies and health data across borders. It would help ensure equity, trust, safety and public benefit, and protect individual rights, and advance equity, resilience and trust in health systems worldwide. It would guide ethical and equitable digital health development, ensure international
cooperation on cross-border digital health challenges and empower countries, especially in the Global South, with capacity and safeguards. It could build on existing efforts by the WHO, OECD, Global Digital Compact, African Union Digital Health Strategy and the EU’s AI and data protection frameworks, as well as the International Health Regulations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It could also establish a multilateral platform to develop the global compact by reaching out to the G20 and including regional bodies as well as international organisations. Importantly, it would establish digital health observatories to track deployments, harms and innovations, to share best practices, benchmarks and impact assessments, and to provide technical support and peer-review mechanisms. Supporting such observatories could attract major philanthropies.
The G7 must help prepare the world for the future. It can no longer neglect the global impact – political, economic, social and health – of the digital transformation. It must recognise the global public health implications of inaction. It can choose to set a responsible and inclusive course for the digital future of health. Regulating digital health platforms is not about stifling innovation. It is about ensuring that innovation serves people –equitably, ethically and safely.
Amid rising rates of brain and mental disorders, an integrative approach is needed, drawing on all of the resources at our disposal. In this, G7 members are uniquely positioned to lead the way on adopting integral brain health as a shared policy goal
Vladimir Hachinski, University of Western Ontario, Guy Rouleau, Montreal Neurological Institute, and Danuta Wasserman, Karolinska Institutet
We have been hurled into turbulent and unpredictable times, transformed by technology and threatened by ageing. One fact remains certain: in a world of automation, a knowledge-based economy and artificial intelligence, being able to thrive will require human intelligence, mental resilience and social skills.
The greatest health threats to a bright future are the growing number of brain and mental disorders. Neurological conditions frequently coexist with major depressive and anxiety disorders, driven by shared psychosocial risk factors, such as lifestyle choices, social isolation, poverty and discrimination. Furthermore, the relationship between psychiatric and neurological disorders is bidirectional – evidence shows that clinically significant depression and anxiety increase the likelihood of
developing all-cause dementia later in life. Both groups of disorders originate from the same organ. Globally, brain and mental disorders account for 522 and 258 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYS), respectively. This is more than the burden of cancer (260 million DALYS) and cardiovascular disease (402 million DALYS) put together.
The financial burden is staggering, with lost income estimated at $1.2 trillion, largely due to migraine, depression and anxiety. On top of that, worldwide healthcare spending on brain-related conditions amounts to $1.1 trillion, with a substantial share attributed to dementia, stroke, depression and anxiety.
Neurodevelopment disorders and neonatal encephalopathy have life-long effects. Mental disorders predominate in late adolescence and early adult life, and brain disorders late in life. Consequently, it is necessary to take a lifetime approach, as advocated by the World Health Organization. The first step in integrating the prevention of brain and mental disorders is to adopt
a working definition that includes physical, mental and social health.
We propose this definition: ‘When thinking, feeling and connecting with others are at their best in a safe, healthy, and supportive environment’. We call it integral brain health because it incorporates the determinants of brain, mental and social health. Also, it can use an integral brain health index that is independent of language, literacy and culture to measure change.
The challenge of implementation is vast, yet the moment for action has arrived. Recognising the urgency, the WHO has established global brain and mental health initiatives, the European Academy of Neurology has introduced a brain health strategy, the Yaoundé Declaration on Brain Economy, Brain Health and Brain Capital outlines an African brain health plan, and several national-level plans such as the American Academy of Neurology Brain Health Initiative, while in Norway, Finland, Italy and India brain health plans have been developed.
Most plans rely on governments that in turn depend on taxation, however, decreasing birth rates mean a shrinking taxation base to support an expanding older population.
These plans need to be complemented by community-level initiatives. Desirable characteristics include being simple and inexpensive enough to be embedded into ongoing services and organisations, to minimise costs and assure sustainability.
These efforts need to be backed up and linked to health professionals, including psychiatrists and neurologists. Psychiatry and neurology as specialities began together, but have grown apart. It is unrealistic to expect busy and scarce specialists to begin learning more about each other’s specialities. However, it is possible to start reuniting them selectively and strategically through integral brain health goals. Professional organisations have a major role to play. Indeed, the World Federation of Neurology and the World Psychiatric Association have already begun cooperating, and propose:
1. Fostering interdisciplinary research and joint education curricula.
2. Closing the treatment gap by embedding interventions into existing systems. This saves time by skipping the knowledge and mobilisation step, and saves money
“Psychiatry and neurology as specialities began together, but have grown apart. It is unrealistic to expect busy and scarce specialists to begin learning more about each other’s specialities. However, it is possible to start reuniting them selectively and strategically through integral brain health goals”
Vladimir Hachinski is a professor of neurology and scientist at Western University in London, Canada. He has made major contributions to the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of stroke and dementia, most notably his concept of vascular cognitive impairment and the Hachinski ischemic score. He currently leads a multi-disciplinary team of experts in Western’s Community Integral Brain Health Initiative.
by taking advantage of existing services that can be united under a unifying goal of integral brain health.
3. Defying stigma and discrimination, and increasing awareness. Integral brain health is especially important to the G7 members because of the rapidly expanding mismatch of more people getting old than are being born. Little has been done to foster integral brain health so far, so G7 members not only have the greatest need to implement integral brain health, but also have the greatest capacity to do so.
Therefore, we propose that G7 members do the following:
1. Adopt a working definition of integral brain health (cerebral, mental and social) and a corresponding integral brain health index to measure change,
2. Adopt integral brain health as a unifying goal in all policies, and
3. Fund new approaches to integrate and accelerate the relevant activities to integral brain health at the G7, national and community levels, to build brain capital and delay, allay and prevent brain and mental disorders.
Guy Rouleau is director of The Neuro (Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital), chair of the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery of McGill University, director of the Department of Neuroscience of McGill University Health Centre, and co-founder of the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute. In 2022, he was elected First Vice-President of the World Federation of Neurology.
Danuta Wasserman is a professor of psychiatry and suicidology at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and president (2023–2026) of the World Psychiatric Association, representing 147 associations and 250,000 psychiatrists in 123 countries from all continents. She founded Sweden’s National Centre for Suicide Research at KI and has led the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention since 1997. She is also the former president of the European Psychiatric Association and the International Academy of Suicide Research.
Rising protectionism and fractured multilateralism are pressuring G7 energy leadership. The Kananaskis Summit is a critical moment to revive commitments through clear institutional mechanisms, private sector engagement and robust regulatory frameworks
At a time when the G7 is being tested by rising protectionism and waning multilateralism, the influential bloc is at a critical juncture on global energy policy. Can the G7 in Kananaskis mitigate key energy challenges in a fractured multilateral system where economic protectionism and geopolitical divides are gaining prominence?
As unprecedented challenges escalate in addressing climate action and the transition to clean energy, the G7 has a historic opportunity to navigate the tensions between national interests and global imperatives to shape international energy governance.
The first oil crisis of the 1970s brought global energy issues to the top of the leaders’ agenda at their inaugural meeting in France in 1975. Energy issues have since consistently averaged 10% of the G7 communiqués. Only two summits between 1975 and 1989 failed to address energy — Bonn 1985 and Toronto 1988.
The prominence of energy fluctuated from 1990 to 2004, peaking in 1991 at 9%, and bottoming at 0.4% in 2002. Notable increases came between 2005 and 2014, with the strongest focus in 2009 at 38%, and the lowest in 2005 at 3%. Between 2015 and 2021, the G7 produced fewer energy conclusions, peaking in 2015 with 13%, dropping off the agenda entirely at the 2020 virtual summit and remaining low in 2021 with only 4%. Energy surged to 22% in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as energy security took centre stage. It remained at that level in 2023 as the conflict persisted. Energy conclusions dipped to 11% in 2024, as issues related to the Middle East, Gaza and migration topped the leaders’ agenda.
Ella Kokotsis, director of accountability, G7 Research Group
G7 leaders made 656 energy commitments from 1975 to 2024, second only to the number of their commitments on development.
From 1975 to 1983, they produced 113 energy commitments, peaking in 1979 during the second oil shock with 43 energy commitments, representing 77% of the total.
There were no energy commitments from 1984 to 1996 apart from three in 1991, representing only 6%.
The period from 1997 to 2005 witnessed a resurgence, with 57 commitments in 2005 (27%), surpassed by 78 (24%) in 2006, when Russia hosted its sole G8 summit.
Energy commitments have since fluctuated, with a high of 41 in 2007 (12%) down to zero in 2013, 2019 and 2020. In 2021 there were 14 commitments (3%), and 2022 produced 49 (9%), followed by a record 83 (13%) in 2023. In 2024 there were 52 energy commitments, representing 11%.
Of the total 656 energy commitments, eight have been made on the key issue of eliminating inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, beginning at the 2012 summit.
G7 members have complied with their energy commitments at an average of 85%, exceeding the overall 77% average, as assessed by the G7 Research Group.
Notable instances of high energy compliance came with 100% on commitments made in 2001, 2018 and 2023. By December 2024, compliance for the Apulia Summit was 97%, higher than for 94% for 2021 and 2022. Next highest was 89% for 2004 and 2006, and 87% for 2007 and 2008. Lower compliance came in 2012 with 68% and 2003 with 61%.
Among G7 members, energy compliance is led by the European Union at 95%, followed by the United
“Despite the recent rise in protectionist tendencies, the G7 leaders at Kananaskis should agree on highly binding commitments with defined timetables for actionable outcomes”
States at 93%, the United Kingdom at 91%, Germany at 88% and Canada at 86%. Below the 85% average come France at 82%, Japan at 79% and Italy at 68%.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Compliance varies significantly across various types of energy commitments. Those that mention energy ministerial meetings or establish official-level energy bodies achieve 100% compliance. Those that reference public-private sector collaboration follow at 95%. Commitments linked to regulatory frameworks and defined timetables for actionable outcomes achieve 89% and 88% respectively. Highly binding energy language results in 86% compliance, while low binding language yields 81%. Notably, the three commitments since 2016 explicitly addressing
climate, greenhouse gas emissions or decarbonisation achieved 86% compliance. Commitments referring to external agencies generate lower overall compliance at 78%.
This analysis reveals that institutional mechanisms, private sector engagement and clear regulatory frameworks tend to drive higher energy-related G7 compliance.
The urgency of the climate crisis demands a cohesive and ambitious approach to global energy policy. Despite the recent rise in protectionist tendencies, the G7 leaders at Kananaskis should agree on highly binding commitments with defined timetables for actionable outcomes that will mitigate the interconnected energy-climate crises.
// ELLA KOKOTSIS
Ella Kokotsis, PhD, is the director of accountability for the G7 and G20 Research Groups. She has attended most summits since 1994, has directed the research and publication of numerous analytical documents, and has spoken extensively at summit-related conferences worldwide. She is the co-author (with John Kirton) of The Global Governance of Climate Change and Reconfiguring the Global Governance of Climate Change (with John Kirton and Brittaney Warren), and co-editor of Financing a Just Transition
To stay on track with essential climate targets, momentum on renewable capacity must accelerate. This means overcoming challenges, including shifting political will and infrastructure gaps, as well as regulatory hurdles
Francesco La Camera, director general, IRENA
Why is reinforcing the renewables revolution so important in 2025?
Our recent Renewable Capacity Statistics 2025 report shows that 2024 set new records for renewable installed capacity and the share of added renewable capacity has risen higher and higher. More than 90% of the capacity installed for power has been renewables. Why do we need even more?
First, even with a record 585 gigawatts of installed capacity in 2024, we fell short of the 11.2 terawatt total renewable capacity needed to be in place by 2030. This means we must almost double capacity from now to 2030, and 2025 is the best year to start. But to align with the target of a 1.5°C post-industrial temperature increase, we must double our earlier capacity. Second, most of the time, the most convenient solution is renewables. To produce power, the cheapest and most economical way is investing in renewables. So that is the business case. Third, recent conflicts show very clearly that centralised fossil fuel systems are more vulnerable than decentralised ones. With more actors and more geographically diverse sources of power, from a geopolitical perspective, renewables increase resilience and resistance to shocks. These are three reasons why renewables will break another record in 2025.
How is IRENA working under your leadership to do more, beyond your report?
We try to take a 360° approach: we start with the assessment, from that we develop plans, from the plans we facilitate projects, from the projects we move to implementation –and then we start again. This allows us to take into account regional circumstances. We assist the private and public sectors to develop
projects up to the point of bankability, and then we work with our partners to secure funding. Our Energy Transition Accelerator Financing platform helps close the circle.
We are also trying to rewrite how international cooperation works. We launched the Accelerated Partnership for Renewables in Africa under the leadership of Kenyan president William Ruto, with partners from Denmark, Germany, the United States of America and the United Arab Emirates. We started with seven African countries that want a fast path to renewables and will likely have four more by the end of this year – a clear sign that African countries want to transition away from gas and oil and towards renewable energy.
We also have the Accelerated Partnership for Renewables in Central Asia, and intend to launch another for South America, at the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Brazil in November. We are combining this with investment forums in Southeast Asia and others planned in 2026 in Africa and Central Asia. So we are taking a comprehensive approach based on country ownership, supporting them in developing and implementing their plans.
Is there a need for more government support for new sources of renewable energy so the private sector can also benefit?
In many western countries and even places such as Texas, there is no doubt that the business case supports renewables. It’s a matter of fact, not opinion. It is different in regions in Africa and Asia, because more progress is needed on infrastructure. But if people are unable to pay the tariffs and budgets continue to shrink, we will have not a virtuous but a vicious cycle. This is why it’s important to link development with building a new energy system. Infrastructure will bring wealth, which will bring demand, which will build capacity to pay for electricity – creating a virtuous cycle.
What tasks and challenges remain from your global perspective?
The business case for renewables is stronger than any slow-down efforts. Because of the economic
“Infrastructure will bring wealth, which will bring demand, which will build capacity to pay for electricity – creating a virtuous cycle”
opportunity, there is no doubt people will continue to invest in renewables. The main challenges apart from political will are infrastructure and the legal environment. Fossil fuels are subsidised far more than renewables. Plus workers need to be reskilled and trained so the labour force is consistent with requirements of the new energy systems. The direction of travel is there – no one can stop it. The ship may slow down but it will continue. The climate crisis obliges us to do this.
How can the G7 leaders best help?
This will be among the most interesting G7 summits in recent years. We are supporting Canada in many ways, in the work on remote communities, decarbonising the industrial sector and the digitalisation of the energy transition. I send my best wishes to the G7 leaders – Kananaskis will not be easy.
//
Francesco La Camera assumed the role of director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency 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 cochaired the Financial Platform for Climate and Sustainable Development.
X-TWITTER @flacamera irena.org
Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general, International Atomic Energy Agency
Nuclear energy has quietly sustained the G7’s industrial base and delivered clean, reliable electricity for decades. To stay competitive and meet climate goals, it’s time to invest and build
As the clock counts down towards critical climate deadlines and energy security remains high on the agenda, almost all G7 members are doubling down on nuclear energy.
Many of them have undergone a decisive shift from political hesitation to political will. In the years since Covid-19, the signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change included a call to accelerate the deployment of nuclear power – along with other clean energy sources – in their Global Stocktake on the Paris Agreement at the 28th Conference of the Parties in Dubai in 2023, and important policy initiatives like the European Union’s green taxonomy have been passed.
As investment in solar and wind has grown, these intermittent renewables have continued to need backup for calm and cloudy days. Extending the lives of existing nuclear power plants is among the most economical ways to provide more low carbon power. But G7 members will also need to turn their plans to build new plants into reality.
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.
X-TWITTER @RafaelMGrossi / @iaeaorg iaea.org
Many of the nuclear reactors that have been the quiet, unsung heroes of G7 economies and societies were built after the oil shocks of the 1970s. But as nuclear fell out of favour in many countries, nuclear power plants were shut and very few were built.
In the past 20 years, 77 reactors have been shut in the G7, and only seven new ones have been connected to the grid. Today only four reactors are under construction in the G7 – two in the United Kingdom and two in Japan. Many more nuclear power plants are set to come to the end of their lives, meaning the G7 needs to walk to stay still and run to advance.
Around the world, nuclear grew steadily. Outside the G7, China built 48 reactors and Korea built nine in the past two decades. Internationally, Russia remains the prevalent foreign vendor. Rosatom is building four reactors at home and 18 in other countries, namely in newcomers Bangladesh, Egypt and Türkiye and in the established nuclear energy producers of India and China.
Momentum for a comeback is growing in the G7. The 2024 climate, energy and environment ministers’ communiqué included nuclear energy, with those countries that support its use agreeing to cooperate in building strong supply chains, among other measures. Governments across the G7 are taking active steps to boost nuclear energy at home and abroad. In the past two years, the United States brought on line two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, making it the largest nuclear power plant in the country. The US government has been backing advanced reactor development with federal funding and tax credits. In Canada, the Darlington and Bruce Nuclear Power Plants in Ontario are undergoing major refurbishment and the province is
also planning to build both new large reactors and small modular reactors. In April 2025, the Canadian regulator granted a construction licence for the first SMR at the Darlington site. The UK has committed to Sizewell C as part of its strategy to revive domestic nuclear capacity and supply chain skills. France’s EDF is moving ahead with its new European Pressurised Reactor 2 design and has government backing for a fleet of next-generation reactors. Japan has restarted several reactors shut after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident, and in February 2025 the Diet approved a plan for nuclear power to generate a fifth of the country’s electricity by 2040, up from less than 8.5% today. Italy, meanwhile, is actively considering the reintroduction of nuclear power to meet energy security and climate change goals.
G7 members are also stepping up nuclear exports. In 2022, Poland selected Westinghouse to build its first nuclear power plant, with construction planned to start in 2026.
US and Canadian companies are active contenders in Bulgaria and Romania. The Czech Republic and the UK, meanwhile, have formed a strategic partnership to develop supply chains related to SMRs. These export deals have the potential to create new
industrial opportunities and secure supply chains for reactor components and fuel. They would rebuild high-skilled jobs and strengthen energy independence in the face of growing energy security concerns.
SMRs could be game changers, with the promise of lower upfront costs, faster construction, and scalability and factory production, allowing mass deployment.
But for that to happen on an international scale, approaches to design and regulation will need to be harmonised.
Meanwhile, the safety, security and safeguards of nuclear facilities and material will need to stay at the forefront of international priorities for nuclear energy to meet its potential. Whether by supporting the safety of nuclear power plants amid war or checking that material around the world is not diverted to military use, the International Atomic Energy Agency will be central to making those crucial priorities a reality.
In the face of shifting geopolitical realities and lightning-speed advances in technologies such as artificial intelligence, the IAEA remains a stalwart asset for the international community and a partner in supporting the G7 towards its energy security and climate goals.
“Export deals have the potential to create new industrial opportunities and secure supply chains for reactor components and fuel. They would rebuild high-skilled jobs and strengthen energy independence in the face of growing energy security concerns”
Despite an increasingly fractured approach to climate and energy security, responsible pathways for the sourcing and production of critical minerals can still be forged. As G7 leaders meet in Kananaskis, strengthening cooperation on secure and sustainable mineral supply chains is a must
GKathryn
Sturman, Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland
7 leaders are meeting to discuss critical minerals security this year in a geopolitical context of great uncertainty. In 2023, when G7 climate, energy and environment ministers agreed to a Five-Point Plan for Critical Minerals Security in Sapporo, threats to climate, energy security and prosperity loomed over the meeting. The need for secure, diversified and responsible sourcing of critical minerals is now even more urgent as ongoing conflicts, fires and floods destroy lives and habitats. Yet the bedrock of commitments to international cooperation on climate, trade and security alliances has been shaken in 2025. On this unstable ground, G7 leaders at Kananaskis will need to renew and extend the plan for responsible production and sourcing of critical minerals.
Why does the world need critical minerals in greater quantities, and which do we need? Critical minerals are essential for energy storage in batteries for electric vehicles and for renewable energy systems, such as solar panels and wind turbines. In an increasingly polarised and insecure geopolitical context, critical minerals are also needed for advanced defence technologies and to secure telecommunications infrastructure. Depending on the technology, batteries need varying amounts of lithium, nickel, manganese and cobalt, as well as phosphates for lithium-iron phosphate batteries. Graphite is needed for solar panels, aluminium for wind turbines and large amounts of copper for electrification. China has recently placed export controls on minerals used primarily in defence applications, such as tungsten, tellurium, indium and molybdenum, and for semiconductor production, such as gallium, germanium and antimony.
“The need for secure, diversified and responsible sourcing of critical minerals is now even more urgent as ongoing conflicts, fires and floods destroy lives and habitats. Yet the bedrock of commitments to international cooperation on climate, trade and security alliances has been shaken in 2025”
Each country and the European Union have their own list of minerals or materials deemed ‘critical’ depending on their resources and reserves, mining and mineral processing capacity, and trade relations. Most jurisdictions distinguish between critical and strategic minerals, where strategic minerals are in high demand but at less risk of supply disruption than critical minerals.
Greater multilateral cooperation and coordination are needed more than ever to diversify and trace responsible mineral sourcing. The first step is not to allow any progress already made to stall if the United States withdraws support from vital initiatives or agreements. The UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals has made actionable recommendations that the G7 should endorse and implement beyond its members’ own borders and national interests. Principles of equity and ethical production, as well as those governing the trade of minerals should be maintained, as outlined for example, in the Minerals Security Partnership. Initiatives such as the Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance should continue to reach beyond the G7
to other key mining economies, such as Australia.
G20 members convened by South Africa this year bring together major producers of critical minerals –including those of the Global South, such as Indonesia, Brazil and India as well as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Zambia and other mining countries represented by the African Union. These countries need to leverage their own downstream processing and beneficiation potential from nickel, copper, cobalt, lithium, bauxite and other critical minerals.
Canada is well placed as a global frontrunner in sustainable mining practices to share knowledge and critical minerals strategy within the G7 and across the wider G20 platforms in South Africa this year.
To renew and extend the Five-Point Plan for Critical Minerals Security, G7 leaders should:
1. Forecast and analyse short- and medium-term shocks to critical minerals supply chains in the current geopolitical context, in continued collaboration with the International Energy Agency’s Working Party on Critical Minerals. Rapid reviews and policy briefs on the implications of import tariffs or export
// KATHRYN STURMAN
controls on specific minerals, metals and materials could inform G7 discussions.
2. Support diversified critical minerals supply chains and onshore mineral processing in partnership with G20 members and regional organisations, for example, between the European Union and African Union.
3. Promote social and environmental safeguards to protect human rights and nature related to mining and minerals processing, in particular, the rights of Indigenous and land-connected peoples and their natural resources.
4. Strengthen the governance of mining and mineral supply chains to prevent corruption and the erosion of the economic benefits of critical minerals extraction.
5. Pledge financial support for the creation of the Global Mining Legacy Fund to remediate abandoned mines and improve mine closure environmental and social practices, as proposed by the UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
Kathryn Sturman is a professor and principal research fellow at the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland. She is an applied policy researcher interested in resource governance and the social impacts of mining. Her research focuses on social and governance risks of mining critical minerals for the energy transition.
The retreat of key powers from international climate cooperation potentially undermines the G7’s ability to manage the crisis. The Kananaskis Summit marks a crucial opportunity to demonstrate credible and united leadership on climate governance
Brittaney Warren, director of compliance and climate change research, G7 Research Group
In June 2025, G7 leaders meet in Kananaskis against a backdrop of unprecedented circumstances with political authoritarianism and climate change colliding. On 20 January, US president Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement and revoked its climate financing commitments to the international community. The Trump-G6 dynamic will take centre stage at Kananaskis: the G7 is no longer a like-minded group. How well the G6 can unite against Trump’s deviations will have a deep impact on the Kananaskis Summit’s priorities of disaster response and prevention, extreme weather events and wildfires around the world.
Climate change has been on the G7’s agenda for almost five decades, taking a greater share of its declarations over time, with commitments that have rising compliance, if not impact.
Since 1975, the G7 has dedicated an average of 5% of its declarations to climate change at each summit.
In its first three decades, it averaged only 2% on climate change per summit. In the following two decades, from 2005 to 2024, this average jumped to 10%, signalling climate change as an increasingly global phenomenon.
8%. Thus, proportionately, G7 decisions have not kept pace with the deliberations.
Recently, there has also been inconsistency. During Trump’s first presidency, the number of G7 climate commitments declined steadily before vanishing in 2019 and 2020. Although the UK in 2021 and Germany in 2022 brought them back, with the summits they hosted making 13% and 15% respectively, a decline returned in 2023 with 9% and in 2024 with 3%.
Members’ compliance with the 104 climate commitments assessed by the G7 Research Group averages 77% – on par with the 77% average with the 736 assessed commitments on all subjects.
In its first three decades, climate compliance averaged 72%. In the next two decades it rose to 77%. However, from 2015 when the Paris Agreement was signed until 2023, compliance averaged 83%.
More recently, compliance has been consistently high. For commitments made in 2021 it averaged 90%, for 2022 88% and for 2023 91%. However, by December 2024 compliance with the 2024 Apulia Summit commitment to mobilise adaptation financing averaged a very low 56%.
The G6 can expect conflict with the current US administration, whose values are antithetical to the post–World War Two global order, including on multilateral cooperation for climate action. In this context, the G6 must remain united, and promote evidence-based outcomes at the Kananaskis Summit.
Average compliance with G7 commitments that reference the UNFCCC, the highest of any other type of climate commitment
Over the past five years, the problem has grown and attention has increased. With the exception of Trump removing climate change from the agenda in 2020 in the brief virtual G7 summit he hosted during the Covid-19 pandemic, it continued to be discussed. A year later, under different leadership the G7 dedicated 19% of its deliberations to climate change. This continued, with 25% in 2022, 35% in 2023 and 13% in 2024.
The G7 has made 496 climate commitments, taking 6% of the total on all subjects. In the first three decades, it averaged 5% per summit. In the following two decades, the average rose slightly to
This should start with declaring strong, unwavering support for the multilateral United Nations climate system, with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at its core. G7 climate commitments that reference the UNFCCC average 77%, the highest compliance of any other type of climate commitment.
Sustained internal institutional support is also key. Data show a positive correlation between pre-summit environmental ministerial meetings and compliance outcomes. G7 presidencies that held such ministerial meetings produced 10% higher compliance with climate commitments made at that year’s summit.
Maintaining the required sense of urgency in response to the climate crisis is essential. Climate commitments that specify a short timeline also average higher compliance than those that delay action for the next generation to deal with. A one-year or multiyear timeline in a commitment generates 76% compliance.
Compensating for the financial shortfall caused by the US withdrawal from its climate finance commitments, which compounds the already existing shortfall, is also critical. The G7’s lowest climate compliance is with its climate finance commitments at 69% – without the US, the G6 will need to do much more here.
Last, the G7 should link climate change goals with the current rising security concerns by increasing its focus on climate security. This should include climate security in vulnerable regions, such as the Arctic, and disaster prevention and response (weather and war) that embeds a physical and mental health perspective.
Of primary concern at Kananaskis will be the backsliding of democracy in the United States, which threatens equality and autonomy across
all levels of governance. This subsequently risks dramatically undermining environmental equity and fuelling climate chaos. The G7’s ability to govern the climate crisis (which its members significantly helped to create) since Trump first took office in 2017, and again this year, has been in question. Canada’s leadership on climate change has also often been questioned, due to its colonial history and role as a resource extractive power. However, with the summit being held in Alberta, which has been devastated by fossil-fuelled wildfires and is also in Canada’s sun-belt, combined with a new prime minister who has made climate finance a recent centrepiece of his career, there is reason for cautious hope that Canada and its summit allies can relay a strong climate message through forceful G6 climate commitments and stand up to authoritarianism. *blank space means no data
Brittaney Warren is director of compliance and climate change research for the G7 and G20 Research Groups, based at the University of Toronto, which sits on Treaty 13 and Williams Treaty lands and is home to many First Nations, Inuit and Métis. She has published on climate change, health and accountability measures in a summit context. She holds a master’s degree in environmental studies from York University. She has published 21st Century Garden of Eden: A Climate Change Story & Adult Colouring Book, which can be ordered at www.lulu.com
As extreme weather events intensify around the world, global investment in prevention, forecasting and early warning systems is essential. Through G7 leadership, a science-based response can strengthen climate resilience, especially for the most vulnerable
As the G7 leaders convene in Kananaskis, science speaks clearly and urgently: 2024 was the warmest year ever recorded, exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time. Each of the last 10 years ranks among the hottest ever. Every incremental temperature rise significantly escalates risks to our societies and economies, a reality vividly illustrated in each G7 member throughout 2024.
Environmental risks now dominate global concerns, as the World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report starkly underscores. These risks are projected to accelerate dramatically over the coming decade. The best way to manage risk is to invest in prevention, and the WMO is a key partner in this effort.
DELIVERING IMPACT THROUGH FORECASTS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Celeste Saulo, secretary general, World Meteorological Organization
This is not simply about breaking climate records; it is about tangible socio-economic impacts. The World Meteorological Organization plays a crucial role in monitoring climate, enabling economies to adapt effectively. Extreme weather events are intensifying and becoming costlier, disproportionately burdening small island developing states and least developed countries, relative to their gross domestic product.
In 2025, the WMO marks 75 years as a critical United Nations agency dedicated to science for action. Each day, it coordinates the global exchange of countless weather observations from satellites, ground stations, ships and aircraft. These data underpin vital forecasts that inform sectors including agriculture, health, energy, transport and defence – saving billions economically and protecting countless lives.
The Early Warnings for All initiative (EW4All) epitomises the WMO’s mission, aiming for universal global coverage by multi-hazard early warning systems by 2027. Progress is evident: up from 52 countries in 2015, today 108 report enhanced capacity. Studies estimate early warning systems prevented asset losses of up to $500 billion between 1978 and 2018. Early warnings, issued within 24 hours of a hazard, can reduce damage from that event by 30%, highlighting the profound economic benefits of investing in these systems.
Through strategic partnerships the WMO further extends its impact. With UNESCO, it monitors glacier retreat, directly linked to sea-level rise affecting over 900 million people. Collaborations with the Food and Agriculture Organization and UN Convention to Combat Desertification improve drought forecasting and water management. Joint initiatives with the World Health Organization enhance heat-health warning systems, protecting vulnerable populations and boosting air quality monitoring. With the International Renewable Energy Agency, the WMO optimises renewable energy integration through advanced forecasting.
Meteorological data and climate insights constitute strategic assets, directly influencing investment decisions, national security planning and economic growth. The WMO provides technical assistance in crafting science-informed nationally determined contributions.
The Triple Dividend of Resilience framework, advocated by the WMO, clarifies the broad benefits of resilience investments, which include avoiding economic losses when hazards strike, stimulating economic activity thanks to reduced disaster risk even when
“Every economic sector and every country urgently requires reliable, precise and accessible weather forecasts. The reality is stark: one major cyclone, flood, wildfire or heatwave can erase years of socio-economic progress”
no hazard occurs and generating significant development co-benefits.
In Norway, maritime weather forecasting has slashed fuel consumption by up to 10%, yielding substantial economic and environmental returns. London’s economic vitality owes much to accurate forecasts underpinning the Thames Barrier, enabling significant real estate and infrastructure developments to be protected from flooding. Renewable energy sectors also greatly benefit from the WMO’s tailored climate forecasts, enhancing reliability and operational resilience. For instance, shifts from La Niña to El Niño conditions directly affect wind, solar and hydropower generation, highlighting how climate forecasts can improve energy supply reliability and infrastructure planning. Technological advances such as supercomputing, artificial intelligence and machine learning significantly improve forecast accuracy, especially in regions with dense observational networks. However, human expertise is still key within national meteorological and hydrological services.
As the world’s leading economies, the G7 has the leverage and the leadership to drive a smarter, science-based response to weather and climate risks. This must
be based on open data exchange and international standards.
Every economic sector and every country urgently requires reliable, precise and accessible weather forecasts. The reality is stark: one major cyclone, flood, wildfire or heatwave can erase years of socio-economic progress. Investments in national meteorological infrastructure and early warning systems yield immense economic returns, with benefit ratios often reaching as high as 1:9 or even higher in regions such as Africa.
These cases highlight the substantial benefits these investments offer. The WMO calls on G7 members to consider these clear economic benefits and to invest strategically in climate resilience. The costs of action might appear high, yet the costs of inaction will inevitably be far greater.
In celebrating its 75th anniversary under the banner of ‘Science for Action’, the WMO emphasises 2025 as the year we transform data into action, forecasts into foresight and science into sustained economic resilience. The World Meteorological Organization stands ready – with tools, expertise and a global network – to help countries navigate the uncertainties ahead. With G7 and G20 leadership, we can build economies that are not only more resilient and sustainable, but also smarter and safer, ensuring a stable and prosperous global future.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
Celeste Saulo took office as secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization on 1 January 2024. She previously served as director of Argentina’s National Meteorological Service since 2014 and was the first vice-president of the WMO. She has been a member of the WMO World Weather Research Programme Scientific Steering Committee since 2011 and has served on various WMO panels related to her field of knowledge. She is a professor in atmospheric sciences at the University of Buenos Aires and research scientist at Argentina’s National Council for Scientific and Technical Research. X-TWITTER @wmo wmo.int
The climate crisis is accelerating, with global temperatures breaking new records each year. The window to limit warming to the 1.5°C threshold set by the Paris Agreement in 2015 is rapidly closing. The G7 summit, hosted by Canada in Kananaskis on 15–17 June, presents a critical opportunity to drive climate action and build momentum towards the negotiations of the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Brazil this November.
Canada should prioritise climate change for the Kananaskis Summit, aligning with the G7’s historical role in addressing global environmental challenges. The G7 first discussed climate change in 1979. At the 1985 Bonn Summit, Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and US president Ronald Reagan committed to cooperative climate action. However, despite decades of discussion, global greenhouse gas emissions have not decreased at the necessary rate, and investment in clean energy remains insufficient, particularly in developing countries.
With time running out to meet the Paris climate goals, lessons from Canada’s past G7 presidency set out a practical path for climate leadership
Catherine McKenna, chair, UN Secretary General’s High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities, with Isabelle Gilmore, G7 Research Group
BUILDING CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE PRIORITIES
Addressing climate change remains a significant challenge, especially with the United States led by Donald Trump. Not only does he deny climate change, but he also actively undermines multilateral efforts. When the US held the 2020 G7 presidency, climate change was not mentioned in the final communiqué, highlighting the difficulty of achieving consensus when one of the largest emitters resists meaningful action.
The climate crisis is not going away. Canada’s experience during
the first Trump administration offers important lessons in managing climate diplomacy at the G7.
In 2018, when Canada held the G7 presidency, I co-chaired the environment ministers’ meeting and participated in the Charlevoix Summit. Navigating the discussion on climate change required careful balancing, particularly given US resistance. At Charlevoix, Canada emphasised healthy oceans, achieving consensus on the Charlevoix blueprint for resilient coastal communities. However, the US did not endorse the climate commitments, instead securing a separate paragraph in the communiqué that prioritised energy security and fossil fuels.
At the G7 environment ministers’ meeting later that year in Halifax, I drew on lessons from Italy’s G7 environment ministers’ meeting in Bologna the year before. There, the US secured a controversial footnote in the communiqué stating its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement while asserting its leadership in reducing its carbon footprint. The US refusal to commit to global climate action was frustrating. I remarked , “That the US is now left as a footnote to climate action … is very sad.”
Rather than negotiating a divisive communiqué in Halifax, I decided to issue a chair’s summary, which highlighted areas of agreement and balanced the climate ambitions of all members, except for the US. This approach allowed for progress on shared priorities without watering down commitments, ultimately reinforcing the climate actions of the other G7 members.
The lessons learned from hosting the G7 during the first Trump administration are highly relevant for Canada’s leadership at Kananaskis. Given the ongoing diplomatic complexities with the US, framing the discussions carefully will be essential. A focus on tangible climate issues –such as extreme weather, infrastructure resilience or energy security – can help bridge divides and foster agreement, possibly even with the agreement of the US. A chair’s summary, reflecting the commitments of all G7 members
“Real-world action is critical, and the 2025 Kananaskis Summit must set clear, specific commitments closely tied to international agreements, particularly the Paris Agreement”
Catherine McKenna is the founder and CEO of Climate and Nature Solutions. She served as Canada’s environment minister and infrastructure minister under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. She chairs the United Nations Secretary General’s High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-State Entities and founded Women Leading on Climate. She is an adviser to the Climate Data Steering Committee for the Macron/Bloomberg Net Zero Data Public Utility, Singapore’s International Advisory Panel for Carbon Credits, the Taskforce on Net Zero Policy, the LSE Just Transition Finance Lab and the University of Ottawa’s Information Integrity Lab.
X-TWITTER cathmckenna climateandnature.com
Isabelle Gilmore is a University of Toronto student entering her second year. She completed the Munk One programme and focuses on climate and sustainability.
(except the US, if necessary), will ensure progress without forcing compromise.
There are, however, limits. Despite extensive preparation for the Charlevoix Summit, President Trump rejected the final communiqué in a tweet that he issued after the summit’s conclusion, highlighting how unexpected developments can derail progress. This underscored the need for careful diplomatic management throughout the summit.
Nevertheless, diplomatic sensitivity must not come at the cost of ambition. G7 summits should not just be scripted exercises but genuine forums for meaningful dialogue and actionable commitments. Although ambitious commitments often appear in G7
communiqués, accountability for follow-through has been lacking. Real-world action is critical, and the 2025 Kananaskis Summit must set clear, specific commitments closely tied to international agreements, particularly the Paris Agreement.
Canada’s presidency of the G7 in Kananaskis provides an opportunity to reaffirm these commitments and demonstrate global leadership. This summit also plays a crucial role in setting the stage for COP30 in November this year, underscoring the urgency of climate action. By fostering cooperation and emphasising concrete climate goals, the G7 can help advance a successful path forward for both the environment and the global economy.
Urgent action is needed to safeguard biodiversity, the foundation of the global economy
As the biodiversity and climate crises converge, investing in natural capital and embedding biodiversity into economic frameworks are critical to securing the well-being, stability and prosperity of both people and planet
Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity
In 2021 the seminal Dasgupta Review commissioned by the United Kingdom, then assuming the G7 presidency, confirmed that the socio-economic systems that generate the world’s output are embedded in nature, not external to it. Four years later, that confirmation remains as relevant as it was at the time of the publication of the review. It deserves more attention from world leaders, including those attending the G7 summit in Kananaskis.
In essence, the Dasgupta Review used the tools of economic analysis to confirm a fundamental fact: biodiversity underpins all life on Earth. The corollary is that when biodiversity is lost, economies are impacted, food security is imperilled and vulnerability to climate change is exacerbated. That is grounds for escalating biodiversity to the pinnacle of political attention.
One of the chief propositions in the Dasgupta Review is that nature should be considered an asset. Investing in natural capital, which encompasses biodiversity and ecosystems, is crucial for pursuing sustainable development, stabilising the climate system and protecting human rights, including the right to a clean environment. Given that environmental degradation is a well-recognised driver of conflict, investing in nature also yields benefits in peace and security.
Every new year brings clarity on the alarming pace at which the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are unfolding. The ominous succession of record-breaking global average temperatures is the most evident sign that the world is hurtling towards dangerous tipping points. Unsustainable consumption and production are fuelling this race to cataclysm. The science distilled in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is clear: business as usual is not viable. Transformative change is required. What is needed to make a dent in biodiversity loss is the subject of a universal consensus.
Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, with its set of 23 time-bound and measurable targets, is the world’s masterplan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. The world needs the G7 to throw its weight behind the accelerated implementation of the KMGBF. This is humanity’s insurance policy against the unthinkable consequences of run-away biodiversity loss. This also makes solid economic sense.
The multilateral process under the CBD has given the countries of the world the means to address biodiversity loss in a coordinated manner, recognising that no one country, however rich or powerful, can make it alone. The 16th Conference of the Parties to the CBD, which started in Cali, Colombia, last year and recently concluded in Rome, secured essential agreements on how the KMGBF is to be implemented, funded and monitored.
Closing the biodiversity finance gap remains crucial. This is an area where the G7 can become a game changer. The universal goal adopted as part of the KMGBF is to mobilise at least $200 billion per year by 2030, including $20 billion per year in international flows by 2025, rising to $30 billion by 2030. Repurposing subsidies that currently go to sectors and activities harming nature is essential.
Ahead of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville, Spain, and the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Belém, Brazil, in November, the G7 members can bring impetus in favour of a global finance architecture that values nature and acknowledges synergies among the complementary biodiversity, climate and sustainable development agendas. As the Dasgupta Review reminds us, integrating biodiversity into economic frameworks is crucial for sustainable development and long-term prosperity.
// ASTRID SCHOMAKER
Astrid Schomaker was appointed executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity in April 2024. Since 2017, she was director for global sustainable development and for green diplomacy and multilateralism in the European Commission’s Environment Department. She also served as director for environment policy strategy at the European Commission, and headed its divisions for marine and freshwater issues, as well as chemicals. She also co-chaired the steering committee of the United Nations Environment Programme’s International Resource Panel from 2015 to 2024.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
As the climate crisis accelerates extreme weather events, financing for disaster risk reduction is critical, particularly in vulnerable countries where the impacts are felt most. From promoting robust early warning systems to risk-informed development strategies, G7 leadership can help drive a safer global future
Kamal Kishore, special representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction
In 2023, Canada experienced one of its worst disasters on record –massive wildfires that destroyed an area larger than England and blanketed the skies with smoke for months. As one Canadian scientist put it, “the word ‘unprecedented’ doesn’t do justice to the severity of the wildfires”.
Unfortunately, this trend has continued with new disaster events breaking records around the world, including the recent California wildfires in the United States, which are estimated to be the most expensive disaster in the country’s history.
And although disasters affect all countries, it is the poorest countries that are the most affected, simply because they lack basic protections such as early warning systems.
This leads to disasters that are deadlier, with the least developed countries experiencing disaster mortality rates that are nearly three times higher than the global average. Their disasters are also more expensive relative to their gross domestic product, which pushes people further into poverty, and which is a driver of irregular migration.
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction exists to help countries avoid the worst effects of disasters. Guided by the globally adopted Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, we not only set the standards for disaster risk reduction, but also mobilise countries and organisations for action. This includes capacity building to help authorities
understand the disaster risks they face and to design and implement strategies to counter them.
Recently, there has been growing recognition of the importance of this work in economic forums. In 2023, the G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué cited UNDRR, the Sendai Framework and the need to “accelerate international disaster risk reduction cooperation”. And at the Apulia Summit last year, the G7 launched the Adaptation Accelerator Hub to support the most vulnerable countries. The G20 has also taken important steps to institutionalise resilience building by setting up a dedicated working group, which is now in its third year.
This attention to disaster risk reduction is welcome and long overdue given the strong link between disasters and economic prosperity. The growing cost of disasters is one aspect of this link, but there are two other equally important aspects, which often do not get enough attention.
First, how can we ensure that economic development itself does not inadvertently lead to more disasters?
Addressing this concern is at the heart of the Sendai Framework and its push for ‘risk-informed development’. In practical terms, it means ensuring we do not jeopardise lives and throw away good money building homes, power plants and factories in areas known to be hazard-prone without taking risk reduction measures. Such measures include strengthening early warning systems, reinforcing infrastructure to be disaster resilient and using the surrounding nature to create flood buffers.
This brings me to the second aspect –funds are needed to implement these measures.
Indeed, one of the biggest hurdles facing developing countries in reducing disaster impacts is the lack of funding to put national disaster risk reduction strategies into motion. To overcome this hurdle, countries must dedicate a larger amount of funding in their national budgets for disaster risk reduction. This means ring-fenced funding for disaster risk reduction in addition to funding within sectoral budgets for resilience building. And internationally, we need to see greater funding through official development assistance.
According to internal research by UNDRR, between 2019 and 2023, only about 2% of all ODA contributed to disaster risk reduction objectives. This is a miniscule amount considering the benefits that such investments generate. According to the World Bank, every $1 invested in making infrastructure disaster resilient in developing countries saves $4 in reduced disruptions and economic impacts.
That is why we have made increasing finance for disaster risk reduction a key priority this year, both in the context of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, which we convened on 2–6 June 2025, in Geneva, Switzerland, and as our top advocacy theme for the International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction on 13 October.
I hope the G7 leaders, as representatives of the world’s largest economies, take up this topic as a priority this year, both to save lives and to protect economic prosperity.
With growth slowing and families struggling to make ends meet, it is an appalling injustice when money ends up in the hands of criminals – money that could be spent on much-needed global growth and development”
Kamal Kishore is the special representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction, and head of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Prior to joining UNDRR, he was head of India’s National Disaster Management Authority, where he led the G20 Working Group on Disaster Risk Reduction and helped develop the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure. He previously spent 13 years with the United Nations Development Programme after serving at the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre and the Action Research Unit for Development in New Delhi. X-TWITTER @UNDRR undrr.org
With geopolitical tensions testing G7 unity ahead of the Kananaskis Summit, early ministerial meetings offer a critical, evidence-based tool to boost compliance with leaders’ commitments and deliver tangible results
Jessica Rapson, senior researcher, G7 Research Group
The 2025 G7 summit, set to take place in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June, arrives at a time of increasing geopolitical uncertainty among its members.
Tensions between the United States and its G7 counterparts, compounded by Canada’s electoral uncertainty in the months leading up to Kananaskis, raise concerns about the effectiveness of the summit in fostering meaningful progress on global economic and policy commitments. Given these challenges, the strategic use of ministerial meetings – gatherings of relevant ministers from G7 members –represents a crucial mechanism for enhancing compliance with the commitments outlined in the leaders’ communiqué and outcome documents.
A key measure of the Kananaskis Summit’s success will be the extent to which G7 members fulfil the commitments agreed upon there. Predicting compliance has helped policymakers identify areas needing additional focus, allowing governments to allocate resources effectively. However, the shifting political landscape, including trade hostilities and policy divergences, makes such forecasting more difficult than in previous years. Notably, the return of Donald Trump as US president signals a likely deprioritisation of the G7
as a vehicle for international economic coordination, mirroring his approach during his first term. Furthermore, with Canada’s leadership uncertain until six weeks before the leaders’ meeting, the dynamics of the summit remain fluid.
Despite these complications, evidence underscores the importance of ministerial meetings in enhancing G7 compliance with summit commitments. Research indicates that when ministerial meetings are held before a G7 summit, the probability of compliance with related subject commitments increases by 26%. In contrast, post-summit ministerial meetings do not exhibit any statistically significant effect on compliance rates. This suggests that early engagement at the ministerial level is essential in laying the groundwork for successful follow-through on commitments. By facilitating extensive pre-summit finance and foreign ministers’ engagements, Canada, as the host, had an opportunity to mitigate diplomatic friction and enhance cooperation among G7 members. These meetings could function as a channel for building consensus and reduce the likelihood of direct confrontation at the leader
level. This approach is particularly relevant in the current geopolitical climate, where direct engagement with the US administration on contentious economic issues may yield limited progress. Instead, a strategy centred on fostering ministerial collaboration can help maintain diplomatic cohesion without directly challenging US leadership.
Beyond mitigating tensions, ministerial meetings offer a practical advantage in ensuring that commitments translate into actionable policies. By engaging in pre-summit discussions, ministers can identify potential implementation hurdles, develop coordination mechanisms and align domestic policies with international commitments. This preparatory work strengthens the foundations for compliance, ensuring that summit declarations are not merely rhetorical but are accompanied by concrete policy initiatives.
In particular, the role of ministerial meetings is critical in addressing issues where compliance may be at risk. If predictions suggest lower performance on health-related commitments, for example, targeted pre-summit ministerial meetings on global health
initiatives could serve as a mechanism for ensuring greater alignment among members. By fostering early consensus, these meetings increase the likelihood that health-related initiatives receive the necessary resources and political commitment to be effectively implemented.
The 2025 Kananaskis Summit presents a unique test for the G7’s ability to navigate internal divisions while maintaining a unified approach to global challenges. Ministerial meetings represent a proven strategy for bolstering compliance with summit commitments. However, because of the unusual situation of a transitional government and election campaign in the months before the summit, Canada’s G7 presidency has chosen to hold only foreign and finance ministerial meetings before the summit. More ministerial meetings will be held after the summit, providing an exceptional year for assessing the impact of the timing of such meetings on compliance. By leveraging these engagements strategically, the G7 presidencies of Canada in 2025 and France in 2026 can enhance the effectiveness of the summit, ensuring that the commitments outlined in the leaders’ communiqué translate into meaningful international action.
Jessica Rapson is a senior researcher with the G7 and G20 Research Groups, and a machine learning engineer with a multidisciplinary background in both statistical science and public policy. Her work focuses on applications of AI/ML in optimising decision-making processes for organisations that serve the public. She has a master’s degree in statistical science from the University of Oxford and is a graduate of the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.
X-TWITTER @g7_rg www.g7.utoronto.ca
As global crises intensify and changes in leadership reshape priorities, maintaining momentum on shared goals – particularly on migration, development, and gender – will require renewed political resolve
Amid leadership changes and a shifting global environment in the months leading up to the Kananaskis Summit, G7 members’ compliance with the commitments their leaders made at the 2024 Apulia Summit remains uncertain, although by December it was strong. As we look ahead, compliance on migration is expected to increase, while development and gender compliance are expected to decrease.
Last June, in Italy, G7 leaders agreed to 469 commitments across crucial areas for global and domestic governance. The G7 confronted an increasingly dangerous world, with conflicts raging in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, instability in Haiti, and rising tensions over the South China Sea.
Jacob Rudolph and Angus MacKellar, co-chairs, summit studies, G7 Research Group
Those commitments reflected these realities. The share of commitments on regional security surged from 10% in 2023 to 14% in 2024, its highest level since 2013 (although not surpassing 2010’s 19%). G7 leaders also addressed the transnational nature of modern challenges, as energy, infrastructure and climate commitments prioritised
development. Other commitments prioritised global sustainability and climate goals.
The G7 Research Group selected 20 priority commitments that best represent the total of 469 made at the Apulia Summit, encompassing the key focus areas outlined by Italy’s presidency. The selection includes three commitments on regional security and two each on energy, migration and the digital economy. One each was chosen on trade, development, gender, health, environment, food and agriculture, cybersecurity, non-proliferation, macroeconomics, climate change, labour and employment, and infrastructure.
The interim analysis assessed G7 members’ compliance from the end of the Apulia Summit on 15 June 2024, when the commitments were made, to 20 December 2024, midway to the G7 Kananaskis Summit on 15–17 June 2025. Tracking continues for the final report, to be published in early June, covering the full period between the two summits.
By 20 December, average compliance with the Apulia commitments was 88%, down 3% from the G7’s interim compliance following the 2023 Hiroshima Summit. This 88% exceeds the 85% interim scores from the 2022 Elmau and 2021 Cornwall summits but remains below the 93% interim compliance peak from the 2020 US-hosted virtual summit, narrowly focused on the Covid-19 pandemic.
By subject, six Apulia commitments had full compliance (100%) by December: those on clean energy in developing countries, financial solutions for forest protection, the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, financial and price stability, extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine, and Israel and Palestine. Commitments on cybersecurity, decarbonising the power sector, gender, health, border management, non-proliferation and trade followed closely at 94%. Commitments on military assistance to Ukraine (88%), artificial intelligence (88%), labour (81%), closing digital divides (75%) and preventing migrant smuggling and trafficking (69%) followed. All commitments exceeded 50% compliance, but action on both climate adaptation and global food
security was only 56%.
By member, the European Union ranked first with 98% compliance, followed by the United Kingdom and United States at 95%, and 2025 host Canada at 90%. These members were followed by Germany at 88%, 2024 host Italy at 85%, France at 80% and Japan at 78%.
For the past four summits, final compliance scores rose 4% above the interim scores, finishing at or above 90%. Final compliance for Apulia will likely vary by subject, as global events and domestic political pressures affect members’ action. Continued compliance will also rely on leaders carrying the torch on commitments made by their predecessors: only three of the nine leaders at Apulia – Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, France’s Emmanuel Macron and the European Commission’s Ursula von der Leyen –will return to the summit table. The other two-thirds of the G7’s leadership departed their posts, making way for six new faces to bring their interests to Kananaskis. Three of those changes occurred after the interim compliance period, increasing uncertainty about compliance as member priorities shift accordingly.
Germany’s new coalition government aligns well with the Apulia host’s vision on migration, and border security has risen in importance across North America. As a result, action on migration will likely increase, fulfilling Apulia commitments and shaping the 2025 communiqué.
Aside from migration, US president Donald Trump has already proven significantly more disruptive to traditional G7 diplomacy than he was in his first term, as unprecedented cuts to overseas funding raise G7 compliance challenges. Kananaskis host Canada held a snap election less than 50 days before the summit. Agenda-shaping hosts heavily influence G7 summits, but the US will attempt to make its voice the loudest on contested issues. Trade, for example, was the second most prominent commitment area in Apulia (11%). Differing views on trade fairness will bring the issue to the fore in Kananaskis, although agreement may prove elusive.
Jacob Rudolph is co-chair of summit studies for the G7 Research Group for Canada’s 2025 Kananaskis Summit. He was a compliance analyst for Japan’s 2023 Hiroshima Summit and compliance director for Italy’s 2024 Apulia Summit, and was a member of the field team at the summit. He is also editor for the G20 Research Group. He studies economics, public policy and mathematics as a National Scholar at the University of Toronto, with particular interests in economic inequality and policy in the macroeconomic, energy, environment and health fields. Jacob is pursuing a career at the intersection of policy design and political strategy.
Angus MacKellar is co-chair of summit studies for the G7 Research Group for Canada’s 2025 Kananaskis Summit. Since 2022, he has been a compliance analyst and a compliance director, primarily researching development and education. He was also a member of the field team at Italy’s 2024 Apulia Summit. Angus studies peace, conflict and justice, and international relations at the University of Toronto and Sciences Po Paris. His research focuses on the history of British intelligence, corollary to his studies in intelligence, security and imperial history.
X-TWITTER @g7rg www.g7.utoronto.ca
In an uncertain global landscape, American leadership can prove decisive. From critical minerals to defence, trade and migration, at Kananaskis the US has an opportunity to shape the agenda for the path ahead
Christopher Sands, director, Hopkins Center for Canadian Studies, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
The G7 was created in a time of crisis and has historically been most effective when it mobilises its members – Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States plus the European Union – in response to urgent global challenges. Success at such summits often hinges on clear US leadership.
Canada is hosting the 51st G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, the same mountain village where former prime minister Jean Chrétien convened the 2002 summit following the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States the year before. That meeting helped launch the US-led Transport Security Initiative, raising global screening standards for cargo and travellers. The resulting cooperation aided economic recovery and improved security across G7 members and beyond.
A UNITED FRONT
At this year’s Kananaskis Summit, US president Donald Trump could again rally G7 partners in response to mount-
ing crises, thus reinforcing unity and resolve towards China and other adversaries.
China dominates the processing of rare earths and other critical minerals vital for military and advanced technologies such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence and quantum computing. It has already banned exports of antimony, germanium and gallium in retalia-
tion against US tariffs. During his first term, Trump identified this as a national security threat. At Kananaskis, he could spearhead a coordinated strategy to expand G7 investment in exploration, mining and processing to reduce dependence on China and to secure G7 and others’ supply chains.
On defence, Canada, Italy and Japan remain below the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s benchmark of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defence. Canada and Italy will face renewed pressure at the NATO summit from 24–26 June in The Hague. The G7 meeting on 15–17 June allows the US to reinforce the importance of increased spending by all allies, including non-NATO members such as Japan.
As for energy, Trump’s executive order on 20 January to expand American energy production could be complemented by support for Canadian energy exports. Although most Canadian oil and gas currently flows to the US, Japan and several European G7 countries have expressed interest in importing liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel from Canada. Inadequate infrastructure has hindered exports to these markets. Trump’s 10% tariff on Canadian energy to the US could incentivise diversification. At Kananaskis, the G7 could launch joint efforts to develop Canadian export capacity, expanding global energy security.
Immigration has long been a Trump priority. With over 140 million stateless and displaced people worldwide, G7 members are revisiting their immigration policies. Canada is facing record-low public support for immigration. The US could lead efforts to forge a G7 consensus that emphasizes coordinated
screening, orderly migration and repatriation as standard practice.
The US has led globally in using economic sanctions to deter adversaries. Yet without coordination, bad actors exploit loopholes by rerouting goods, funds or personnel through non-participating countries. At Kananaskis, the US could push for stronger G7 alignment on sanctions, including enforcement and compliance. This would tighten pressure on China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, and perhaps temper divergent approaches – such as recent European calls to sanction Israel.
New US tariffs announced since 20 January have jolted global markets. However, Trump’s targeted tariffs on China have found support among G7 partners. Recent moves to lift tariffs on goods that meet the origin rules set out in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement demonstrate the Trump administration’s continued support for negotiated trade deals. The UK, the EU and Japan have each pursued bilateral deals with Washington, but with limited success. Reviving these talks could lay the groundwork for a broader agreement – a potential ‘Trump Round’ to reform the World Trade Organization, which stalled after the Doha Round’s collapse in 2017.
Across each of these agenda items, meaningful progress requires US initiative. The Trump administration could use the Kananaskis Summit to align global partners on national security and economic goals, paving the way for concrete achievements. This groundwork could culminate in 2027, when the United States hosts the G7 once again.
// CHRISTOPHER SANDS
Christopher Sands is director of the Hopkins Center for Canadian Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC.
