Will Sevilla’s FfD4 Commitment Lead to Real Action?

The extensive plan of action adopted at the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), held recently in Sevilla, Spain (30 June – 3 July), raises the question: Where will the money come from?

When I hear mind-boggling figures about the money needed to tackle the most daunting challenges humanity faces, I always ask myself how these resources will materialize.

Developing nations are saddled with debts whose servicing is becoming more and more onerous. Developed nations are entangled in a dangerous geopolitical downward spiral that is pushing them to invest enormous amounts in defence at the expense of global justice.

Meanwhile, climate finance alone is going to be in the range of trillions of US dollars. In addition, the recently published World Bank Global Economic Outlook provides another dismal forecast for the days to come.

“Global growth is slowing due to a substantial rise in trade barriers and the pervasive effects of an uncertain global policy environment. Growth is expected to weaken to 2.3 percent in 2025, with deceleration in most economies relative to last year. This would mark the slowest rate of global growth since 2008, aside from outright global recessions.”

This is the bedrock upon which the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development was recently held in Sevilla.

The final outcome of the Conference—the Sevilla Commitment—is an extensive plan of actions with potentially groundbreaking measures that could truly support developing nations.

Yet, as often happens with such documents, we should ask ourselves how this pledge will be upheld and implemented, especially those launched during the conference through the FfD4 Sevilla Platform for Action Initiatives.

The onus is going to be equally on both sides of the equation.

A Universal Peer Review to track the financial commitments of developed nations might be what is needed.

Will developed nations really be serious about raising their development aid, mobilising the regional and international multilateral financial institutions they control, while also seriously finding ways to relieve developing nations of parts of their debts?

Even more crucially, with the stakes so high and the overall economic situation in such a distressful state, will developed nations muster the courage to truly reform the international financial system?

On the other hand, will developing nations be committed and determined to root out corruption and malpractices in governance?

How will these nations be able to raise their taxation bases and undertake policymaking actions transparently and inclusively?

The Sevilla Commitment does offer a broad framework to raise trillions of dollars to achieve the SDGs, including resources for climate and biodiversity actions.

This is an important aspect of the document that cannot be underestimated.

The document provides, at least in principle, a vision to do away, in matters of financing, with the artificial and inefficient silos that the international aid system has created.

Paragraph 8 is key to this ambitious effort.

“National development efforts need to be supported by an enabling international economic environment and effective means of implementation that promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, and prevent external shocks from disproportionately affecting developing countries. We commit to align international support with national strategies, plans and frameworks, such as Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs), and will respect each country’s policy space to pursue sustainable development while remaining consistent with relevant international rules and commitments.”

Annalisa Prizzon, an economist and Principal Research Fellow in the Development and Public Finance Programme at ODI, one of the most renowned development think tanks, offered a clear insight.

“We should focus on ‘how much’ but also on how financing for development is delivered, and reinvigorate the discussions on what makes cooperation for development effective.”

The International Commission of Experts on Financing for Development (FfD4), led by José Antonio Ocampo, a former Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Colombia and including Prizzon, proposed creating a UN Global Economic Coordination Council in its report released in February 2025.

The fact that the whole UN system is under immense pressure to restructure itself in order to provide better value for money should not imply that it cannot still play an important role.

In a much different way, the UN should especially strengthen its convening and coordination powers among its members.

Yet, I found it baffling that the entire text of the Sevilla Commitment does not contain any reference to the concept of the “SDG Stimulus” that has long been championed by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Instead, it was less surprising that in Sevilla there was a lot of focus on the role of the private sector and blended capitals.

Now, there is an overwhelming consensus that public financing cannot do the job alone, and finding private resources—often by leveraging complex and abstruse financial mechanisms that only equity investors seem to comprehend—is seen as a must.

While it is certainly true that Multilateral Development Banks can be much more effective at increasing their lending capacities and incentivising the mobilisation of private capital, the biggest challenges faced by humanity cannot be tackled through shortcuts.

By centring international finance for development on private capital rather than public money in the form of grants or concessional loans with minimal interest and significant flexibility for receiving nations, developed countries are taking a very convenient route that helps them dodge their moral responsibilities.

At the G7 summit held in Alberta, Canada, it was decided that American multinationals would be exempted from the global minimum taxation regime agreed in 2021.

While this decision might more heavily impact the revenues of European governments where many American companies operate, it is a troubling signal. If big chunks of the international finance framework are outsourced and handed over to the private sector, then the international community is abdicating its moral duties.

The same dynamics are also unfolding in climate negotiations. At the recently held Bonn Climate Talks, officially SB62, in the former capital of West Germany (16 June – 26 June), even though financing was not a central topic on the official agenda, it was impossible to avoid the issue.

Developed nations are pushing for a major role of private funding while, quite correctly, demanding that nations like China and the Gulf countries step up with new commitments.

In this context, developing nations must be more assertive with a “Show Me the Money” attitude when dealing with developed nations. The former might have some bargaining chips in the form of rare earth materials that the West so desperately needs.

Forums like the G20, where developing and developed nations come together, offer a platform to push for changes. There are also now plenty of serious proposals to change the status quo.

On top of the Sevilla Commitment, the same International Commission of Experts on Financing for Development has proposed a holistic array of reforms that, with political will, can make a difference.

The same can be said about the recently launched “Jubilee Report: A Blueprint for Tackling the Debt and Development Crises and Creating the Financial Foundations for a Sustainable People-Centred Global Economy,” an initiative of the Vatican-based Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and Columbia University’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue.

Yet, even if the flow of development finance from the private sector is tempered and controlled, and a new governance system is created, we need new forms of accountability.

What about a Universal Peer Review (UPR) for development finance that could be devised while rethinking the Post-2030 Development Agenda?

Borrowing from the UPR model in place in the Human Rights Council, such an accountability system could be the only hope to pressurise developed nations to honour their promises.

As the international community will soon start discussing what will happen to Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, we need stronger mechanisms to hold nations answerable to their pledges.

While this is itself far from being a perfect mechanism (after all, there is no way of punishing or sanctioning non-complying governments), sometimes a little public shaming is what is needed to give a jolt and ensure rich nations walk the talk.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centred policymaking, and a stronger and better United Nations.