World leaders will fly home from Chicago on Monday night after completing some of the most intensive negotiations of the year on issues ranging from eradicating hunger to resolution of the eurozone crisis and ending the Afghanistan war.

Seven of the leaders, from Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia, have been in discussion since joining Barack Obama at his presidential retreat at Camp David on Friday night. More than 40 others arrived for further talks at a convention centre in downtown Chicago on Sunday morning for a two-day Nato summit.

So how much was achieved? What resulted from all those walks in the woods between Obama and the G8 leaders at his Maryland retreat, and during the informal group discussions round the dinner table? And did the Nato summit produce enough positive gains to justify the disruption to the city, whose centre was largely closed down?

Tackling world hunger

In the final communique from Camp David, the leaders said: "The G8 reaffirms its commitment to the world's poorest and most vulnerable people."

In reality, the summit was largely a disappointment for the developing world.

Barack Obama, in a speech in Washington on Friday on the eve of the Camp David talks, announced $3bn in new money for what he billed as a "new alliance" to help lift millions out of hunger.

While aid agencies welcomed this, they cautioned about governments shifting the burden from their own aid budgets to the private sector.

The reason for this warning became apparent at the Camp David. Obama's announcement of the $3bn was designed in part to disguise the fact that no new government cash is forthcoming.

At the 2009 G8 summit in L'Aquila in Italy, the world leaders committed themselves to spending $22bn over the next three years to lift 50 million people out of world hunger. Obama promised at Camp David to continue this effort, but offered no details of any further commitments.

Of the $22bn promised at L'Aquila, an accountability report published to coincide with the G8 showed only just over half of that has been disbursed so far, 58%.

Monique Mikhail, an Oxfam spokesperson, said: "The report highlights both the good and the bad in the efforts of the G8 to tackle food insecurity and hunger. While the report finds that most G8 countries will meet their funding commitments on food security, it also highlights that disbursement of these funds is painfully slow. A 99% pledged commitment rate sounds fantastic, but not when only 58% of the commitments have actually been disbursed six months from L'Aquila's completion."

In a statement, Oxfam criticised the G8 leaders for failing to continue the efforts to tackle world hunger.

Outcome: It is a long way from the heady days of the big spending commitments made at summits such as Gleneagles. The lack of spending commitments at Camp David reflects the present frugality of governments in America and Europe.

Eurozone crisis

Merkel and Hollande: France and Germany have different ideas over the direction of the eurozone. Photograph: Sven Simon/imago/ i-Images

The final Camp David communique said: "We welcome the ongoing discussion in Europe on how to generate growth, while maintaining a firm commitment to implement fiscal consolidation to be assessed on a structural basis."

This was a victory for Obama and the new French president, François Hollande, who pushed German chancellor Angela Merkel to shift the balance from austerity measures to growth. There was also a commitment to help Greece remain in the eurozone.

But the communique was short on detail. Merkel would argue that she is committed to growth, though achieved through deficit-cutting rather than the kind of stimulus packages that Obama and Hollande wanted.

In a one-to-one meeting between Obama and Merkel, the president helped flesh out the details a bit, with Merkel pledging to support a stimulus package for Greece.

But the reality is that the US has little leverage in the eurozone crisis and the hard decisions will be taken at Euro meetings later this week and next.

Outcome: A shift in language in favour of a growth strategy but this is undermined by the lack of any details of a stimulus package.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai reaffirmed his support for the timetable of withdrawal. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA

In the Nato communique, the heads of state and government claimed the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan was on track and "irreversible", and would provide a new non-combat Nato mission in Afghanistan after 2014 "to train, advise and assist" the Afghan army.

The US has secured the $4.1bn it needed to fund this ten-year programme of assistance which will involve a Nato force of about 15,000-20,000.

Obama, after meeting Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai in Chicago on Sunday, insisted that within the next two years the war in Afghanistan as we know it would be over.

In spite of his bullish tone, reality bit. Pakistan is a key player in any final political settlement in Afghanistan but US hopes of a deal with its president, Asif Ali Zardari, failed to materialise.

Relations between Pakistan and the US may have worsened. Obama refused to meet Zardari, which the Pakistan government will see as a snub. Obama's refusal is mainly because Zardari is demanding an apology and much higher fees for re-opening the supply lines between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were closed in protest at drone strikes and the killing of two dozen Pakistani troops in November in a US air strike.

Obama is also struggling to prevent the international force in Afghanistan from rushing to the exits. Hollande is standing by his election pledge to remove all French combat troops by the end of the year, though he has softened this by saying France will remain engaged in Afghanistan in other, as yet unspecified ways.

Huge problems remain. How effective will the Afghan army be when it takes the lead, since the Afghan police force is so unreliable? Will Karzai stick by the constitution that prevents him standing for re-election in 2014? Even if he does, will he be replaced by a Northern Alliance warlord that could make the chance of resolving the conflict even more remote?

Outcome: Obama had hoped to be able to use the Nato summit to announce a political settlement between the Karzai government and the Taliban, but that fell apart when the Taliban left secret talks in March. The summit, in spite of the positive wording of the communique, only served to highlight the problems facing Nato as it begins its withdrawal.

Missile defence

There is an exhibit in the centre of the press room at the Chicago summit that is grandly billed as the European ballistic missile centre.

On Monday, Nato declared: "Today, we have declared an interim ballistic missile defence capability as an initial step to establish Nato's missile defence system, which will protect all Nato European territories, populations and forces."

A video at the exhibit shows an elaborate array of communications systems and weaponry designed to bring down hostile missiles.

In spite of the Nato declaration, only the first phase has been agreed, basically the establishment of a command structure. The lack of progress is a reflection of the present cash-strapped European and US economies.

Outcome: European missile defence dressed up as progress, but in reality a victim of austerity.

Obama's re-election

It does no harm for Obama to be shown on television in the company of world leaders. Republican Mitt Romney's campaign press releases in relation to the G8 and Nato have largely been ignored by the media.

But Obama had been hoping for a major announcement at Chicago, possibly a political settlement with the Taliban, something that would have allowed him to declare the war in Afghanistan over. That has not happened.

The G8 and Nato summits have not dominated television coverage in the US, other than the clashes between the police and protesters in Chicago.

Outcome: Impact on Obama's election campaign? Minimal.