UN Financing Conference in Seville: Multilateralism holds firm

During the UN Conference on Financing for Development in Seville (Spain, 30 June–3 July 2025), multilateralism withstood the crash test. A compromise was reached that aims to guarantee the Global South sufficient resources for its sustainable development.

To allow the Global South – formerly referred to as developing countries – to develop sustainably, money is needed, a great deal of money. But where should that money come from? Initially – before 2002 – discussions within the UN focused solely on ‘official development assistance’, commonly known as ODA. Issues related to financial, monetary, trade, and development policy were addressed in separate multilateral forums. However, these were often limited to a few countries or a narrow set of topics and frequently took place behind closed doors.
 

All financial flows as one whole

And that was far from efficient. After all, it was difficult to separate development aid funding from the global financial climate. That is why the very first International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD1) (Monterrey, Mexico, 2002) introduced a worldwide framework for development financing, based on mutual responsibility: on the one hand, all countries are responsible for their own development, but on the other hand, the international community ensures a favourable international economic climate.

This dynamic was continued during the Doha Conference (FFD2) in 2008. It reaffirmed the commitments made in Monterrey and introduced new principles, such as the integration of gender and environmental considerations into funding policies. It also acknowledged the need to reform international economic institutions.

Monterrey and Doha marked a shift in how we think about development financing: all financial flows would from then on be approached as one integrated whole. After all, there is much more than just ODA. The Global South can also draw on a range of other sources, including domestic tax revenues, foreign and domestic private investment, remittances—the money migrants send home—and trade income.
 

Weak follow-up

At the most recent financing conference (FFD3) in 2015 in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), participants sounded quite enthusiastic. That same year saw indeed the unexpectedly hopeful Paris Climate Agreement, while the international community embarked with optimism on the path of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a roadmap for a better world by 2030. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda mapped out a path towards financing sustainable development and accorded significant importance to, for example, multilateral development banks, the private sector, and the mobilisation of domestic resources (taxation).

But unfortunately, FFD3 failed to develop a solid follow-up mechanism or devise the necessary tools to actually implement its conclusions. As a result, the outcomes remained poor. The only success was the integrated national financing frameworks (INFFs): national financing frameworks intended to ensure the funding of national plans for sustainable development.
 

A shortfall of 4 trillion dollars

Yet development costs have only increased. Since Addis Ababa, we have been living in a very different world, facing enormous challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, deepened inequality and significantly set back progress on the SDGs. In addition, climate disruption is now hitting much harder, and we are seeing more prolonged and costly conflicts.

The numbers speak for themselves. Today, the annual financing gap stands at $4 trillion – up from $2.5 trillion before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, that figure is put into perspective when compared to the global economic cost of ongoing wars, which amounted to $19 trillion in 2023.

The Global South makes its voice heard

It was precisely this situation that led the Global South to raise its voice more forcefully on financial matters. Moreover, many of the Least Developed Countries are burdened by an overwhelming debt load. In fact, the interest payments they must make are growing faster than what they can spend on education or healthcare.

The countries of the Global South are therefore demanding substantial concessions. They believe that Northern countries must honour their commitment to allocate 0.7% of their GDP to ODA and establish a new, efficient debt architecture that better reflects the current situation. In addition, the international financial architecture must better meet their need to build resilient societies.

But just at this moment, the EU countries have found themselves forced to cut their development budgets. The US is even strongly opposed to development cooperation, and for sure anything related to gender and climate action. Moreover, multilateralism—the willingness to seek solutions within an international framework—has been in deep crisis since the second term of US President Trump.
 

Negotiation under equals

A new fourth financing conference (FFD4) was therefore absolutely necessary, even though it began under extremely difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, the atmosphere in Seville (Spain, 30 June to 3 July 2025) proved to be very constructive. The participating countries understood that an agreement was essential; they ‘agreed to agree’.

In fact, prior to FFD4, the countries had already adopted a Compromiso de Sevilla. In a way, the withdrawal of the United States from the negotiations helped to accelerate consensus, as it allowed the remaining countries to work out an agreement among themselves without disruption.

So, the major success of Seville was that multilateralism survived the crash test! Negotiations also took place much more among equals, as true partners: the countries of the North, the Global South, and the emerging economies, that roughly correspond to the BRICS. They were far less divided into donors and recipients than at previous conferences.

Commitment with concessions

The Sevilla Commitment does not present a new agenda but builds upon the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. It contains more than 130 concrete innovative initiatives to tackle the debt crisis in poor countries, to strengthen the voice of the Global South in global financial decision-making and to better align public and private resources.

It aims to reduce the fragmentation of the international financial architecture and recognises the need to align more closely with the national priorities of individual countries. It wants to use ODA more as a lever to mobilise other sources of financing. Investments in tax administrations are also a key focus, enabling countries to improve domestic revenue collection. The private sector is likewise assigned a prominent role.

Naturally, it remains a compromise, so it cannot meet all the aspirations of the Global North and South. Belgium and the EU wanted to make better use of existing institutions and certainly not establish new bodies. In the end, however, they had to accept that an intergovernmental procedure at the UN level would be added to tackle the debt issue, despite the existence of a well-functioning common framework for debt restructuring under the G20. The climate aspects have also received less attention than hoped.

On the other hand, Belgium and the EU were determined not to take on any additional financial commitments, in order to avoid raising expectations and causing frustration. So, the Global South did not obtain that.

While the slogan ‘from billions to trillions’ raised unrealistic expectations in 2015, the debate in Seville has shifted towards a narrative focused on impact, effectiveness, and alignment with national priorities. Belgium has played a role in this evolution by advocating for improved aid efficiency and effectiveness, which is reflected in the Compromiso (see box).

All in all, the Sevilla Commitment remains a major victory. Most countries continue to recognise that cooperation and multilateralism are essential. 

Development financing, after all, is not just about the Global South; it concerns the entire world. The old donor–recipient relationships are rapidly eroding, and power dynamics are shifting—something the Sevilla Commitment also reflects. So, the Belgian delegation returned with renewed energy and determination!

The Seville Compromise is therefore an important step in terms of financing for development and the reform of the international financial architecture. It is now up to the international community to deliver on this commitment in favour of strengthened global solidarity and a more inclusive form of governance.