As world leaders prepare for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Seville, a crucial draft document is already shaping the global agenda. But will it rise to meet the moment—or miss the opportunity to truly shift power and resources toward justice? This blog breaks down what’s in the draft, what’s missing, and why now is the time for civil society to step in.
By: Dr. María Emilia Mamberti, Martha Hungwe, and Auska Ovando - CESR Team
A new global economic moment is on the horizon. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), set for June in Seville, Spain, will be a landmark moment where governments can choose to step up—or fall back—on bold commitments to reshape how global finance serves people and the planet.
To understand what’s at stake, it helps to step back. The Financing for Development (FfD) conferences are global forums convened to ensure that financial systems and policies are better aligned with sustainable economic, social, and environmental goals. They provide a space to confront the persistent challenges of mobilizing resources for sustainable development—such as ending poverty, driving inclusive growth, and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The FfD process brings together governments, international institutions, the private sector, and civil society to forge collective commitments and frameworks for financing development more equitably and effectively, like the Monterrey Consensus (2002), Doha Declaration (2008) , and Addis Ababa Action Agenda (2015)).
While they have different levels of ambition and success, these agreements are not just symbolic—they have real-world implications. They shape how countries design tax policies, manage debt, allocate public spending, and engage with international financial institutions. From influencing how aid is delivered, to setting norms on private sector accountability and public investment, the commitments made through the FfD process ripple across national policies and multilateral negotiations alike. They serve as reference points in debates on global tax cooperation, debt restructuring, climate finance, and social protection, especially within the United Nations system. As such, they can either reinforce the status quo—or, with enough political will and civil society pressure, become tools for more just, inclusive, and rights-based economic governance.
First Draft and a critical junction
As negotiations move forward, the context surrounding FfD4 couldn’t be more urgent. Global crises—from inequality to climate breakdown—are exposing the cracks in the current financial system, and raising the stakes of what this conference must deliver.
While the state of the world might make us feel otherwise, this is precisely the right moment to transform how resources are distributed globally. We live in an era of unprecedented prosperity—yet that wealth remains deeply unequally shared. The COVID-19 pandemic and climate catastrophes laid bare how fragile our systems are when we fail to recognize our interconnectedness and distribute resources accordingly. Across the globe, people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the way things are working. In many ways, this is the ideal moment to advance a Rights-Based Economy—one where public budgets prioritize care and social protection, debt is restructured without harmful austerity, and tax systems actively reduce inequality, both within and between countries. A future where economic policy serves people and the planet—not profit and power—is within our reach.
The team at CESR, along with our allies, have put forward concrete proposals for FfD4 to move us towards this future. We have now reviewed FfD4’s First Draft—the preliminary version of the Conference’s outcome document now under negotiation, following the Zero Draft released in January. Like many of our allies, we see some welcome progress, but remain concerned that it falls short of what’s needed to confront the deep structural inequalities shaping the global economy.
Human rights and gender equality: a frame without function?
In its second page, the First Draft claims that “effective, efficient and transparent mobilization and use of resources must be enabled by freedom, human rights, including the right to development, and national sovereignty.” Beyond the opening statements, how far does this commitment really go? As the document unfolds, this principle is barely carried through. Human rights appear inconsistently and selectively—strongly linked, for example, to tech oversight, but absent in other critical sectors like debt, trade, or tax.
Similarly, while the document reaffirms commitments to gender equality, the follow-through is incomplete. Yes, it includes commendable language on investing in care economies, supporting women’s entrepreneurship, and committing to gender-balanced governance. But it fails to address the exploitation of care workers, the specific barriers faced by migrant and informal workers, or the structural inequalities that shape women’s access to economic opportunity. There is a failure to retain key provisions of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, namely the mention of women’s rights and commitments to eliminate gender-based violence and discrimination, the recognition that gender equality is a prerequisite for achieving the SDGs, and the call for “transformative actions.”
In other words: without a coherent, intersectional and feminist economic lens applied across the board, these commitments risk becoming lip service.
Fiscal justice: strong foundations, but gaps remain
Fiscal policy is a cornerstone of any just economic system. Encouragingly, the draft includes several commitments that point in the right direction—but they don’t yet go far enough. It contains important commitments to progressive taxation and inclusive international tax cooperation. Notably, it references the ongoing negotiations at the UN for a Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, and calls for taxing high-net-worth individuals and strengthening tax transparency.
However, the draft fails to reference participation as a core principle in fiscal policy making. It weakens previous commitments on tax expenditures, which are too often harmful giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. And while it mentions the role of civil society and the media in exposing illicit financial flows, it doesn’t go far enough in creating structured, meaningful spaces for rights holders to shape fiscal policy.
If fiscal policy is to serve rights and justice, it must be democratic—and grounded in human rights obligations. That means reining in corporate giveaways, prioritizing redistribution, and making space for affected communities to influence decisions.
Debt justice: a glimmer of possibility
Fiscal justice cannot be achieved without tackling the debt crisis head-on. The burden of unsustainable debt continues to limit public investment and entrench inequality—especially in the Global South. The draft makes some welcome moves: it calls for a new expert working group on responsible borrowing, and opens the door to a multilateral sovereign debt mechanism—potentially a game-changer.
But real transformation demands more. What’s needed is a statutory debt workout mechanism within the UN, independent of creditor interests, and anchored in human rights. There’s also a strong case for a public credit rating agency and a Global South debtors’ club—tools that would shift power and level the playing field in negotiations. These are gaining traction among some Global South governments during the preparatory committee work leading up to Seville.
Current references to the G20 and IMF are troubling; these are creditor-dominated spaces with long records of imposing austerity and marginalizing Global South voices. For a truly just solution, we need independent, rights-aligned frameworks—designed for people, not profit.
Climate justice: scaling up equitable and accountable finance
The climate crisis intersects with all aspects of financing for development. Without scaled-up, just, and accountable climate finance, any vision of sustainable development remains out of reach. The draft recognizes the urgency of scaling up finance through non-debt instruments and references just and equitable transitions. Importantly, it commits to increasing contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund—a key demand from Global South movements. These commitments are in line with some of our recent recommendations on how to align climate finance with existing human rights’ commitments.
Nonetheless, it shies away from more radical and necessary moves: like explicitly recognizing the need for climate reparations, and clearly aligning climate finance with historical responsibility. It also weakens earlier language linking fiscal policy to environmental goals—changing “must include” to “may consider.”
Without stronger accountability and more binding commitments, climate finance will continue to fall short—not just in quantity, but in justice.
What now? A call to action
The gaps in the First Draft are serious—but they’re not inevitable. With enough pressure, ambition, and coordination, civil society can still shape the outcome. FfD4 is a rare chance to push for a financial system that truly puts people and the planet first.
Civil society organizations working on human rights, gender justice, climate, health, education, labor, and beyond all have a stake in this process. Whether or not you’ve previously engaged with FfD, this is the time to get involved—because this is where the rules of the global economy are being written.
We must push governments to:
-
Anchor all commitments in human rights obligations
-
Mainstream feminist and intersectional approaches across all sectors
-
Create truly inclusive, participatory spaces for civil society—especially from the Global South
-
Prioritize progressive taxation and rein in harmful tax breaks, while ending Illicit Financial Flows and tax abuse
-
Establish an independent, UN-based debt workout mechanism and credit rating
-
Commit to climate justice and reparations, not just green finance
-
Hold the private sector accountable to the public interest
If we miss this moment, the cost will—as always—be borne by those who can least afford it.