Fish out of water: Seville and the global funding crisis

Kattya Cascante, Professor of International Relations at UCM

The Fourth United Nations Conference on Financing for Development, held in Seville from June 30 to July 3, 2025, resembles the last gasps of a fish dying out of water. Since the Millennium Development Goals (2000–2015) were adopted and succeeded by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the previous three conferences (Monterrey in 2002, Doha in 2008, and Addis Ababa in 2015) have failed to secure a meaningful international commitment to development financing beyond Official Development Assistance (ODA) and state-led initiatives. Seville is no exception.

In Monterrey, Doha, and Addis Ababa, there was an attempt to move beyond dependence on ODA by mobilizing domestic resources, attracting responsible private investment, reforming the international financial architecture, and combating tax evasion and illicit financial flows. Although the continued existence of ODA is a positive sign, Seville has made it clear that other anticipated commitments—such as binding mechanisms to channel climate finance, a fair framework for debt restructuring, and reforms in global financial institutions—have not materialized due to a lack of political will, geopolitical tensions, and the resistance of key actors to accepting obligations that may limit their interests. This has left development financing stalled, insufficient, and ineffective in achieving the SDGs.

The Seville conference concluded with a final declaration that mostly maintained the status quo, introducing no new binding commitments and merely supporting voluntary instruments like climate-linked bonds and suggesting potential debt payment suspensions during crises—reflecting the lack of structural progress. A divide between the Global North and South was clear: Northern countries, led by the G7, advocated for private and voluntary solutions, while many Southern countries and civil society groups called for deep reforms to the financial architecture and debt governance. New alliances among African and Latin American nations stood out, demanding fiscal and climate justice. However, major obstacles persist, including the lack of political will from global powers and the influence of corporate interests that block a true redistribution of power and resources.

Even so, Seville did produce some partial successes, such as recognizing the urgent need to strengthen the global financial architecture, improve market regulation, and move toward more inclusive economic governance. The 0.7% ODA target remains alive, and there was support for expanding the TOSSD approach to better track financial flows. Discussions were also advanced on modernizing multilateral development banks, repurposing Special Drawing Rights, and exploring mechanisms like debt-for-climate swaps. On the climate front, the idea of channeling funds through diverse instruments and partnerships was reinforced. The importance of remittances was acknowledged, along with the key role of cooperation in science, technology, and innovation. Notably, Spain stood out in Seville for promoting dialogue and global partnerships.

A Missed Opportunity

With over 12,000 attendees, delegations from 150 countries, 50 heads of state, and representatives of international organizations, this conference reflects the current state of a weakened multilateral order where today’s multipolarity disrupts the conversation, pushing it into other forums that dominate both attention and budget. This largely explains the notable absence of key actors at this and other conferences—not just for reaching agreements, but also for ensuring follow-up. The U.S., under the Trump Administration, which also declined to attend COP29 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in November in Belém, was absent alongside China—together the proverbial elephants in the room. These absences have only exacerbated the lack of consensus on nearly every issue. At COP29—also dubbed the “financial COP”—not even a basic commitment was reached to establish a minimum annual climate aid target of $100 billion for developing countries.

The problem is not merely a lack of resources but also the failure to focus on development. The global economy generates more goods and services than it can absorb, resulting in global savings that range from six to thirty-three times the annual financing needed for the 2030 Agenda. According to UN data, achieving the SDGs will require between $3.3 and $4.5 trillion per year, with a $2.5 trillion annual financing gap for developing countries. This is less than half of what was spent subsidizing fossil fuels in 2022. While the available financial resources are sufficient, there is no strong will to align them with sustainable development. When factors like tax evasion and massive illicit capital flows—particularly prevalent in developing countries—are added, the real issue becomes clear: a financial architecture that is asymmetric, deregulated, and lacking global economic governance.

Institutionally, this translates into several long-overdue reforms that have been widely demanded at previous conferences, yet remain unaddressed. Chief among them is the architecture of international sovereign debt, which must shift toward a rules-based system, with reforms and reflective processes led by the United Nations. However, the document presented in Seville merely endorses the G7’s position, which limits itself to suggesting debt payment suspensions in exceptional circumstances and promoting voluntary instruments like climate-linked bonds, without addressing binding obligations for private creditors or a broader restructuring of the multilateral financial system. This comes despite the fact that in 2024, more than 50 developing countries spent more on interest payments than on their entire social spending budgets.

How can poverty and inequality be overcome when debt servicing takes priority over healthcare and education, generation after generation? External debt, combined with the chronic inability of some developing countries to generate tax revenue, hinders the mobilization of domestic resources—a key condition required by donors of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to stimulate ODA. While the Seville commitment touched on governance processes, improving certain instruments, and expanding dialogue to attract climate finance to recipient countries, it failed to breach the unyielding wall of political priorities in the Global North. Once again, these countries have refused to review the foundations of an unjust debt system that affects over 3 billion people.

Civil Society as an International Actor

Civil society is gaining ground as an international actor. Through the Social Forum Declaration and the Feminist Forum Declaration, it voiced the clearest and strongest positions at the conference. These groups not only denounced the usual lack of ambition—they challenged the status quo.

On one hand, the Social Forum Declaration, crafted by over 1,000 representatives of civil society organizations, trade unions, and global movements, denounces the deliberate exclusion of civil society from negotiations—an exclusion that deepens financial imbalances and perpetuates structural inequality. Ignoring the ecological, social, and economic crises—especially in the Global South—means turning a blind eye to external debt, illicit financial flows, tax evasion, militarism, and the chronic underfunding of public services. The declaration rejects private financing as the centerpiece of proposed solutions and demands transparent and equitable processes under the UN. It calls for recognition of care work as a public good and for state investment in universal social protection systems. Key criticisms include the corporate capture of public policy, the lack of effective regulation for transnational corporations, and the promotion of blended finance public-private partnerships, which divert public funds, increase debt, and lack transparency. Lastly, they reject conditional climate funds and the absence of commitments to phase out fossil fuels.

On the other hand, the Feminist Forum Declaration proposes a comprehensive agenda to restructure the global economic system from a feminist perspective rooted in justice, human rights, and sustainability. It calls for urgent reform of the IMF and World Bank, and for redefining financial risk from feminist frameworks that prioritize climate resilience, human rights, and equity. It advocates for shifting development financing toward direct public investment models that strengthen essential services such as health, education, and care. The forum proposes creating an international tax body under the UN and adopting a binding fiscal convention that incorporates redistributive principles and gender justice. It calls for progressive tax systems, taxing the wealthy and polluters, and eliminating harmful tax incentives—channeling funds toward essential services and social protection. The declaration also addresses global trade reform, including the revision of trade agreements to incorporate gender equality standards and protect women’s labor and rights. In the realm of care work, it calls for its full integration into economic planning, quantifying its value, and recognizing its central role in social and economic well-being.

Both declarations emphasize the need for decolonized international cooperation, grounded in historical reparations and redistribution of power in global governance. The Feminist Forum further advocates for sustainable public financing for feminist organizations, with accountability frameworks promoting equity. It also highlights the need to invest in science and technology with a gender and justice lens, to ensure digital governance rooted in human rights, and to create monitoring mechanisms with disaggregated data to enforce commitments. Overall, civil society presents a far more transformative agenda, with clear priorities around climate justice and the sovereignty of Global South countries.

In the face of institutional paralysis and the empty rhetoric of multilateral commitments, the voices of civil society articulated in Seville expose the profound disconnect between official discourse and the structural solutions that today’s global reality demands. While institutions continue to preserve a financial order designed to maintain privilege, social movements have put forward concrete, rights-based proposals. What this conference makes clear is that without real redistribution of power and resources, without a financial architecture built for collective well-being rather than accumulation, and without political will to break with the colonial logic of debt, development financing will remain an empty promise. If transformation comes, it won’t be granted—it will be won through pressure, organization, and the persistence of those who refuse to accept injustice.