The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Seville was billed as a chance to reshape global economic governance and finally align it with the needs of people and the planet. 

In a time when multilateralism is under considerable strain, the ability to reach a collective agreement and reaffirm states’ commitment to cooperation is significant, particularly following the withdrawal of the United States from negotiations. Yet this pursuit of consensus came at a cost. The final text is, in many areas, less ambitious than what the urgency of the moment requires, with parts shaped by prevailing power imbalances despite its framing as a consensus-based outcome. 

Tax was one of the areas in which the outcome document managed to make more progress: states committed to combating illicit financial flows and taxing high-net-worth individuals, as well as mobilising domestic resources effectively. They also recognised the legitimacy of the UN for tax negotiations. 

The outcome fell short in several other areas. In particular, it did not rise to the challenge of climate finance, which was largely deferred to COP discussions. Although the outcome document recognises the urgency of raising funds to confront the climate emergency, it omits specific targets and avoids direct references to ‘climate finance’. Throughout the final document, the language on debt and International Financial Institutions was also notably weakened, even compared to the already diluted First Draft. Earlier versions had included commitments by states to reform specific aspects of the IMF, the World Bank and other IFIs, such as surcharges and quotas. In contrast, the Sevilla Commitment merely ‘encourages’ the boards of these institutions to consider these issues. This framing is problematic, as it suggests that these boards are entirely autonomous, when in fact developed countries retain disproportionate influence and voting power and should be held accountable for the decisions these institutions make. 

But FfD4 was not only about the outcome document. The Sevilla Platform for Action brought forward more than 130 initiatives by states and other actors, many of which deserve attention. One we highlight positively is ‘Investing in Care for Equality and Prosperity: A Global Initiative to Advance Gender-Responsive Financing for Development’. We joined this project, which builds on the mission of the Global Alliance for Care and seeks to adapt the international financial system to 21st-century challenges by promoting investment in care as a cornerstone of global development. Other encouraging developments include the proposal put forward by Brazil and Spain, with support from South Africa and Chile, titled ‘Enforcing Effective Taxation of High-Net-Worth Individuals: Taxing the Super-Rich’, and the Anti-IFFs Policy Tracker launched by Tax Justice Network Africa. 

As an organisation deeply engaged in advancing economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights, we recognise both the strengths and the shortcomings of the outcome document. Seville stands both as a reminder of the limits of today’s multilateral processes and as a rallying point to intensify our demands for systemic change. 

What follows is our collective analysis from across GI-ESCR’s areas of work. It is a call to redirect financial systems away from private profits and towards public goods, resist the capture of global policy spaces by vested interests, and reclaim financing for what it must ultimately serve: the fulfilment of human rights and the building of just, caring, and sustainable societies. 

1. Position on the FfD4

The outcome document of the FfD4 process, called the 'Sevilla Commitment', concludes months of negotiations. The Commitment is the continuation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the outcome document of the FfD3 process, and is intended as ‘the cornerstone of a renewed global framework for financing sustainable development, particularly amid a widening $4 trillion annual financing gap faced by developing countries’. 

You can read our take on the previous drafts of the document here and here. 

In addition to the Sevilla Commitment, the States present agreed on the 'Sevilla Platform for Action', which gathers 130 initiatives to work towards the implementation of the Commitment. These initiatives were put forward by coalitions of countries and other stakeholders and are supposed to help deliver tangible progress. Some of these initiatives were demands expressed in the Civil Society Forum that took place just before the conference. 

You can read the Civil Society Forum demands here. 

2. Public Services

‘Financing, for what?’ was a question asked repeatedly in the event we organised ahead of the FfD4, as well as in the CSO forum, in the halls of the conference and throughout the official side events. Although the text addresses resource mobilisation at various levels, it pays restricted attention to how such resources should be allocated. It makes no mention of the need for public services.  

The Commitment establishes that States ‘reaffirm their commitments to increase investment in universal health coverage’ and pledge to adequately finance ‘inclusive, equitable and quality education for all’. While increasing funding is essential to guarantee basic human rights, the key issue is whether that funding strengthens public services capable of fulfilling States' human rights obligations. 

Together with other civil society organisations, we reaffirmed, particularly through the outcome document, the need for public financing to prioritise high-quality public services, including education. Several side events mentioned the importance of financing education. Yet, its concrete presence in the Sevilla Platform for Action was minimal: only one out of the 130 initiatives explicitly focused on education. This stark imbalance raises concerns.  

Throughout the Conference, panellists and participants emphasised that education is not only a right and moral imperative, but also one of the most sound and effective long-term economic investments. However, the chronic underfunding of education, exacerbated by debt servicing that exceeds education spending in over 100 countries, demonstrates the urgent need for debt reform and for creating fiscal space through progressive tax policies and global financial reforms. 

While many 'innovative financing' models, such as education bonds, blended finance as risk sharing tools, debt swaps, 'multistakeholder financing models' and outcomes-based financing were promoted, we accompany CSO representatives and experts who warn about the risks they carry, especially when they prioritise private interests over equity and public accountability. Instead, we call to refocus on public investment, progressive taxation and a structural change of the international financing architecture that ensure sustainable, public education systems. There is also broad concern over the growing role of the private sector involvement in education, which throughout the conference was often framed as necessary. 

Public services such as education, healthcare, care and social protection form the backbone of just and equitable societies. They are essential not only for the realisation of social and economic rights, but also for advancing gender and climate justice. Yet across the world, particularly in the Global South, these services are being steadily undermined by debt crises, austerity measures, chronic underfunding and growing pressures to privatise them. The outcome document offers little to address these structural challenges. 

3. Care

One of the main positives of the outcome document is that it explicitly commits to increase investments in the care economy, and pledges to recognise, value and equitably redistribute unpaid and domestic care work. Although this is an important step forward, the language used by the Sevilla Commitment also opens several avenues for a privatised and commercialised future. The commitment fails to clearly affirm state responsibility for upholding the rights of women and girls, or to recognise public services as the means through which those rights should be realised. The commitment’s narrow focus on unpaid care work also risks further eroding public services. 

To fill these gaps left by the outcome document, along many other actors, we joined the initiative 'Investing in Care for Equality and Prosperity: A Global Initiative to Advance Gender-Responsive Financing for Development', presented within the Sevilla Platform for Action. This project, led by Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, UN Women, the ILO, and the Global Alliance for Care, centres on scaling up the mission of the Global Alliance for Care, focusing on adapting the international financial system to 21st-century challenges to enhance and foster investments in care for equality and prosperity, thus elevating care as a cornerstone of global development. Our Executive Director, Camila Barretto Maia, welcomed the initiative and stated that 'the social organisation of care is unbalanced, unequal and ultimately unsustainable, and that it demands structural reforms. That is why it is essential to bring this issue to the fore at this moment and at this conference, which focuses on discussions around reforming the international financial architecture. This is about creating fiscal space to allow for public funding by the state to guarantee rights.’ 

4. Debt

This is the area where the outcome document is the most disappointing. A comprehensive reform of the international financial architecture is indispensable to unlock the level of resources countries need to fulfil SDGs and their human rights obligations.  

Among the most expected outcomes was the commitment of States to move forward with a UN convention on debt. This was also a demand by developing countries. This idea was one of the first to be sacrificed in the effort to reach a consensus.  

Throughout the final document, the language on debt and International Financial Institutions has been notably weakened, even compared to the already diluted First Draft. Earlier versions included commitments by States to reform specific aspects of the IMF, the World Bank and other IFIs, such as surcharges and quotas. In contrast, the Sevilla Commitment merely ‘encourages’ the boards of these institutions to consider these issues. This is problematic as it makes it look like the boards of the IFI’s are completely autonomous bodies. In reality, developed countries have a disproportionate influence and voting power in these institutions and can, and should, be held accountable for their decisions. 

It is important to remember, however, that the FfD4 document is not the end of the negotiations. As many recalled, the proposal to have a UN Tax Convention was removed from the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. Yet here we are, a few years later, with an ongoing process for its negotiation at the General Assembly. The fight to achieve a UN Convention on Debt is still very much alive, and more than ever, it is important to push for a true reform of the international financial architecture that is fit for purpose.  

5. Climate Financing

Late last year, we left COP 29 in Baku disappointed by a New Collective Quantified Goal that fell far short of the expectations of developing countries and civil society. The figure agreed upon is nowhere near what is needed to address the climate crisis and its impacts. In response, the government of Brazil, host of COP 30, launched the Baku to Belém Roadmap with the stated aim of mobilising US$1.3 trillion annually. 

Civil society organisations have expressed concern over the limited transparency and inclusiveness of this process. While there are indications that discussions have begun at the level of ministers of finance, the process remains opaque. There is little clarity about how the roadmap will be developed, what its substantive content will be, and how civil society will be able to engage meaningfully. 

This lack of clarity comes against the backdrop of an outcome document that, while recognising the urgency of raising funds to confront the climate emergency, ultimately omitted specific targets and avoided even direct references to ‘climate finance’. The disconnect between climate and fiscal agendas was particularly evident, raising concerns about whether current financial governance structures are equipped to respond to the scale and urgency of the crisis. 

Recent discussions have underscored the need to align climate, biodiversity and development finance in a coherent and just way. The International Tax Convention was identified as a key opportunity to generate new public resources, linking fiscal justice directly with environmental justice. Participants in these debates stressed that the richest 10% of the global population are responsible for half of global emissions, and that climate negotiations can no longer sideline fiscal policy reform. 

There was also recognition that the architecture of global finance continues to reinforce extractive and unequal models, particularly in regions like the Amazon. In this context, the Baku to Belém Roadmap was presented not only as a chance to increase funding levels, but to rethink how finance is structured and distributed, with an emphasis on adaptation, resilience and redistribution. It was noted that the roadmap must not simply repackage existing commitments or shift funds around; it should increase total climate and development finance, support fair tax systems and integrate gender, equity and human rights perspectives throughout. 

The Roadmap, along with the outcomes of the Sevilla Commitment, were seen as key reference points for reshaping global financial governance. However, without clear mechanisms, targets and participatory processes, these initiatives risk falling into the same shortcomings as previous frameworks; ambitious in rhetoric, limited in impact. 

6. Tax

In discussions about financing, it's easy to forget that resource mobilisation is not the end goal, but a means to achieve broader objectives such as the realisation of human rights for all. The same applies to tax. Speaking about the devastating choices people face when basic public infrastructure is lacking, Attiya Waris, UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt, put it starkly: ‘Budget lines have blood on them.’ 

Tax was one of the areas in which the FfD4 outcome document managed to make more progress: States committed to combating illicit financial flows and taxing high-net-worth individuals, as well as mobilising domestic resources effectively. They also recognised the legitimacy of the UN for tax negotiations. However, the language on the support to the UN tax convention is vaguer in this document that in previous drafts, now only with a commitment to 'engage substantively' with the process. The document also places more emphasis on moving forward with the implementation of the OECD’s pillar II, a process that has been widely criticised for its lack of ambition and for being an undemocratic space to set global tax rules.  

7. Our Events

Financing Public Services: Fulfilling Human Rights and Building a Care Society (Pre-FfD4 High-Level Event) 

On 27 June, just days before the start of FfD4, this event brought together ministers, senior UN officials, and civil society leaders to explore how global economic governance must shift to support social development and reduce inequalities. Speakers underscored the urgent need to finance free, universal, high-quality public services as a foundation for fulfilling economic, social and cultural rights. With growing concern over austerity, the debt crisis and the weakening of democratic accountability, the event offered concrete proposals to realign fiscal systems with human rights, care, justice and sustainability. It also provided a space to collectively respond to the limitations of the draft FfD4 outcome document and to build momentum for deeper reforms in upcoming global processes. 

Rights-Based Development Finance: A Post-Seville Agenda (Official Side-Event) 

This side event brought together civil society organisations, human rights experts, and government representatives to reaffirm the importance of placing human rights at the centre of economic governance. Speakers emphasised the urgent need to shift away from neoliberal and growth-centric models toward economies grounded in human rights, dignity, equality, and sustainability. The Colombian Permanent Representative to the UN highlighted national efforts, including a landmark labour reform and environmental commitments, as examples of rights-based policymaking. Camila Barretto Maia, GI-ESCR’s Executive Director, Marcella Favretto, Chief of the Sustainable Development Section of OHCHR, Liz Nelson, Director of Advocacy and Research at Tax Justice Network and Maria Ron Balsera, CESR’s Executive Director, underscored the human rights framework as both a legal obligation and a powerful tool for rethinking tax, debt, energy and spending policies. The event stressed the role of the UN Tax Convention as a historic opportunity to embed human rights principles into global tax governance. Panellists called for dismantling artificial silos between economic and human rights policy, for reclaiming public services and for transforming international financial architecture to serve people and planet. A strong case was made for feminist and ecological approaches to development finance, as well as new indicators that move beyond GDP. Concluding remarks reaffirmed that human rights provide not just a moral compass but a normative and accountability framework to create fiscal space, renew democracy and build economies that enable all to flourish. 

Raising Tax Revenue through Equity and Inclusion: Taxing High Net Worth Individuals in Africa (Official Side-Event) 

Panellists highlighted their perspective on how tax systems across the continent often favour high-net-worth Individuals through legal loopholes, tax exemptions and weak enforcement mechanisms while placing a disproportionate burden on middle and low-income earners, especially women, through both direct and indirect taxes. They emphasised the need for political good will, data transparency and strengthened administrative capacity to effectively tax high-net-worth individuals. The discussions also underscored the critical role of civil society in raising public awareness, as well as the importance of international cooperation, including ongoing negotiations for a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. Panellists also called for the establishment of a continent-wide wage and wealth observatory and the adoption of more equitable tax structures to support quality public services and reduce dependence on external aid. 

Financing Public Services: Fulfilling Human Rights and Building a Care Society (Official Side-Event) 

This side event convened a diverse panel of experts and government representatives to call for a fundamental rethinking of the importance of financing public services. Speakers highlighted that austerity, underfunding and regressive tax systems, rooted in an unjust global financial architecture, are eroding the systems meant to guarantee human rights and dignity. Panellists shared insights on tax reform, social protection and care economy policies, emphasising the need for progressive taxation, expenditure review and reallocation of public budgets. Across all interventions, the urgency of answering 'financing for what?' was underscored, stressing that resources must be directed toward universal, rights-based and gender-just public services, not privatised or profit-driven models. Concerns about the increasing role of blended finance, PPPs and edtech in education and healthcare were raised as threats to equity, accountability and access. Panellists called for strengthened multilateralism, transparency and coalition-building to shift the dominant narrative, reclaim fiscal space and build a just economy that serves people and planet, anchored in human rights. 

Unlocking a Climate-Resilient Future: Aligning Development Finance with Environmental and Climate Agendas (Official Side-Event) 

The discussion centred on the urgent need to align climate, biodiversity and development finance within a more coherent and just global architecture.

The Sevilla Commitment was seen as a step forward for multilateral cooperation, particularly for bringing together the climate, biodiversity and desertification agendas. However, concerns were raised about the persistent gap between the scale of the crisis and the financial commitments made to address it. The Baku–Belém Roadmap and the proposed mobilisation of US$1.3 trillion annually were identified as key milestones that must link more clearly to concrete climate and development outcomes. 

There was a shared view that current global financial structures often sustain extractive and unjust models, especially in regions like the Amazon. Addressing this requires moving beyond fragmented approaches and ensuring that development finance supports adaptation, equity and long-term resilience. 

The conversation also underscored the need to reform international tax rules, not only to raise revenue but to ensure fair and effective redistribution. Calls were made to increase the volume and quality of finance, prioritising grants over loans, and to incorporate gender justice and human rights into all aspects of policy design. 

Participants highlighted the opportunity presented by the International Tax Convention to shift resources towards sustainable development, stressing that fiscal justice and environmental justice are deeply connected. 

8. Next Steps

As to the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, with upcoming negotiating sessions starting in early August, the Sevilla Commitment explicitly includes a mandate for States to continue to engage constructively and support this process. This provides a strong political message towards all involved parties (including States and other relevant stakeholders) on the importance of negotiating tax cooperation initiatives within the framework of the United Nations, ever more important as the contents of both the framework convention and two early additional protocols are beginning to be defined in the upcoming weeks. Encouragingly, an explicit recognition of the specific realities of the developing world when it comes to international tax cooperation was included in the Commitment, providing much needed attention to the voices of the Global South, which should therefore be elevated and prioritised in the UN Tax Convention discussions. 

As to the upcoming COP30, to take place this November in Brazil, the shortcomings of the negotiations in Seville concerning financing for development can be mitigated with an ambitious scale up of climate finance commitments within the UNFCCC. In effect, the Baku to Belem roadmap, currently being developed by the Azeri and Brazilian COP Presidencies, presents a renewed opportunity after the failure of the New Collective Quantified Goal to commit to an ambitious mobilisation of highly concessionary funds for the financing of mitigation and adaptation measures. Certain valuable lessons can be taken up from the discussions in Seville, such as the need to avoid further exacerbating the debt crisis and reforming the international financial architecture’s shortcomings. Those efforts should centre State’s commitments under the Paris Agreement of making financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. 

The recognition by the Sevilla Commitment that national efforts must be complemented through an enabling international economic environment that prevents external shocks from disproportionately affecting developing countries, and that discrimination plays a crucial role within social development, sets a minimum baseline amidst the ongoing negotiations of the World Summit for Social Development’s First Draft. FfD4 has several lessons yet to be distilled that will certainly shape upcoming multilateral negotiations, not only at the global level, such as the World Summit on Social Development, but also at the regional level, such as the upcoming Conference on Women of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the G20 Summit.