View previous stories
	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
	A call for transformative leadership in a fractured world by C20, C7, ICRICT, GCAP, agencies   Aug. 2025   G20 President South Africa launches G20 expert committee to focus on extreme wealth inequality.   The G20 Presidency of South Africa today launched a new “Committee of Independent Experts” – commissioned by the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, and chaired by Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz – to deliver the first ever-report on global inequality to G20 to world leaders.   The Committee is launched amid fears that global wealth and income inequality, which was already very high, is set to sharply accelerate.   Recent analysis shows that the world’s richest 1 percent have increased their wealth by more than US$33.9 trillion in real terms since 2015 – more than enough to eliminate annual global poverty 22 times over.   Inequality of this scale poses a serious systemic risk to global economic, social and political progress.   The President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa:   “People across the world know how extreme inequality undermines their dignity and chance for a better future. They saw the brutal unfairness of vaccine apartheid, where millions in the Global South were denied the vaccines to save them.   They see the impacts of rising food and energy prices, of debt, of trade wars, all driving this growing gap between the rich and the rest of the world, undermining progress and economic dynamism. A new oligarchy in our global economy is becoming apparent.   “South Africa’s G20 Presidency is proud to launch an initiative that will target this issue of global wealth inequality – a first for the G20 – and offer practical ways going forward. We are honored to host a group of the world’s most respected economic experts, led by Professor Stiglitz, to produce a report that will be being presented to G20 Leaders.   Professor Joseph Stiglitz (USA), Nobel Economics Prize Laureate:   “Inequality has widened to extremes that threaten democracy itself and should be a concern of all of us; the profound rise in the discontent over mismanaged globalisation which in many places has contributed to this growth of inequality is also evident. Inequality was always a choice – and G20 nations have the power to choose a different path, on a range of economic and social policies".   “The wealth of scholarship on the causes of, and ways of reducing, inequality, can help us to redress the great divide that has grown enormously in recent years. Our task must now be to translate the evidence and public’s palpable anger at the great divide into sound, practical and transformative policy proposals.   * G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality Final Report: http://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202511/g20-global-inequality-report-full-and-summary.pdf   * Joint Civil Society call urging President Ramaphosa to Confront Extreme Inequality at the G20: http://gi-escr.org/en/our-work/on-the-ground/joint-letter-urging-president-ramaphosa-to-confront-extreme-inequality-at-the-g20 http://gcap.global/news/gcap-and-global-south-civil-society-urge-g20-to-draw-a-red-line-on-billionaire-era-demand-action-on-debt-and-tax-justice/   July 2025   A Tax Victory for Multinationals Over People, by Joseph E. Stiglitz , José Antonio Ocampo, and Jayati Ghosh for the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. (Project Syndicate)   Once again, G7 governments have decided to put the interests of multinationals ahead of the interests of developing countries, small and medium-size businesses, and their own citizens, this time by exempting US multinationals from the global minimum corporate tax agreed in 2021. The US must not be allowed to dictate global policy.   The US Treasury just made a deal with the other G7 countries that global minimum taxes that were already agreed upon will not apply to American companies. The G7 governments caved under intense pressure from President Donald Trump and lobbying from multinationals in Washington, London, Brussels, and beyond – just as India, and now, sadly, Canada have caved on digital taxation.   Years ago, the international community recognized that too many global companies were not paying their fair share of taxes, and some weren’t paying taxes to the country where the economic activity actually occurs. The complex agreement that emerged in 2021 at the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting comprised two pillars; only Pillar Two, a global minimum corporate tax, has been adopted. (The other pillar allocated taxation rights among countries and spurred opposition from both developing countries and the US.)   While there has been a global consensus on the need for such a minimum, the version the United States adopted during Trump’s first presidential term was different, and weaker, than that of the rest of the world, allowing multinationals to “make up” for what they didn’t pay in tax havens with the “extra” they paid in the US or other high-tax jurisdictions. While far from perfect, Pillar Two was a first attempt to ensure a minimum tax rate of 15% on the profits of multinationals everywhere, a crucial step to end harmful tax competition between countries.   There were, of course, some carve-outs and exemptions, which lowered the effective rate somewhat below 15%. And the 15% rate was already lower than the rate imposed by many developing countries; it should have been higher, and the carve-outs smaller. Still, the Pillar Two deal halted the race to the bottom, whereby countries offered lower tax rates to attract businesses to their jurisdictions. For the world as a whole, this race didn’t generate much new investment; the real winners were the rich corporations who pocketed the savings from paying almost no taxes at all in some countries.   But once again, G7 governments have decided to put multinationals’ interests ahead of the interests of developing countries, small and medium-size businesses (which can’t avail themselves of the shenanigans that multinationals have found so profitable), and their own citizens – who, as a consequence, will pay higher taxes.   By exempting US multinationals from Pillar Two, this deal will allow some to continue to benefit from zero or near-zero taxes on profits they book in low-tax jurisdictions or tax havens such as Puerto Rico and the Cayman Islands. This will make them more competitive than non-US multinationals.   Because modern multinational corporations are willing to move their nominal headquarters to wherever they get the most favorable tax treatment (and other goodies), with the real economic activity occurring elsewhere, giving US companies preferential treatment incentivizes companies to move their official headquarters to the US. This is another sad example of a race to the bottom.   By acceding to US demands, the G7 deal risks undermining the worldwide implementation of the minimum tax. It also makes a mockery of the inclusiveness of the so-called OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework.   There was a pretense that the new global framework was crafted by more than 140 countries working together. To be sure, many developing countries complained this was an unfair agreement for them and that powerful countries did not listen to their concerns. Now that façade has crumbled. The non-G7 countries, including dozens of emerging markets and developing countries, are now being asked to rubber-stamp a decision imposed on them by just one country.   Pillar Two should be strengthened, not gutted. It currently applies only to large multinationals (with a global turnover at or above €750 million), and the global minimum tax rate of 15% is set very low. The Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation has always advocated a minimum rate of at least 25%.   According to some estimates, Pillar Two’s minimum tax would have yielded between $155 and $192 billion annually in additional global corporate income tax revenue. While this is a significant amount, a minimum rate of 25% could generate more than $500 billion a year in additional revenue. In a world facing converging crises of inequality, climate change, and underfunded public services, leaving such substantial resources on the table is fiscally irresponsible and morally indefensible.   Pillar Two represented a starting point – a global floor on corporate taxation that could have curbed the race to the bottom and restored some degree of tax justice. The G7’s decision to let US multinationals off the hook weakens even that modest floor and sends the wrong message to the rest of the world.   Just two weeks ago at the United Nations, there was a global consensus about the need to strengthen international tax cooperation and to implement progressive tax systems, and a large majority of countries voted for and support ongoing negotiations toward a UN framework convention on international tax cooperation.   But the US government recently walked away from the UN negotiations, stating that the goals of the proposed UN convention “are inconsistent with US priorities and represent an unwelcome overreach.” In the adoption of the “Compromiso de Sevilla,” the outcome document of this week’s UN Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), the US was the only major country that was absent.   Allowing the US to bypass the already modest Pillar Two rules not only undermines multilateralism; it also flies in the face of the commitments that have been made, and further deepens the inequity in global tax governance.   The members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework should reject the deal made at the G7. The US must not be allowed to dictate global policy. It is powerful, but still represents less than 20% of global GDP. Countries meeting in Seville for FfD4 can either accept the US undermining every effort to ensure multinationals pay their fair share, or redouble efforts to create a new international tax system at the UN that works for all. For the sake of the world economy and people everywhere, they should do the latter.   * Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics is a University Professor at Columbia University, and Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. Jose Antonio Ocampo, a former United Nations under-secretary-general is a professor at Columbia University, and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation; Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.   http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/g7-caved-to-us-on-global-minimum-corporate-tax-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-et-al-2025-06 http://www.icrict.com/corporate-taxation/countries-must-stand-up-against-trump-bullying/ http://www.icrict.com/corporate-taxation/the-compromiso-de-sevilla-a-hope-for-tax-justice-now-governments-must-deliver/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/02/fair-and-effective-tax-policies-needed-advance-economic-social-and-cultural   June 2025   Civil 7 Reaction to the 2025 G7 Leaders’ Summit under Canadian leadership:   Civil 7 (Global Civil Society) regrets the G7 leaders Summit fell short of the ambition and unity needed to meet today’s global challenges.   The Summit unfolded against a backdrop of intensifying humanitarian need, a rapidly changing climate, democratic backsliding, and deepening inequality.   The C7 had urged G7 leaders to embrace a justice-centered agenda grounded in international law, equity, human rights, and multilateral cooperation. What emerged instead was a patchwork of statements that failed to confront the structural crises facing people and planet.   While we welcome calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and protection of civilians in the Middle East, the absence of strong commitments to restore humanitarian access and uphold international humanitarian law is deeply troubling. Furthermore, in light of the recent military escalations involving Iran and Israel, we call on the G7 to assume a balanced and principled role in de-escalating tensions through diplomacy. The path to lasting peace lies in impartial mediation and a steadfast commitment to dialogue over confrontation. Support for peace must be universal, not selective.   The G7’s reaffirmed support for Ukraine and its opposition to transnational repression are important signals in defence of international law and civic space. However, silence on other urgent contexts, including Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Myanmar, Yemen, ignores the needs of millions facing displacement, violence, and hunger.   Development cooperation was notably absent failing to respond to shrinking aid budgets and growing global need. This is not fiscal prudence. It is a strategic failure that undermines global stability and ignores the transformative potential of bold, people-centered partnerships.   The reference to debt relief lacked specificity and ambition. With many countries facing or nearing debt distress, the G7 must champion structural reform of the international financial architecture and support unconditional debt cancellation. The C7 reiterates its call for a permanent sovereign debt workout mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations.   G7 cooperation with the Global South must move beyond resource extraction and geopolitical competition. It must prioritize equitable value chains, decent work, gender equity, and meaningful economic autonomy to ensure trade and investments uphold, rather than undermine, development, climate, and human rights goals.   Moreover, the G7 Critical Mineral Action Plan should not undermine the needs and interests of the Indigenous Peoples and lands in source countries and should support development of value chains which allow communities in the source countries to benefit fairly from their resources and build their own green and sustainable energy economies.   There was a notable lack of dialogue and commitments on gender equality and the protection and promotion of women’s rights. At a time when the rights of women and LGBTQI+ people are being rolled back in many parts of the world, this is very disappointing. Given the clear links between progress on gender equality and progress on peace, security and sustainable economies, this is a missed opportunity.   On climate, the gap between rhetoric and action remains wide. While the G7 acknowledged wildfire and environmental management, it failed to present a credible roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, scale up climate finance, or meet existing commitments. The C7 calls on G7 countries to end fossil fuel subsidies, contribute new and additional finance to the Loss and Damage Fund, and increase funding for adaptation, especially for the most vulnerable communities.   We welcome the G7’s recognition of Indigenous leadership, particularly in wildfire response and the Critical Minerals Action Plan. However, such inclusion must be part of broader commitments to upholding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, alongside  environmental justice.   The C7 urges G7 leaders to translate political will into action on fossil fuel phaseout, tax justice, debt relief, trade equity, and humanitarian action.   Civil society is not on the sidelines.  We are at the heart of real, people-powered solutions. We stand ready to work with those who lead with courage and principle. We call on leaders to uphold the values of justice, equity, and multilateral solidarity.   http://civil7.org/en/civil-7-reaction-to-the-2025-g7-leaders-summit http://www.bond.org.uk/news/2025/06/the-g7-leaders-summit-our-verdict/ http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/biggest-ever-aid-cut-g7-members-death-sentence-millions-people-says-oxfam http://www.careinternational.org.uk/news-stories/care-response-global-report-food-crises-2025/ http://civil7.org/c7-2025-communique-global-justice-together-web.pdf   Dec. 2024   A call for transformative leadership in a fractured world. (C20)   South Africa’s G20 Presidency begun in December, with only 12% of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG targets) on track and significant backsliding on more than 30%.   As we write this today, there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift and practical solutions for a progressive, people-centred, and development-driven agenda in a fractured global landscape that needs collective healing.   This sense of urgency was pinned down at the recent G20 Summit in Brasil, where South Africa assumed the Presidency amidst calls from global civil society at the Civil20 (C20) Summit to address today’s most pressing challenges: climate change, gender inequality, social inequalities, economic injustice and attacks on civic space.   This year, the Brasilian Association of NGOs (Abong), chaired the C20, amplifying the demands of social movements and civil society for global justice, highlighting the importance of gender in public policies, anti-racist economies, climate justice, the fight against hunger and the urgent need for a reform of international governance.   “Civil society is not merely a participant; it is a driving force for justice, equity, and sustainability. Without our voices at the table, solutions risk being incomplete, inequitable, and disconnected from the realities of the most vulnerable,” says Henrique Frota, Executive Director of Abong.   Yet, while the G20 leaders addressed major global crises, from climate change to economic inequities, the voices of those most affected by these challenges—grassroots movements, communities that have been historically marginalised, and civil society actors—still struggle to resonate within the halls of power.   In fact, gaps persist in ambition and action, exposing a troubling disconnect between commitments made in international forums and the lived realities of citizens from across the globe.   Civil Society as Equal Partners: Moving Beyond Symbolism   The G20 Rio de Janeiro Declaration, emphasizes inclusivity and acknowledges civil society’s role , but it omits the issue of shrinking civic space in many member countries.   The G20 should adopt concrete measures to protect civic freedoms and support CSOs in challenging environments. Futhermore, while the Declaration noted the inclusion of civil society groups in dialogues like the G20 Social Summit, it stopped short of guaranteeing institutionalised access for CSOs.   Aoi Horiuchi, Senior Advocacy Officer at the Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) shared that despite opportunities for C20 to meet, decision-makers and submit recommendations, “access is still limited”.   The meeting with President Lula happened just days before the Leaders’ Summit. He emphasizes, “civil society as an official stakeholder group, should have access to all preparatory meetings and have space for speaking up. To truly “leave no one behind”, we need to maintain the momentum and push for more progressive policies on taxing and economic justice.”   Meaningful engagement with civil society cannot be an afterthought. Governments must ensure that civil society has the autonomy, resources, and protected spaces necessary to contribute fully to global governance processes.   Expanding civic engagement is crucial, especially at the national level. Data shows that 87% of the global population lives in countries where civic freedoms are restricted.   As we approach the first G20 Summit on the African continent in 2025, “breaking silos, shifting power, and amplifying Global South movements must become central priorities for global governance reform,” says Anselmo Lee, Lead from the Asia Civil Society Partnership for Sustainable Development.   “We must move beyond a purely event-driven approach and establish clear, systematic mechanisms for reviewing decisions and ensuring their effective implementation,” adds Harsh Jaitli, Chief Executive Officer of the Voluntary Action Network India (VANI). Over the years, along with other national platforms, VANI has worked towards strengthening the voice of civil society in this space.   Inequality and Systemic Change: Missing the Mark   The Declaration rightly identified inequality as a root cause of global challenges but failed to propose bold measures to dismantle the structures that sustain the giant inequality pyramid.   The creation of the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty is a step forward. Specifically on access to food, the declaration identifies hunger as a pressing global issue, affecting over 733 million people in 2023, and emphasizes the G20’s commitment to eradicating hunger. The vague language and lack of binding commitments undermine these efforts. Specific timelines and accountability frameworks are missing.   We need clear action to address inequalities and extreme wealth concentration, fair financing and reforms of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and public development banks (PDBs) to provide financing that directly benefits marginalised communities and an increase in support to local actions, notably investing in community-driven solutions that prioritise equity and sustainability.   In the narratives and the actions, there is insufficient detail on the mobilization of resources for grassroots and community-led initiatives, a critical element of Forus’s advocacy for inclusive and sustainable financing.   Policy Coherence: Balancing the Scales and Building a Holistic Approach to Sustainability   While the G20 Declaration highlighted policy coherence as essential for achieving the SDGs, it leans heavily on private sector-driven solutions. Blended finance and private capital mobilization dominated the agenda, sidelining civil society and community-led initiatives and reinforcing the systemic inequities that perpetuate inequality.   A just and sustainable world cannot be achieved through fragmented efforts. Instead, a holistic approach that leverages the collective expertise and experiences of all stakeholders, public, private, and civil society. From a CSO perspective, a critical gap persists in aligning economic growth objectives with environmental, social, and human rights priorities. Without such alignment, conflicting objectives risk perpetuating systemic inequalities and ecological harm, undermining the promise of the SDGs.   Moreover, the recent trend of certain governments, such as Argentina’s proposed withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, highlights a dangerous backslide from climate commitments and a disregard for sustainable development goals.   Gender Equality: From Rhetoric to Reality   The G20 Declaration’s recognition of gender equality and commitments to combating gender-based violence are important steps forward. However, the absence of concrete action plans undermines their potential impact.   Women and girls continue to face systemic barriers, including unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, as well as the pervasive threat of gender-based violence.   To achieve meaningful progress, policies must go beyond rhetoric and actively dismantle discriminatory norms while creating leadership opportunities for women across all sectors.   The C20 group, has emphasised the need to address exclusion in all its forms. Expanding spaces for groups that have historically been marginalised and ensuring their full, equal, and meaningful participation in governance processes is not only a matter of justice but also a prerequisite for the type of development that We want. This includes acknowledging the intersecting challenges faced by rural and Indigenous women and those experiencing multiple forms of discrimination.   “Beyond commitments, we need frameworks that address intersectional inequalities and create leadership opportunities for all women, including rural, Indigenous, and LGBTIQ+ communities,” says Alessandra Nilo, C20 Sherpa, Director of Gestos, Brasil.   Reforming Global Governance for a Just Future   The G20 Declaration acknowledges the urgent need to reform global governance systems to address the complex crises of our time—geopolitical tensions, economic inequities, and climate emergencies.   Commitments to the UN reform and enhancing transparency in global governance are promising. The emphasis on anti-corruption measures and progressive taxation aligns with civil society’s struggles.   A critical starting point is amplifying the voice of World Majority countries in global decision-making. The inclusion of the African Union as a full G20 member is a welcome development, signaling progress toward inclusivity. However, current power imbalances, where wealthier nations disproportionately influence global policy agendas, must be dismantled to ensure fairness and inclusivity.   As the G20, a premier global forum, assumes increasing responsibility for shaping the global agenda, it is imperative that it takes a strong stance on these issues and “shift powers”.   As the C20 Declaration reminds us, the solutions to today’s challenges lie in inclusive governance that empowers those most affected by global crises. We urge governments and G20 stakeholders to institutionalise civil society participation, prioritise rights-based solutions, and deliver on commitments to equity and sustainability.   By weaving together the principles of rights, equity, sustainability, and collaboration, we can begin to build a future where “no one is left behind” not just in theory but also in practice.   http://www.ipsnews.net/2024/12/south-africas-g20-presidency-call-transformative-leadership-fractured-world/ http://c20brasil.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/C20-Policy-Pack-2024_Digital.pdf http://t20brasil.org/en/communique http://www.t20brasil.org/en/pbs?nucleo_id=1 http://tinyurl.com/4tfzhzfs http://tinyurl.com/bdexbdhz http://tinyurl.com/nztatjtn http://www.ipsnews.net/2024/12/year-saw-world-repressed-civil-society-hope/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/13/nations-should-boldly-redefine-development-approach
	View more stories