Following are analysts' comments on a draft statement drawn up by the Group of Eight at their summit in Italy, covering a range of issues including energy markets and the need for reaching the Doha trade goals.

There was no specific reference to currencies or foreign exchange in the draft, while a reference to the goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has been dropped from a separate statement to be issued on Thursday.

The draft documents were seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

ECONOMY

GAVIN FRIEND, STRATEGIST, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

On exit strategy implementation once recovery assured:

In the last two or three weeks there's been a bit of a reality check (on recovery prospects) and it's perfectly sensible for leaders to state that idea.

GEORGE M. VON FURSTENBERG, RUDY PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AT

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

There are signs of stabilization in most of the major economies, but they are still extremely tentative and it is quite uncertain whether or not, in fact, the recovery or the stabilization is to continue. Stabilization means in this case that we believe that countries are moving toward zero growth.

The summit on the economic side was clearly supposed to inject a large dose of confidence. I don't think it will have any net affect on confidence. It will be seen as a non event essentially in terms of the economic measures presented -- no real surprises. If there are any surprises, they are surprises of omission rather than commission - of dodging certain issues through not addressing them.

MICHAEL FROMAN, U.S. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FOR

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS:

I think you'll find that there's still uncertainty and risk in the system but that it's also important to return to fiscal sustainability in the near term. And that sort of balance will be struck most likely here with the leaders as well.

With regard to specifics ... about exit strategies, people said it was time to prepare exit strategies but not necessarily to put them into place yet.

CLIMATE

TOBIAS MUENCHMEYER, DEPUTY HEAD OF GREENPEACE POLITICAL UNIT
Greenpeace came to L'Aquila with high expectations. If this is now the result of the G8 talks, that would be really shocking because we have seen drafts without short-term targets for reduction (by) 2020, and without financing and if they are now also removing long-term targets, then there is almost nothing there.

We came here because we expected world leaders would take climate change really serious and would make tough decisions to send a signal for coming to an agreement in December in Copenhagen but if this is what is adopted, they would fail.

DIMITRI ZENGHELIS, ASSOCIATE FELLOW IN ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT, CHATHAM HOUSE

If they have consciously dropped the 2050 target it would be a retrograde step. A 50 percent cut by 2050 is a pre-condition for avoiding the worst risks associated with climate change. It is also vital as an anchor to base nearer-term targets for 2020-2030.

TOM PICKEN, HEAD OF INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE, FRIENDS OF THE

EARTH

The G8 last year widely floundered as it set a 2050 target with no reference to baselines. But in any case, this is a group of 8 industrialized countries trying to set targets for 42 years' time. It is not the job of the G8 to be doing that. The G8 countries themselves, which are historically responsible for the majority of emissions in the atmosphere today, should be stepping up and making massive commitments to urgent reductions themselves. We want more than 40 percent reductions by 2020 in industrialized countries, through genuine reductions not through offsetting.

TREVOR SIKORSKI, HEAD OF CARBON RESEARCH, BARCLAYS CAPITAL

It is curious as most countries came out with negotiating targets in talks in Bonn last month. That was a positive signal for the market. But the G8 has most of the same countries and I am not sure why they are shying away now. Maybe they don't want to wade in at the moment. 2050 is not too meaningful for the market as it is too far away and many countries have actually revealed their own quite aggressive targets. The Copenhagen process as a whole remains the most important thing for the market.

HENRIK HASSELKNIPPE, HEAD OF CARBON ANALYSIS, POINT CARBON

One shouldn't really look for market signals in vision statements relating to targets 30-40 years down the line. The carbon market will not in any way be impacted by this.

ERIC BOONMAN, CARBON TRADER, FORTIS NETHERLANDS

It is quite neutral news as it was to be expected. It's not good news as we have been trying to get long term targets in place and it means less confidence in the carbon market. There is a fair chance that there wont be an agreement this year anyway but a timeline for an agreement in 2010 so Obama can get the federal states behind him and get the necessary support in time at home.

ENERGY MARKET

PAUL HARRIS, BANK OF IRELAND
It sounds like quite an empty statement. It is difficult to see how they can take volatility away, apart from tighter regulation of commodity exchanges. It is also relevant that, in respect of consuming countries being able to hold sway over OPEC, we saw last year that the pleas for increased production ... fell on deaf ears.

SIMON WARDELL, SENIOR ENERGY ANALYST, IHS GLOBAL INSIGHT

It looks like a first step toward a deeper investigation, laying out suggestions but no actual legislation looks imminent at this stage ... On the transparency side, there is perhaps a suggestion that they want more data from the OPEC countries on reserves, and on consumption (from oil users).

We probably need to do more work on what is causing the price movements before tinkering around with the structure of the market.

OLIVIER JAKOB, OIL ANALYST, PETROMATRIX

I would not trade one cent on the G8 ... There is more fear about the CFTC (U.S. regulator) than about the G8.

The CFTC is looking toward imposing limits on the energy market, though that is still a few months away.

AMRITA SAN, BARCLAYS CAPITAL OIL ANALYST IN LONDON

More transparency is always welcome but there is always a risk that further regulatory action could have a negative impact.

Our view is that the price rise this year has been driven by fundamentals, as the oil price had simply fallen too low to encourage future investment. But there is a camp which believes speculation is behind the price rise.

Any misguided regulation could have the effect of actually increasing volatility by reducing liquidity in the market.

THE DOLLAR

GAVIN FRIEND, STRATEGIST, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

On no mention of the dollar: It's normality restored. Heading into this event there was a little risk of dollar weakening. The dollar could move up a little now as risk aversion rises.

TAKAO HATTORI, SENIOR INVESTMENT STRATEGIST, MITSUBISHI UFJ

SECURITIES
Talks on the role of the dollar have made the market unstable. Since we need to stick with the dollar as the key global currency for a while, despite some problems, the lack of reference on the dollar will removed an unstable factor for the market.

Although there have been signs of stability in the economy and the sentiment has improved, the real economy has not recovered yet with job and wage conditions still stagnant.

Japan, for one, had in the past stopped its economic steps when signs of a recovery emerged, and that prevented it from achieving a full-fledged recovery. If they keep making statements out loud with too much focus on the exit strategy, it may make the market a bit wary.

Australia Climate change