To their credit, at their last gathering in Scotland, the G8 leaders took on the challenge of extreme poverty in Africa, Asia and elsewhere in the developing world. They agreed to write off un-payable loans owed by highly indebted but low-income nations and promised an additional $50 billion in annual development aid by 2010, including a doubling of assistance to Africa. Perhaps most importantly, they pledged support for a pro-poor conclusion of global trade talks, with commitments to cut their own trade-distorting farm subsidies and to lift barriers to imports from the least developed countries.

Yet, one year later, few poor nations have experienced much tangible impact from these promises.

The welcome debt-relief initiative erased tens of billions of dollars' worth of claims against the economies of struggling developing nations. But most of this went to relatively few countries, with Iraq alone accounting for $14 billion of the total $23 billion in loan forgiveness by creditor countries in 2005.

Debt cancellation is counted by most creditors as a form of development aid, which is fair enough. Nonetheless, a loan that was not being serviced, once forgiven, does not have the impact of new resources for development.

Aid increases can also take a long time to materialize, as legislative appropriations cycles often lag a year or more behind pledges. Soaring energy prices, meanwhile, are costing most poor oil-importing countries far more than they are receiving in additional economic assistance.

As tracked by the OECD, official development assistance increased from $52 billion in 2001 to $106 billion in 2005 -- at face value, a seemingly extraordinary doubling of aid in just four years. But when adjusted for inflation and the declining value of the dollar -- the currency in which aid flows are officially calculated -- the real increase in economic assistance turns out to be closer to one-third over those four years. And a large part of the 2005 gain comes from a one-time surge in debt relief that is unlikely to be repeated.

The biggest disappointment of the past year has been the failure to reach accord in the stalled Doha round of trade negotiations. Too many developing nations are still on the outside looking in, watching mature economies thrive off a "globalization" that is not yet truly global. For this, we need G8 leadership, now. Resources for development would be much more productive if deployed in a trading environment more favorable to low income countries.

Money is not everything -- or even the main thing: It is vitally important to focus on the end results of aid efforts.

The countries most likely to turn aid money into real gains for their citizens' lives are those with legitimate and capable civil and social institutions. Only with good governance and economic policies that support equitable growth can outside assistance lead to lasting change.

Handled right, aid fosters economic development. But we need to be careful when measuring progress. Income growth, measured in terms of aggregate GDP alone, does not necessarily reduce poverty. Nor does it automatically nurture human development, which entails freedom from oppression, freedom from ignorance, and freedom from violence.

Geopolitical and military concerns motivated foreign aid priorities throughout the Cold War, and linger still in some donor-recipient relationships. Aid works best when developing nations are allowed to shape their own course, with well-considered advice from a range of partners, including not just the industrialized heavyweights of the G8 but also their neighbors and peers in other developing nations.

On Monday, the G8 leaders will meet their counterparts from China, Brazil, India, Mexico and South Africa. This welcome G8 engagement with the emerging powers of the developing world should be broadened and institutionalized to give these meetings greater global legitimacy.

Gleneagles concluded with ambitious promises -- promises which must be kept in St. Petersburg. If these summits are to have meaning, each one must lead to concrete steps towards lasting improvement in the daily lives of the world's poor -- and bring us closer to effective multilateralism.

Kemal Dervis is the Administrator of the United Nations Development Program.