The 4th Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) has been riddled with plethora of issues during its process—closed-door negotiations excluding civil society; member states blocking majority of reform demands especially from the Global South; and the United States walking out during the adoption of the Compromiso de Sevilla document.
Together with the broader civil society, the Reality of Aid – Asia Pacific remains apprehensive on the essence of Compromiso de Sevilla as a norm-setting document which will compel member states and other development actors to mobilize development financing for the poor and marginalized. We share our disappointment after the adoption of the document as it still falls short on including the demands of communities to better reflect their struggles and needs. Ten years after the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the adoption of Compromiso de Sevilla seems anti-climactic and lacks the genuine reforms and progress everyone is expecting it to uphold. Let us have a quick rundown on what the new document hits and misses.
HIT
Inclusion of development effectiveness
The section on International Development Cooperation (IDC) gives emphasis on the strengthening of the effectiveness of development cooperation, highlighting its core principles of focus on results, country ownership, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and accountability.
A revitalized Development Cooperation Forum (DCF)
Revitalizing DCF opens up to more opportunities to explore the possibilities of this platform in strengthening development effectiveness. The document explicitly says that it will take into account the works of other platforms such as the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. Although specific points of action remain unclear, this could further expand the influence of such platforms.
MISSED
Debt justice not found
In a very controversial move, some member states, particularly from the European Union, backed out at the last minute in including the progressive reforms in the debt architecture in the final document. The UN Convention on Sovereign Debt is still yet to be included as a mechanism toward achieving debt justice for the global South. Debts incurred by developing countries will continue to be paid (no mentions of debt cancellations), and such debt reforms in the document were under the guise of debt management that would not do much.
Too much IFI reliance
An overwhelming reliance on multilateral banks, especially the infamous austerity-culprit International Monetary Fund-World Bank, was outlined in the document, not just to mobilize development financing, but also to manage and scramble for new forms of investments in filling the so-called financing gap. Under the debt and sustainability section, IMF-WB is included in a working group that will consolidate “set of voluntary guiding principles on responsible sovereign borrowing and lending,” despite the bank’s culpability in the ongoing debt crises faced by developing countries.
Development cooperation in peril
Despite inclusion of development effectiveness principles, the document still struggles to point out how to make aid effective. The proposal for a UN-led Convention on International Development Cooperation which aims to democratize the governance of development cooperation was not included in the document. Even acknowledgment of the narrative of reparations and the recognition of unmet aid over the past decades unfortunately fell through during the negotiations.
Private finance in spotlight
The word “private” in the document was mentioned more than 50 times (e.g. private creditors, private sector, private finance, private investments etc.) in the Compromiso de Sevilla—a stark reminder of how this document embraces privatization as a core modality to mobilize, deliver, and scale up development financing. While the word “public” on the other hand was almost equally present, a few searches could lead to how it is always tied to anything that is private (e.g. public-private partnership, public and private finance, etc.).
“Business as usual” international financial architecture
Reforms were diluted into mere encouragements and acknowledgments of possible action areas which suggests minimum, voluntary reforms to the international financial architecture. International financial institutions are prompted to recalibrate their own governance and structures (revisiting voting and quota systems, regular reviews in diversity hires, etc.) instead of being compelled to adhere to a UN-led intergovernmental process that will comprehensively review the policies and mandates of these IFIs.
Gender justice remains bleak
There lacks concrete actions in the document regarding mainstreaming gender equality in policies and systems across all actors and channels of development financing. Gender justice is diluted, and the overall document lacks protective measures to risks because of the lack of genuine reforms that could potentially give more voices to women and ensure that investments in development would not be detrimental to women’s rights.
Long overdue tax justice
Those who witnessed the negotiations during the Addis Ababa Financing Development Conference in 2015 shared how the UN Tax Convention was sidelined at the last minute. Ten years later, the progressive convention which was hoped to change the sphere of global tax systems remains dismissed. To make matters worse, the document opens up risks of maintaining a skewed tax system in favor of rich countries and at the expense of developing countries.