People's Stories Democracy
View previous stories

Climate Change is an Existential Threat to Humanity
by International Court of Justice, agencies
 
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, read out by the President of the Court, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, on Wednesday.
 
The UN’s principal judicial body ruled that States have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and act with due diligence and cooperation to fulfill this obligation.
 
This includes the obligation under the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
 
The Court further ruled that if States breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition and make full reparation depending on the circumstances.
 
UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the historic decision. "This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. “The world must respond.”
 
The case was “unlike any that have previously come before the court,” President of the International Court of Justice Judge Yuji Iwasawa said while reading the court’s unanimous advisory opinion outlining the legal obligations of United Nations member states with regard to climate change.
 
This case was not simply a “legal problem” but “concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet,” Iwasawa said.
 
“A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other; above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom at the individual social and political levels to change our habits and current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come”.
 
"Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court president Yuji Iwasawa said. "The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include … full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction."
 
The court added that a "sufficient direct and certain causal nexus" had to be shown "between the wrongful act and the injury".
 
The Court used Member States’ commitments to both environmental and human rights treaties to justify this decision. UN Member States are parties to a variety of environmental treaties, including ozone layer treaties, the Biodiversity Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and many more, which oblige them to protect the environment for people worldwide and for future generations.
 
The right to “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights,” since Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change.
 
In September 2021, the Pacific Island State of Vanuatu announced that it would seek an advisory opinion from the Court on climate change. This initiative was inspired by the youth group Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, which underscored the need to act to address climate change, particularly in small island States.
 
After the country gaind the support of other UN Member States, the UN General Assembly, on 29 March 2023, adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on two questions: (1) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the environment? and (2) What are the legal consequences for States under these obligations when they cause harm to the environment?
 
The ICJ ruling was welcomed by Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology & Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Management for the Republic of Vanuatu.
 
“Today’s ruling is a landmark opinion that confirms what we, vulnerable nations have been saying, and we’ve known for so long, that states do have legal obligations to act on climate change, and these obligations are guaranteed by international law. They’re guaranteed by human rights law, and they’re grounded in the duty to protect our environment, which we heard the court referred to so much,” Regenvanu said.
 
Mr Regenvanu hailed the court's decision as a "landmark milestone". "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time," he said. "Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the US's influence, along with the loss of climate finance and technology transfer, and the lack of climate ambition following the US's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, major polluters, past and present, cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed."
 
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu’s ICJ case, said the opinion meant that the “era where fossil fuel producers can freely produce and can argue that their climate policies are a matter of discretion—they’re free to decide on the climate policies—that era is over. We have entered an era of accountability, in which states can be held to account for their current emissions if they’re excessive but also for what they have failed to do in the past.”
 
Vishal Prasad, the director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and one of the students who initiated the case, said the advisory opinion would play a major role in holding polluters accountable.
 
"The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," he said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future."
 
ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said the climate "must be protected for present and future generations" and the adverse effect of a warming planet "may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life".
 
The detailed ICJ advisory opinion dealt with obligations of states under various climate conventions and treaties and humanitarian law. The court concluded that in terms of the climate agreements, state parties:
 
To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have an obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change.
 
Have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.
 
To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, have a duty to cooperate with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the convention. To the Kyoto Protocol must comply with applicable provisions of the protocol.
 
To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence in taking measures in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities capable of making an adequate contribution to achieving the temperature goal set out in the agreement.
 
To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive, nationally determined contributions, which, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
 
State parties to the Paris agreement have an obligation to pursue measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions.
 
State parties to the Paris agreement have obligations of adaptation and cooperation, including through technology and financial transfers, which must be performed in good faith.
 
In addition, the court was of the opinion that customary international law sets forth obligations for states to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
 
These obligations include the following:
 
States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
 
States have a duty to cooperate with each other in good faith to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, which requires sustained and continuous forms of cooperation by states when taking measures to prevent such harm.
 
State parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the ozone layer and to the protocol and to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete ozone layer and its Kigali amendment, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, have obligations under these treaties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
 
State parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to adopt measures to protect and preserve the marine environment, including from the adverse effects of climate change, and to cooperate in good faith.
 
However, the court did not end there; it was of the opinion that states have obligations under international human rights law and are required to take “measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.”
 
The court said a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was a precondition for exercising many human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to water, food and housing.
 
* ICJ Summary: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (7pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf
 
* ICJ complete advisory: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (140pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
 
http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1t/k1tey5ro2w http://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/press-releases http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?14459466/ICJ-advisory-opinion-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/global-international-court-of-justices-landmark-opinion-bolsters-fight-for-climate-justice-and-accountability/ http://blog.ucs.org/delta-merner/five-reasons-why-the-icj-climate-advisory-opinion-matters/ http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/world-s-highest-court-confirms-countries-must-act-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-in-a-once-in-a-generation-legal-decision/
 
http://earth.org/landmark-moment-for-climate-justice-reactions-pour-in-after-icj-delivers-historic-opinion-on-states-climate-change-obligations/ http://www.dw.com/en/worlds-top-court-says-healthy-environment-is-a-human-right/a-73373617 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/23/healthy-environment-is-a-human-right-top-un-court-rules http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/07/climate-change-existential-threat-to-humanity-says-icj/ http://www.ciel.org/project-update/advancing-climate-justice-at-the-icj/
 
http://www.sei.org/about-sei/press-room/production-gap-report-2025-press-release-2 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/johan-rockstrom-addresses-heads-of-state-during-united-nations-general-assembly-201cfailure-is-not-inevitable-it-is-a-choice201d http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone http://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ http://news.exeter.ac.uk/research/new-reality-as-world-reaches-first-climate-tipping-point/ http://global-tipping-points.org/ http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adv2906 http://forestdeclaration.org/resources/forest-declaration-assessment-2025/ http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/forests/banks-make-26-billion-in-a-decade-of-financing-deforesting-companies/ http://www.ipbes.net/nexus/media-release http://livingplanet.panda.org/
 
http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/ec12gc27-general-comment-no-27-2025-economic-social http://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-inputs-fossil-fuel-based-economy-and-human-rights http://globalcommonsalliance.org/news/new-research-reveals-path-to-prosperity-for-planet-and-people-if-earths-critical-resources-are-better-shared/ http://earth4all.life/news/causing-environmental-damage-should-be-a-criminal-offence-say-72-of-people-in-g20-countries-surveyed/
 
http://www.carbonbrief.org/un-five-reasons-why-switching-to-renewables-is-smart-economics http://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2025/06/banking-climate-chaos-global-banks-backslide-climate-commitments-amid-surge-fossil http://fossilfueltreaty.org/news http://clubmadrid.org/taxing-polluter-profits-a-call-for-fair-climate-finance/ http://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2025/06/who-should-pay-for-climate-damage-polluters-tax http://taxjustice.net/reports/reclaiming-tax-sovereignty-to-transform-global-climate-finance/ http://climatenetwork.org/2025/06/25/tax-justice-the-missing-element-on-the-road-to-belem/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/international-cooperation-on-fossil-fuel-levies-could-raise-billions-for-climate-finance http://tinyurl.com/mtnrb4s8 http://tinyurl.com/4knuumjp http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/75582/global-survey-finds-8-out-of-10-people-support-taxing-oil-and-gas-corporations-to-pay-for-climate-damages/
 
http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/luciano-lliuya-v-rwe-a-major-step-forward-for-climate-justice/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2025-snapshot/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/de-fossilising-economies-key-course-correction-climate-change-and-human http://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g25/070/22/pdf/g2507022.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/un-experts-hail-landmark-inter-american-court-opinion-states-extensive http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/07/15/the-right-to-a-healthy-environment-as-a-catalyst-for-urgent-and-ambitious-climate-action-at-the-iacthr/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/
 
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles http://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session57/advance-versions/A-HRC-57-30-AEV.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/crccgc26-general-comment-no-26-2023-childrens-rights http://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/human-rights-climate-change-and-the-role-of-geneva/ http://www.idea.int/stockholm-series-of-public-lectures-climate-change-democracy http://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/10/day-one-forum-human-rights-democracy-and-rule-law-climate-emergency-wake http://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/10/day-two-forum-human-rights-democracy-and-rule-law-human-rights-democracy


Visit the related web page
 

It's unacceptable that the richest & wealthiest contribute so little to international development
by UN News, OHCHR, Amnesty, UNICEF, agencies
 
‘Global solidarity benefits us all’: Spain makes the case for development funding. (UN News)
 
Eva Granados, Spanish Secretary of State for International Cooperation, insists that global solidarity is still alive, despite indications to the contrary. For decades, helping the least developed countries to develop has been seen as beneficial for the international community as a whole, as well as a duty of the countries with more resources.
 
However, this philosophy is being challenged by some wealthy nations, which have decided to reduce or even end funding for projects and initiatives designed to support the poorer countries of the Global South in their attempts to improve the living standards and wellbeing of their citizens.
 
Ahead of the fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, which takes place in Seville, Spain, between 30 June and 3 July, Ms. Granados told UN News that despite the uncertainty, many countries including hers still believe in the need for development financing and solidarity between nations.
 
UN News: Is development financing as we know it under threat?
 
Eva Granados: Development cooperation and global solidarity are not only beneficial for everyone, but also a political and moral duty.
 
It is true that, in the last year, there has been a reduction in official development aid, but this is not the case for all countries. Spain, for example, has increased its contribution to official development aid by 12 percent.
 
The philosophy behind development financing is certainly being challenged in some quarters, but this is the same kind of denialism that questions the need for policies calling for equality between men and women, or the reality of the climate crisis. There are many people making a lot of noise, but there are far more of us who believe in global solidarity. We have to explain, why this solidarity and this international cooperation matter.
 
I believe that all the peoples of the world have a duty to each other, and we need to counter these narratives; climate change is clearly affecting us all and solidarity between genders is beneficial to the whole of society.
 
In 2015, at a conference in Addis Ababa [which laid the groundwork for a landmark international agreement on financing], we talked about debt issues, international taxation, trade and research. It’s the job of those of us who are committed to development cooperation and financing for development to make this agenda evolve.
 
UN News: Why is it in the interests of richer countries like Spain to spend money on international development?
 
Eva Granados: In the case of Spain, international cooperation and global solidarity are part of our social contract. Cooperation and peaceful relations between the peoples of the world are included in our constitution, and setting aside a 0.7 percent contribution of our gross national income to international cooperation is inscribed in law.
 
And this benefits our country. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that, whilst the challenges were national, the solutions were global. Another example is climate change. The Mediterranean is heavily impacted, both on the European and African side. We have to cooperate and work in a coordinated manner, to form partnerships and to create global policies.
 
UN News: There is a $4 trillion annual gap in the funding needed for development and what is currently raised. Can this gap be bridged?
 
Eva Granados: The financing gap is large, but relatively speaking, €4 trillion is still only one percent of the financial transactions that take place annually. I think we have quite a few scenarios where it can be achieved.
 
If all donor countries contributed 0.7 percent of Gross National Income, we would barely meet 10 percent of the financing needs for development. This means that we have to do everything we can to attract investment, and work with the private sector.
 
We also have to help create global tax systems that distribute wealth and end the situation whereby two out of five citizens worldwide live in countries that spend more on debt servicing than on education or health services. It is unacceptable that the richest and wealthiest on the planet are contributing so little to international development. Super-rich people and large multinationals have to do more.
 
UN News: What results do you want to see coming out of this conference?
 
Eva Granados: These are uncertain times, but Seville is a ray of light for global solidarity. The countries represented at the conference are signalling that they believe in multilateralism.
 
The objective is to obtain more and better resources for sustainable development. We need to combine ambition with action. Just as in Addis Ababa, where we were able to reach agreement on a large number of issues, Seville is the time to put concrete issues on the table and bring together the political will of world leaders to reach agreements.
 
Seville is also a good time for us to set that viewpoint from the perspective of women. It is important that, in all the chapters of the document we are discussing, the needs of women are at the forefront.
 
And it is important that the final document includes a follow-up mechanism, so that countries can be held accountable on an annual basis for the commitments we reach, and a commitment from all Member States to contribute to official development aid.
 
http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165146 http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165196 http://social.desa.un.org/issues/poverty-eradication/news/equity-economic-security-for-all-and-solidarity-reaffirming-social http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/financing-only-inclusive-sustainable-and-participatory-development-says-un http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/global-financial-architecture-needs-urgent-reform-uphold-equality-and-human http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/international-solidarity-key-ensuring-corporate-social-responsibility http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/un-expert-urges-structural-reforms-bridge-north-south-divide-and-strengthen http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/06/17/statement-welcoming-the-final-draft-of-the-fourth-international-conference-on-financing-for-development-outcome-document-compromiso-de-sevilla/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/02/fair-and-effective-tax-policies-needed-advance-economic-social-and-cultural
 
http://www.ictd.ac/news/new-coalition-to-drive-reform-on-tax-expenditures-launches-at-ffd4-in-seville/ http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/plan-for-tackling-the-debt-development-crises-by-martin-guzman-et-al-2025-08 http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-poverty-reduction-demand-attention-not-fatalism-by-juan-manuel-santos-2025-10 http://www.bond.org.uk/news/2025/07/financing-for-development-conference-last-word-from-seville/ http://www.bond.org.uk/resources/power-in-perspectives-justice-solidarity-systemic-reform/ http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/civil-society-collective-statement-public-services http://www.eurodad.org/tags/topic_tax_justice http://www.eurodad.org/ffd4_job_not_yet_done http://globaltaxjustice.org/news/global-tax-justice-in-2025/
 
http://www.cesr.org/cautious-consensus-where-we-stand-on-the-compromiso-de-sevilla/ http://www.cesr.org/spain-and-brazils-call-to-tax-the-super-rich-can-shift-global-norms/ http://www.cesr.org/justice-is-now-civil-society-calls-for-reparative-climate-finance-for-africa/ http://www.cesr.org/reimagining-reparations-and-climate-finance-for-africas-future/ http://taxjustice.net/2025/09/24/why-climate-justice-needs-tax-sovereignty/ http://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/global-inequality-is-the-world-banks-elephant-in-the-room/ http://www.wiego.org/blog/tax-justice-social-protection-funding/
 
June 2025
 
Attacks on world order and global aid derailing decades of progress on poverty, warns UN poverty expert. (OHCHR)
 
Unprecedented cuts to global aid and intensifying attacks on multilateralism are undermining decades of progress in the fight against poverty, the UN’s poverty expert warned today.
 
“As countries turn their backs on international cooperation, we are witnessing a terrifying domino effect of cuts to global aid, with one country after the next announcing major reductions to their aid budgets,” said Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.
 
In his new report to the UN Human Rights Council, De Schutter urged governments attending next week’s Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) in Seville, Spain (30 June – 3 July), to prioritise financing social protection through wealth taxes, ‘solidarity levies’ and other innovative financing tools to prevent further backsliding.
 
“The world order that emerged from the horrors of the Second World War has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. In just a few short months, that progress has begun to wildly unravel,” the Special Rapporteur said.
 
“It is a sad reflection of our times that money once earmarked for life-saving development programmes are now being redirected to defence and military spending.”
 
Official development assistance fell in 2024 for the first time in six years, with predictions estimating a drop of almost 20% for 2025. In his report, the expert detailed how these cuts are hampering humanitarian assistance and deepening poverty, leaving vulnerable populations increasingly exposed to the intensifying climate crisis.
 
“It is a perfect storm: cuts to global aid as the climate crisis ramps up and wipes out people’s entire livelihoods and assets in mere minutes,” De Schutter said.
 
The Special Rapporteur called on governments meeting at FFD4 to adopt alternative financing mechanisms, including international tax reform and ‘solidarity levies’ on sectors such as transport and finance, managed through a Global Fund for Social Protection, to ensure long-term and predictable funding of social protection in the Global South.
 
“It is in countries that are least responsible for climate change that people have the worst access to social protection systems that could shield them from its impacts,” the expert said. “Over 90% of people in the world’s poorest countries lack any form of social protection whatsoever, leaving them entirely unprotected.”
 
The expert pointed to calculations he presented in advance of FFD4 demonstrating how the international community could raise US$759.6 billion a year — more than twice the amount required to provide the world’s 26 lowest-income countries with the essential healthcare and basic income security that would safeguard people in poverty from the impacts of climate change.
 
“Social protection is increasingly recognised as our greatest tool in the fight against poverty – and is proving just as powerful in protecting people in poverty from the climate disasters that are becoming part of their daily lives,” he said.
 
“By championing the financing of social protection, world leaders meeting at FFD4 would be taking a powerful stand against today’s deplorable attempts to upend the international order, ignore the climate crisis and abandon the world’s poorest people,” De Schutter said.
 
http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/attacks-world-order-and-global-aid-derailing-decades-progress-poverty-warns http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/03/12/joint-call-with-ituc-for-a-global-fund-for-social-protection-and-strengthened-international-commitments-at-ffd4/ http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/02/11/joint-statement-a-call-for-action-on-financing-social-protection/ http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/01/17/financing-social-protection-floors-contribution-of-the-special-rapporteur-to-ffd4/
 
Financing for Development Summit must address Social Dimensions, by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Isabel Ortiz. (IPS News)
 
The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) will bring world leaders together to forge a new international consensus on how to finance a better future for all. Yet, in practice, the first drafts of its outcome reveal a glaring omission: people.
 
Despite rhetoric about inclusivity, the drafts are strikingly weak on social issues, as if financing and macroeconomic policies exist in a vacuum, detached from the lives they impact.
 
This is not just an oversight—it’s a continuation of a decades-long mistake in economic policymaking, where abstract macroeconomic principles have been always prioritized over human welfare, inflicting suffering on billions.
 
“Must we starve our children to pay our debts?” asked Julius Nyerere, former president of Tanzania, in the 1980s. Today, 3.3. billion people live in countries that spend more on debt service than health and education, and 6.7 billion endure austerity cuts. For too long, neoliberal economic policies have treated people as an afterthought.
 
While trillions of dollars have been funneled to creditors and corporations, macroeconomic stability and debt service have been pursued at the expense of the poor and the shrinking middle and working classes.
 
In recent years, billions of lives were upended by budget cuts: reduced pensions and social protection benefits; lower salaries; less access to health and education; cuts to programs for women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities.
 
Labor and corporate regulations were dismantled in the name of growth, job security eroded, consumption taxes rose, increasing prices and further squeezing household incomes. It is hardly surprising that social discontent and political instability are increasing.
 
The FfD4 outcome risks perpetuating this terrible legacy. While drafts pay lip service to social issues, they generally fail to incorporate them in the recommendations of each of the main sections: domestic public finance; private finance; development cooperation; trade; debt; international financial architecture and systemic issues; science, technology, data and monitoring.
 
Notably, the main beneficiaries of the private finance section are foreign investors and corporations.
 
The time for excluding people is over. The FfD4 must put people at the center of its agenda to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and becoming irrelevant. Governments and international institutions must recognize that macroeconomic and financial decisions have profound social impacts—and act accordingly.
 
The final outcome should include commitments to:
 
1. Domestic public finance expenditures: Prioritize universal social protection or social security, quality education health, water, and other basic economic and social rights. Adequate financing for these priorities must be integrated into national development plans and budgets, with guarantees against retrogression or backsliding during crises, in accordance with human rights and labor standards.
 
Austerity cuts are not an option. Social insurance, a key element of social security, has its own funding mechanism, employers’ and workers’ contributions (so far ignored by the FfD4 drafts), that must be set at adequate levels, especially raising corporations’ contributions to make social security sustainable, combined with the formalization of workers in the informal economy to ensure decent jobs with social security, and expand coverage.
 
2. Domestic finance revenues: Introduce more progressive taxation with effective international tax cooperation. Revenue raising is essential for social priorities but should not rely on taxation of those with lower incomes – such as consumption tax – but on those with the means – such as taxes on wealth, windfall profits and corporate income.
 
End loopholes by eliminating tax havens and illicit financial flows, as well as by adopting the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation to stop corporate tax dodging.
 
Gender-responsive budgets must be implemented to ensure that both revenues and expenditures accrue to women – half of the world’s population.
 
3. Private finance: Ringfence social infrastructure and services from private financing. Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) of public services have repeatedly failed, leading to higher costs, reduced access, and poorer services.
 
Public investment, not privatization, is the key to equitable and resilient social systems. Mandate human rights due diligence for private investors (binding rules, not voluntarism), with accountability, enforcing penalties for private actors that undermine labor/environmental standards.
 
4. Trade: Allow policy space to Global South countries to protect local industries and food sovereignty, and subject trade agreements to social impact assessments (SIAs) to evaluate their effects on employment, inequality, gender, and access to goods and services.
 
Abandon investor-state dispute systems (ISDS) that override public interest. Trade policies must maximize social benefits and mitigate adverse impacts.
 
5. Debt: Establish a fair and transparent UN debt workout mechanism to effectively reduce illicit sovereign debts and incorporating human rights into Debt Sustainability and Debt Restructuring Assessments, ensuring that debt service does not result in social spending cuts.
 
6. Technology: Tax Big-Tech and address the negative social impacts of Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as job displacement and wealth concentration. Adequate social protection measures must be enacted for those affected by job losses, and AI-driven profits must be taxed to redistribute benefits back to society.
 
7. International financial architecture: Reform the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to shift voting power to Global South and to end their support to austerity policies: The IMF as well as the MDBs must stop promoting regressive reforms and austerity measures that harm people.
 
Adjustment programs, as well as surveillance policy advice, often cut/rationalize necessary benefits for women, children, persons with disabilities, pensioners, and the unemployed, just for cost-savings, leaving only a minimal safety net for the poorest.
 
These measures violate human rights law, including labor standards, approved by all countries: the IMF and the MDBs should align themselves with them.
 
Additionally, a fairer and periodic distribution of IMF Special Drawing Rights should be allowed, without policy conditionalities, to fund human rights and sustainable development goals (SDGs).
 
8. Data, monitoring and follow-up: Strengthen data systems to assess the social impacts and distributional effects of financing policies. This includes disaggregated data by, at least, gender and income group. If analysis reveals that the majority of people are not the primary beneficiaries or that human rights are undermined, policies must be revised to ensure equitable development.
 
The FfD4 outcome is an opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past. Governments must recognize that financing for development is not just about balancing budgets or stabilizing economies —it’s about improving citizens’ lives. If the outcome document fails to prioritize social issues, it will not only betray the promise of the financing for development process but also perpetuate current systemic inequalities.
 
* Sakiko Fukuda-Parr is Professor of international Affairs at The New School in New York, is a former director at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice, and a former director of the International Labor Organization and UNICEF, and a former senior official at the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank.
 
http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/04/financing-financing-development-summit-must-address-social-dimensions/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/06/time-redesign-global-development-finance/ http://reliefweb.int/report/world/human-cost-public-sector-cuts-africa-april-2025 http://actionaid.org/publications/2025/human-cost-public-cuts-africa http://peopleoverprof.it/resources/publications/financing-a-public-future?id=15897&lang=en http://csoforffd.org/ http://csoforffd.org/conference/2025-conference/cs-forum/cs-forum-2025/ http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/new-wealth-top-1-surges-over-339-trillion-2015-enough-end-poverty-22-times-over http://www.oxfam.org/en/research/private-profit-public-power-financing-development-not-oligarchy http://www.equals.ink/p/want-to-end-poverty-then-reduce-inequality http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/26/un-financing-development-meeting-should-advance-tax-justice http://wid.world/world-wealth-tax-simulator/
 
http://www.icrict.com/corporate-taxation/the-compromiso-de-sevilla-a-hope-for-tax-justice-now-governments-must-deliver/ http://actionaid.org/news/2025/actionaid-warns-fate-millions-hangs-balance-governments-fail-deliver-finance-summit http://clubmadrid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Support-letter-Seville-conference-v2.pdf http://globaltaxjustice.org/news/from-monterrey-to-sevilla/ http://taxjustice.net/press/financial-secrecy-rocks-democracies-financial-secrecy-index-finds/ http://taxjustice.net/press/reassert-tax-sovereignty-to-unlock-trillions-for-climate-finance/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5851-understanding-landscape-climate-finance-debt-tax-and-illicit http://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-foreign-debt/annual-thematic-reports http://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2025/06/who-should-pay-for-climate-damage-polluters-tax/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27062025/bonn-climate-talks-roadblocks/ http://www.iied.org/time-reset-international-development-agenda-make-change-happen-podcast-episode-35 http://www.openglobalrights.org/the-future-of-global-economic-governance-a-rights-based-vision
 
http://www.srpoverty.org/2024/10/17/statement-international-financial-system-not-fit-for-purpose-to-address-catastrophic-debt-crisis-un-poverty-expert/ http://www.cesr.org/leading-voices-call-for-a-new-development-human-rights-centered-approach-to-sovereign-debt-at-paper-series-launch/ http://iej.org.za/category/resourcing-for-rights-realisation/resourcing-for-rights-realisation_debt-justice/ http://unfoundation.org/blog/post/to-create-a-sustainable-future-we-need-to-fix-our-global-financial-system-now/ http://humanitarianaction.info/ http://www.savethechildren.net/news/statement-global-aid-cant-run-empty-world-leaders-seville-conference-must-overhaul-failing http://reliefweb.int/report/world/investing-ending-hunger-and-malnutrition-fuels-human-development-and-security http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2025/02/asg-brands-kehris-current-international-debt-architecture-unfair http://www.icrict.com/presse/its-time-to-tax-power-icricts-message-at-the-vatican-with-pope-francis/ http://tinyurl.com/y45jmkdd
 
http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2025/march/20250320_debt-crisis http://debtjustice.org.uk/press-release/lower-income-country-debt-payments-hit-highest-level-in-30-years http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/01/developing-countries-choked-debt-year-breaking-free/ http://cafod.org.uk/campaign/the-new-debt-crisis http://www.bond.org.uk/press-releases/2025/06/over-80-charity-leaders-parliamentarians-economists-academics-and-campaigners-call-for-the-prime-minister-to-back-plans-to-tackle-the-debt-crisis-in-lower-income-countries/ http://www.eurodad.org/jubilee_2025_toolkit http://www.eurodad.org/news http://www.eurodad.org/g20_imf_world_bank_fail_debt_crisis
 
Apr. 2025
 
Rescuing the SDGs: Plenty of Resources, Lack of Will. (Amnesty International)
 
Years of underinvestment by all states mean the majority of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are way off track from their 2030 targets.
 
The Fourth Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in July 2025, provides an opportunity to both re-commit to the SDGs and ensure the resources are provided to achieve them.
 
“The Sustainable Development Goals represent a bold vision: a commitment to a better, healthier, safer and more prosperous and sustainable future. But the Goals are facing massive headwinds. More than 4 out of 5 SDG targets are off track. On top of the impacts from a global pandemic, many countries are being crushed by massive debt burdens, limited liquidity and sky-high borrowing costs. Conflicts, hunger, inequalities and the climate crisis are all intensifying. The world has the wealth, the technology, and the know-how to achieve the SDGs… there is no excuse.” - Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General
 
The world is beset by multiple crises including large scale humanitarian emergencies and increasing global inequality both between and within countries.
 
The impacts of the climate crisis are being felt across the planet often in those low-income countries which have contributed the least to the carbon emissions driving global warming.
 
The global rise of authoritarian practices is undermining previous commitments to multilateralism and international cooperation and eroding the potential for collective action towards a common good.
 
Yet precisely at this moment the world needs to come together to address these myriad disasters. Yet we are witnessing states reneging on their international human rights obligations and international commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
 
For example, the recent decisions by the USA and other governments to slash vitally needed international development assistance stands to have catastrophic consequences on human rights. Such retrenchment could not come at a worse time.
 
Years of underinvestment by all states mean the majority of the SDGs are way off track from their 2030 targets. For example, it is estimated that over 600 million people will still face hunger at the end of the decade, despite commitments by governments to ensure there is zero hunger by this date.
 
"Our failure to secure peace, to confront climate change and to boost international finance is undermining development. We must accelerate action for the Sustainable Development Goals and we don’t have a moment to lose.” - Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General
 
The 17 SDGs with their 169 targets were agreed by governments in 2015 to replace the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) with an implementation deadline of 2030. In aspiring to “leave nobody behind” their ambitious aims include eradicating poverty, ending world hunger, sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, and reducing inequality within and among countries.
 
All of these are inextricably linked to states’ human rights obligations to guarantee economic, social and cultural rights. In addition, the Goals, particularly through Goal 16, also address governance and related civil and political rights issues such as the rule of law, access to justice and freedom of information emphasizing the interdependence and indivisibility of all rights.
 
Yet two thirds of the way towards 2030, the SDGs are widely off track. At the mid-way point of the SDGs, in July 2023, the UN reported that progress on more than half of the SDGs was “weak and insufficient,” while for another 30% it had “stalled or gone into reverse”.
 
These include key targets on poverty, hunger and climate. According to the latest report by the UN Secretary General, in May 2024 only 17% of SDGs targets were on track to be achieved, nearly half were showing minimal or moderate progress, and progress on over a third had stalled or even regressed.
 
Based on these current trends, by 2030 over 585 million people will be chronically undernourished, 575 million people will still be living in extreme poverty, 84 million children will be out of school, 300 million attending school will leave unable to read and write and 660 million people will remain without electricity.
 
Despite their critical importance, it is not surprising that progress towards the SDGs has been so slow when recent estimates by the UN Agency for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) are that the annual SDG investment gap in low- and middle-income countries – from public and private sources – now stands at about US$4 trillion, compared to US$2.5 trillion before the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the deficit.
 
While a huge sum, according to research by UBS bank, this equates to less than 1% of the estimated total global private wealth of US$454 trillion – over 45% of which is controlled by the richest 1.1% of the world’s population.
 
“In the past, we had to cut food aid to people who were hungry but not yet starving. Now we’re forced to cut assistance even for those facing starvation. That means people will die.” - Carl Skau, UN World Food Programme Deputy Executive Director
 
Against this backdrop, the recent decisions of the US and other governments to significantly cut overseas development aid is particularly shocking.
 
In February 2025, the US government announced it would be cutting 83% of USAID contracts sending a shockwave through the humanitarian and aid world. In 2024, the US government spent US$59 bn in overseas aid. The UK government quickly followed suit by deciding in February to cut its overseas aid budget by £6.1 billion (US$7.9 billion) in order to increase defence spending, reducing its spending from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3% by 2027. France also slashed €2 billion (US$2.27 billion) of development aid from its 2025 budget while the outgoing German government had planned to cut €900 million (US$1.02 billion), though this has yet to be confirmed. Other governments that have either cut or planning to do so include Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.
 
The impact of those cuts that have been implemented is already putting the health and lives of millions of people in vulnerable situations across the world at risk.
 
The impact of hollowing out USAID has been particularly consequential given that the United States is historically the biggest donor of humanitarian aid by far, especially in terms of food provision.
 
The UN World Food Programme (WFP) has stated that cuts in its food aid to Somalia will push an estimated 4.4 million people into malnutrition because of drought, global inflation and conflict with many literally starving to death. The WFP has already had to halve food rations for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh with similar cuts for refugees in Kenya.
 
USAID cuts to HIV and AIDS programmes will also be devastating. UNAIDS estimates that globally by 2029, there could be 8.7 million people newly infected with HIV, a tenfold jump in AIDS-related deaths – to 6.3 million – and an additional 3.4 million children made orphans. It is estimated that the cuts could result in more than 500,000 deaths over the next 10 years in South Africa alone.
 
Beyond the impact of the HIV programme, funding for labs and emergency-response preparedness in more than 30 African countries has been affected by USAID cuts. Predictions based on a leaked internal USAID memo include 18 million more cases of malaria with 166,000 deaths and 200,000 children paralyzed with polio.
 
Such decisions by higher-income states are in breach of their obligations and commitments to provide international cooperation and assistance to other states to meet their own human rights obligations.
 
There are numerous options available to states and international financial institutions to significantly scale up funding and unlock greater investment where it is most needed to tackle global poverty, meet climate goals and progress the SDGs. These funds, if unlocked, must be accompanied by robust means of distribution to ensure that they are accessed by those countries most in need of support.
 
Meeting existing commitments would be a start. States have long committed to providing 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) for Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), including 0.15% - 0.2% of GNI to least developed countries (LDCs), as stated in the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda and elsewhere. If donor states met their ODA commitments, they would generate at least an additional US$197 billion aid assistance, between US$120.9 billion and US$150 billion of which would be destined for least developed countries.
 
Of course, while meeting ODA commitments is essential, there are other opportunities available to have an even greater impact. Pursuing measures to promote alternative sources of finance would be critical in reducing countries’ dependence on increasingly precarious and unpredictable ODA flows.
 
Debt relief, including cancellation and restructuring, is critical to enable lower-income countries to meet their social spending needs and related SDG targets. Many low-income countries continue to experience unsustainable levels of debt, with 48 countries spending more on debt repayments than on health and education.
 
The Debt Relief for a Green and Inclusive Recovery (DRGR) Project estimates that public and private creditors should grant debt relief of up to US$ 520 billion to 61 countries in or at risk of debt distress, in order to achieve debt sustainability.
 
There is a precedent for this as in 2000, following the Jubilee Debt Campaign, debts of US$130 billion were cancelled for 36 countries in debt distress.
 
Civil society organizations advocate for a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt to address some of the systemic drivers of unsustainable debt. The Convention could provide for transparency, predictability, efficiency and cooperation among all countries around debt sustainability ensuring human rights are considered as primary over debt servicing.
 
Similar to debt relief in terms of providing liquidity, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued special drawing rights (SDRs), an international reserve asset to supplement member countries’ official reserves. It last did so during the Covid-19 pandemic.
 
However, SDR allocations are currently distributed to IMF member countries relative to their IMF quotas, which are based on the relative size of their economies rather than need. Most of the 2021 allocation went to high-income countries, while just US$2 billion (3.2%) went to lower-income countries.
 
There have been multiple calls to issue SDRs annually and to allocate them more fairly. The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty uses O’Hare and Hall’s estimates that US$175 billion of SDRs would have been allocated to low-income countries if distribution had been weighted by both population and need in 2021.
 
Significant amounts of money could also be generated to finance the SDGs from eliminating illicit financial flows which cost states US$492 billion annually - US$347.6 billion of which is lost to multinational corporations shifting profits to underpay taxes, while US$144.8 billion is lost to wealthy individuals hiding their wealth offshore. Nearly half of these tax losses are enabled by just eight countries opposed to a UN Tax Convention (Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, UK and USA).
 
In doing so, these states are violating their extra-territorial obligations to enable other states to generate the resources required to realize the human rights of their populations and meet the SDGs as well as undermining their own tax bases.
 
The world’s richest continue to benefit from inadequate taxation of their wealth and calls have been made including by members of the G20 for a wealth tax of 2% on the net wealth of billionaires and centimillionaires (wealth measured in US dollars). If this were to be realized, economist Gabriel Zucman estimates that between US$300 billion and US$390 billion could be generated annually.
 
Similarly, significant amounts to finance the SDGs could be generated if states were to tax windfall profits – one-off taxes on companies or industries when economic conditions result in large, unexpected profits for those businesses.
 
In 2022, for example, Oxfam and ActionAid estimated that US$941 billion in revenue could have been generated from taxes on the windfall profits of 722 mega-corporations.
 
Given that the above tax measures would disproportionately generate revenues in higher-income countries, they would have to be accompanied by robust revenue-sharing mechanisms to ensure investment in low- and middle-income countries.
 
In terms of climate finance, states at COP29 agreed to provide only US$300 billion annually towards climate action, despite civil society groups and lower-income countries advocating for a target of US$1.3 trillion – based on assessments of what is required.
 
Yet in addition to ODA, taxes and debt relief, there are other sources of finance available that are incompatible with the SDGs. Investments in fossil fuel industries from the world’s 60 biggest banks for instance totaled US$705.8 billion in 2023. These investments clearly breach the aim to phase out fossil fuels and SDGs 7, 13, 14 and 15 related to affordable clean energy, climate action, life below water and life on land respectively.
 
Were such levels of finance invested in clean energy, it could have a major positive impact.
 
Similarly, explicit subsidies by governments to fossil fuel producers comprised US$1.3 trillion in 2022. Such subsidies include, for example, tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, which boost the fossil fuel economy and decrease government tax revenue.
 
States should phase out fossil fuel subsidies, with due attention to ensure social protection for those subsidies that help lower income communities to afford energy and heat. They must conduct periodic reviews of revenues foregone by governments as a result of subsidies and of the justifications for their continued use including by applying human rights impact assessments to evaluate any continued use.
 
While there will never be one single solution to close the climate and SDG financing gaps, there are many options available that states can and must commit to.
 
The SDGs acknowledge the responsibilities for all states as well as institutions (Goal 16) towards achieving inclusive, equitable and sustainable development. In relation to global economic reform, creditors, corporates, international financial institutions and states have duties and responsibilities. These actors should stop facilitating tax losses including through tax competition or illicit financial flows among others.
 
It is crucial that the SDGs and their respective targets are fully aligned with relevant human rights law and standards. Both are designed to be universal and to provide the same socio-economic guarantees to everybody regardless of status or circumstances.
 
This is reflected in the fact that the SDGs explicitly state they "seek to realize the human rights of all", with more than 90% of the targets directly reflecting elements of international human rights and labour law and standards.
 
Fundamental human rights principles such as good governance, accountability, rule of law, transparency, participation, inclusion, equality are critical for successful SDGs implementation.
 
At the same time, the legally binding nature of human rights law and standards, and their supervisory systems can help to fill accountability gaps in SDG implementation and monitoring whilst conversely, the SDGs framework is an important means by which human rights can be realized.
 
Options exist to generate and allocate significantly greater resources to rescue the SDGs and avoid further climate breakdown. There is an immediate need to reverse cuts in ODA and meet longstanding aid commitments, as well as an imperative to advance reforms that would provide much greater and more sustainable forms of finance to states.
 
The FFD4 Summit provides an opportunity for states to act in line with their existing binding human rights obligations and demonstrate the political will necessary to translate these obligations into concrete action.
 
The final outcome document should clearly delineate the responsibilities of developed countries with regard to public financial resources, namely that they provide finance to developing countries as per their previous ODA and climate finance commitments and legal obligations.
 
In relation to progress towards enhanced international tax cooperation, the outcome document needs to respond to the diverse needs, priorities and capacities of all middle- and low-income countries.
 
Finally, there is need for strengthened mechanisms for monitoring and follow up of the FfD4 national and global commitments in order to ensure sustained progress on financing for inclusive, participatory and sustainable development.
 
In order to rescue the SDGs and address the climate crisis, States must:
 
Defend aid – the US and other governments should reverse cuts to aid budgets, and abide by commitments to allocate 0.7% of GNI to ODA. Tax the net wealth of billionaires and centimillionaires and windfall profits of companies, investing the revenues in poverty reduction, guaranteeing public services and climate finance.
 
Provide debt relief including consideration of debt restructuring and/or cancellation for countries in or at risk of debt distress. Support a robust UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and a UN Framework Convention on sovereign debt.
 
Redirect subsidies of fossil fuels towards investment in clean energy. Phase out investments in fossil fuel industries and invest adequately in a just transition. Support the issuance of SDRs based on needs instead of IMF quotas.
 
http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/un-expert-urges-states-finance-inclusive-and-sustainable-development-not-war http://gcap.global/news/we-stand-with-billions-not-billionaires-cancel-the-debt-change-the-system http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/01/17/financing-social-protection-floors-contribution-of-the-special-rapporteur-to-ffd4/ http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/14-billion-children-globally-missing-out-basic-social-protection-according-latest http://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/a-new-era-for-social-protection/
 
Apr. 2025
 
UN expert urges States to finance inclusive and sustainable development, not a war economy. (OHCHR)
 
Time is running out to save the financing of the sustainable development agenda, an independent human rights expert warned today, calling on world leaders to seize the opportunity at the upcoming 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) to act decisively to address multiple challenges.
 
“Instead of funding a war economy, States should invest in people and the planet by financing sustainable development, including to end poverty and hunger, reduce inequalities, eliminate child labour, take climate action, and promote peaceful, inclusive and just societies,” said Surya Deva, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to development.
 
As negotiations preceding the 2025 ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development and the Fourth Preparatory Committee for the FfD4 unfold, the expert issued a Negotiation Brief, outlining key considerations that should underpin negotiations of the outcome document.
 
“The right to development provides a transformative pathway to overcome key existing challenges to financing for development. It is time for States to use principles of fair distribution, intersectionality, self-determination, intergenerational equity, international cooperation and disarmament to leave no one behind,” the expert said.
 
Many countries, especially Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), face large funding gaps, aggravated by heavy debt burdens, trade barriers, declining Official Development Assistance (ODA), good governance gaps, unfair international financial architecture, and corporate tax avoidance and evasions.
 
“It is important that States mobilise financing not for any kind of development, but for inclusive, participatory and sustainable development,” Deva said. “States should reinforce the nexus between the three UN pillars of peace and security, sustainable development and human rights in the outcome document. And, since women and girls comprise about half of the world’s population, the FfD4 outcome document should mainstream achieving substantive gender equality as an overarching goal.”
 
The Special Rapporteur also stressed the need for the FfD4 outcome document to address the unsustainable debt burden of developing countries by invoking a range of measures such as debt swaps for climate action, long-term concessional loans, grants and debt service suspension during disasters. Steps should also be taken to reduce the high cost of borrowing faced by developing countries.
 
In his Brief, Deva has suggested several other measures to facilitate access to affordable, safe and green technologies, leverage additional innovative sources of financing, strengthen good governance and reform international financial architecture.
 
“Developed countries must work together for a more targeted, coordinated and efficient ODA process and honour the commitment to provide ODA of 0.7 per cent of gross national income (GNI) to developing countries and 0.15-0.20 per cent of GNI to LDCs,” the expert said.
 
http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/un-expert-urges-states-finance-inclusive-and-sustainable-development-not-war


 
View more stories
Submit a Story Search by keyword and country Guestbook