The UN summit in Seville boosts multilateralism with a consensus text, despite the US withdrawal.
There are two ways to approach the IV Financing for Development Conference in Seville this Monday: celebrating as a victory the fact that more than fifty world leaders are embracing multilateralism, looking to the Global South, and attempting to lay the groundwork for reforming the battered financing of development in a world of conflict and cutbacks; or lamenting that the final declaration is lukewarm, fails to address urgent issues such as the debt crisis in the poorest countries , and may have little impact, given that the United States, the world's largest donor, is the notable absentee from the meeting.
The Seville Commitment is the document adopted by consensus ahead of the summit—which began yesterday with preparatory meetings and will enter into full swing this Monday—after a year of negotiations. This consensus was possible, paradoxically, because the US distanced itself from the final document and has no intention of attending a meeting that embodies everything the current administration abhors. UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed lamented its absence this week, which follows the "catastrophic" cuts in its development aid.
The document, which is expected to be formally adopted this Monday, "is a low-ambition text that will not end inequality and poverty, but it is also a high-level political commitment in favor of multilateralism and against the slogan 'may the strongest win' preached by Washington," a multilateral organization official who prefers not to be named told this newspaper. Since taking office in January, the Donald Trump administration has decided to dismantle USAID , the major US aid agency, which, according to various studies, will cause millions of deaths, mainly in the Global South, by disrupting key treatments such as HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. Major European countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom have also announced cuts, in a context of economic crisis and increased military spending, in the face of global volatility. Added to the cuts, in the US case, is climate denialism that places it at the opposite pole of the Seville text.
Sources close to the negotiations explain that there was a shared feeling among the delegations that, at this moment of frontal assault on development, it was time to close ranks. In the end, the United States has been isolated from the rest of the international community.
For Mohammed, Seville will "send a powerful message to the world that, despite persistent headwinds, international cooperation is making progress and there is renewed hope in keeping alive the promise of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ," to which the world has committed by 2030, he told reporters recently.
But can the architecture of global cooperation be rethought without the US, which until a few months ago was responsible for more than 40% of the world's development aid? "We will continue to encourage them to join the conversation," Mohammed said.
Washington's withdrawal from Seville was prompted by non-negotiable issues for the country, such as tripling development bank loans, changes to tax rules, and the use of the term "gender" in the final document. But according to negotiators present at the discussions, "when the US representatives left the room, there was a certain relief, and even representatives of social movements applauded."
The final document from the Andalusian capital provides an overview of the major outstanding issues for achieving a more just world: debt restructuring, financing the fight against the climate emergency, desirable percentages of development aid, the role of the private sector, the necessary transformation of an outdated, highly fragmented and therefore ineffective cooperation system , and the transformation of the tax system, to name a few examples.
"Each of these lines has been the subject of exhaustive negotiations," Emma Aparici, Secretary General of Foreign Affairs of the Spanish Prime Minister's Office, confessed recently.
One of Seville's great victories, María Fernanda Valdés, a senior UN economist, tells this newspaper, is that the final text was approved by consensus. "It was a surprise because a vote was expected, in which the opposing positions of countries in the North and South would likely be seen, and that wasn't the case," she believes. "That's why Seville is simply a message of unity in the face of global challenges."
Those involved in the negotiations agree that two issues were particularly challenging: debt and everything related to the climate crisis. Didier Jacobs, a debt expert at the NGO Oxfam International, admits that debt has been "the major battleground" in the negotiations.
According to the UN, two-thirds of low-income countries are at high risk of experiencing a debt crisis or have already experienced one, and rising debt service costs, which in low-income countries exceed 50% of their income, are impeding vital investments in education, healthcare, and climate resilience. "The document is very weak in this regard," estimates a multilateral organization official, estimating that almost everything mentioned in the commitment is already practically being implemented. But at the same time, the text opens the door for the first time, as African countries had requested, to regulating debt issues within the UN framework.
Jacobs explains that African countries have been trying for a year to get the international community to commit to creating a binding, multilateral mechanism to legally regulate debt crises within the framework of the United Nations and have encountered "opposition, including from Europeans." Until now, these mechanisms have been informal, such as the Paris Club or, more recently, the G-20 Common Framework, which are considered insufficient. Finally, the Seville Commitment includes in the controversial paragraph 50 (f) the notion of multilateral negotiation ("an intergovernmental process at the United Nations"), which represents a novelty and an achievement for the Global South, albeit without concrete actions. It could be said that "Africans have put their foot in the door to prevent it from closing," Jacobs believes. The text details that this "process" will produce recommendations to rethink the financial architecture of debt and establish a dialogue between United Nations Member States, along with creditors and other international organizations. This means that, unlike before, debt-ridden countries in the Global South could have a voice in a forum where loan terms are discussed.
For María Fernanda Valdés, compared to what was agreed upon a decade ago at the previous development financing summit held in Addis Ababa, the Seville commitment offers more concrete institutional responses: debt-for-development swaps, inclusion of middle-income countries in the so-called G-20 Common Framework, which allows for coordinated debt management involving a wide range of creditors, and sustainability assessment systems with a development focus.
But in the opinion of Marisol Ruiz, a spokesperson for civil society, which brings together NGOs, social movements, and other actors seeking to influence government decisions, "the Global North, and not just the United States but also European countries, has worked in recent months to dilute and block, behind closed doors, the ambitious work and content that the text once had," for example, regarding the creation of a UN debt convention.
Last Friday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres presented several recommendations, in line with the Seville Commitments, calling the current debt system "unsustainable, unfair, and unaffordable." His suggestions expand on the already proposed reforms to multilateral financial structures and also address more specific issues, such as debt service pauses during, for example, climate-related disasters or other external shocks. Guterres also emphasized that the UN is ready to support a Seville Forum on debt.
Real and quantifiable progressOn the issue of debt, Africans have put their foot in the door to prevent it from closing.
Didier Jacobs, Oxfam
More than $4 trillion a year is needed to meet the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, that is, to guarantee decent living conditions for the majority of the world's population. Few, very few, countries have reached the 0.7% of their GDP allocation in official development assistance. By 2025, the OECD estimates a decline in total development aid of between 9% and 17%, due to cuts by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, among others.
When comparing the Seville Commitment with the document signed 10 years ago at the previous summit held in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, it is clear that there has been "a significant evolution," Valdés believes, "both in political ambition and concrete actions."
For Aparici, Seville "is moving from a quantitative approach to a more qualitative one," that is, measuring the effectiveness of cooperation rather than the amount of money spent on it.
To achieve more tangible results, a two-track system has been created to overcome the difficulties that consensus-based decisions can generate. Furthermore, this conference will also approve the Seville Platform for Action, an initiative of Pedro Sánchez and the UN Secretary-General, through which countries and other stakeholders can launch joint initiatives to achieve concrete and measurable progress. Dozens of proposals have been received so far.
Climate crisis and the private sectorSeville is "moving from a quantitative approach to a more qualitative one," that is, measuring the effectiveness of cooperation rather than the amount of money spent on it.
Even if all countries doubled their public funds for cooperation, only 10% of the 4 trillion euros needed annually to end extreme poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases would be covered. The Seville Commitment emphasizes that private sector participation is essential to closing the financing gap and that "private sector business activity, investment, and innovation are the main drivers of sustainable development."
“Development financing is a broad framework that aims to mobilize more and better resources, whether public or private,” wrote Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares in an article published in Política Exterior .
Elsewhere in the Seville Commitment, it is emphasized that “time is running out to address the adverse effects of climate change,” but for Carlos Lopes, professor at the School of Public Governance at the University of Cape Town, the final document still maintains “the artificial separation between climate finance and development finance, despite the repeated recognition that such divisions are not useful in practice.”
Valdés, who attended the climate negotiations, admits that there were opposing positions between some oil-producing countries and others. "The solution was to reach a compromise, one that doesn't involve going back 10 years, but also doesn't involve adopting new commitments," he says.
A “victory of words”Actors from the Global North, and not just the United States, worked in recent months to dilute and block, behind closed doors, the ambitious work and content that the text once had.
Marisol Ruiz, civil society
"The system is failing those whose lives should be improved," UN officials emphasized during the negotiations. Therefore, the challenge of this Seville commitment was to redefine the financial system of the future to advance sustainable development. "This document is deeply frustrating and disappointing," says Marisol Ruiz, a civil society representative. "And it cannot be said that multilateralism has triumphed," she adds.
Despite everything, civil society insists it will continue working to ensure that issues such as tax justice and debt are discussed within the UN, "where countries have the capacity to negotiate more or less equitably, something that doesn't happen in other frameworks, such as the OECD or the World Bank," according to Ruiz. The fact that the idea of a UN negotiating framework appears in the Seville Commitment means that, from now on, the UN Secretary-General can launch the process.
For Lopes, the Seville Commitment is ultimately "a victory of words" that will not be enough to "resolve the structural difficulties facing the development financing system."
"It risks becoming just another chapter in the addiction to final documents: a diplomatic performance of consensus with little power to address the deep-rooted inequalities in global finance," the expert concludes.
EL PAÍS
