View previous stories
	Accelerate progress towards quality public services for everyone, wherever they live by PSI, Forus, GI-ESCR, ICRICT, NYU, agencies   June 2025   Financing a Public Future - A Collective Statement for UN Public Services Day - 23rd June 2025. On the eve of the 4th UN Financing for Development Conference   Less than one fifth of the sustainable development goal targets set a decade ago are presently on track for achievement in 2030 and a major cause of this is the continued chronic underfunding of public services around the world.   Three quarters of lower income countries spend more on debt servicing than on health, and half of these countries spend more on paying back wealthy creditors than they spend on education.   Unfair global tax and trade rules facilitate a continuing flow of urgently needed resources out of the Global South. Meanwhile, the default policy of the IMF is still to impose austerity, cutting spending on public services and thereby undermining the struggle against poverty and inequality. But all this can and must change.   This year, UN Public Services Day falls just a week ahead of the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4). This United Nations meeting is being hosted in Seville - a city closely associated with European colonisation of the Americas - and ironically offers the best chance in a generation to overhaul and decolonise the global financial architecture. This is essential if states are to reverse decades of cuts and start fully funding universal, equitable, gender-transformative public services.   With 54 countries now facing a debt crisis, it is clear that massive debt cancellation is urgently needed if countries are to invest in quality public services. Equally, in this Jubilee year, whilst debt cancellation is necessary, it is not enough. Over US$ 100 billion in debts were cancelled in 2005, but with no changes agreed to the unjust finance system that caused the crisis, most lower income countries today find themselves facing a new, more acute crisis.   So, 2025 must be the year in which the international architecture around debt is transformed through establishing a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt, developing new global agreements around responsible lending and borrowing, and moving the power over debt away from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to a representative UN body.   This transformation of the debt architecture is essential if countries are to have the resources to transform public services.   Thankfully, overhauling the global debt system is a core demand of both African nations and the Civil Society Financing for Development mechanism at the FFD4 conference - but it is being blocked by wealthy countries and private creditors that profit from the injustices of the present system.   The climate crisis adds urgency to the case for fundamental reform of the financing architecture, in order for countries to invest in universal public services as a core part of a just transition. It is now clear that the debt crisis and climate crisis are inter-connected, with indebted countries forced to earn foreign currencies quickly and thus compelled to invest in fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture - the two biggest causes of the climate crisis.   On the other hand, the countries that are most vulnerable to the climate crisis are considered ‘high-risk’ for investment and so are charged higher interest rates on loans (especially after climate-induced disasters), accelerating the likelihood and scale of debt crises. But we urgently need to look at the bigger picture of debt and ask, who owes who?   The latest analysis shows that high-emitting wealthy countries in the Global North owe a huge climate debt to lower income countries, for having appropriated the atmospheric commons (polluting the planet and triggering the climate crisis). Unfortunately, there is no credible global architecture to enforce the paying of these climate debts - which are vastly larger than the brutally enforced external debts owed by all lower-income countries.   This must change, with a reform to the global architecture and a commitment from rich countries to deliver climate finance to pay these climate debts - which must come in the form of grants (not loans to already indebted countries) - with a commitment to support a just transition based on public systems that are publicly financed.   At the apex of the present unjust financial architecture lies the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which perpetuates a global economic order that has empowered multinational corporations, creditors and wealthy nations, while locking lower-income countries into vicious and self-perpetuating cycles of debt and dependency.   It is estimated that for every US$1 that the IMF has encouraged governments to spend on public services, it has told them to cut six times more through austerity measures. The IMF’s modus operandi was established during the discredited Structural Adjustment Programmes of the 1980s, when it imposed severe austerity on public spending in nations that had taken loans. Many of these countries had only recently gained independence from the same creditor countries that control the IMF.   Today, the rhetoric has changed, but the IMF continues to pursue its austerity agenda in practice, leading to repeated cuts and freezes to public sector wage bills, even in countries with desperate shortages of frontline public sector workers. With public services left underfunded, governments are being persistently pressured into commercialisation, privatisation and asymmetrical Public-Private Partnerships that put profit over people.   Part of the system transformation that is needed to transform public services relates to tax justice. Ambitious and progressive tax reforms are urgently required at the global, national and local levels. Tax base erosion, profit shifting, and tax evasion prevent governments, and those in the Global South in particular, from mobilising domestic revenue that is crucial to fund public services sustainably.   For global decision-making on tax to be equitable and enable countries to adopt progressive tax reforms at the domestic level, it needs to move away from the democratic shortcomings of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). For 60 years, the OECD has set global tax rules, representing the interests of rich countries, particularly corporations and rich individuals.   Following successful advocacy by African nations at the UN General Assembly, there is now an agreement to develop a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, which can establish a more transparent, equitable and accountable global tax governance system that will benefit all nations. We fully support accelerated progress on this convention and must ensure that the FFD4 conference does not undermine this existing process in any way.   We also support the need to build on the historic leadership of Brazil in the G20 last year which placed wealth taxation of super-rich individuals so powerfully on the global agenda.   In 2025, we are seeing huge cuts in aid budgets, from the US, the UK and many European nations, alongside increased spending on the military. Rich countries seem to want to isolate themselves rather than build bridges.   Meanwhile, it has become ever clearer that the private sector can not and will not fill the gaps. The "billions to trillions" approach, which aimed to leverage public finance to unlock private investment in developing countries, has been largely unsuccessful, and was denounced recently even by the World Bank's Chief Economist.   What is urgently needed is robust public regulation of private actors and a strong, accountable state that leads in financing and providing quality public services. Again, this adds urgency to the need for global reforms to push back on debt injustice, tax injustice and austerity as the foundation for building States that can respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Domestic political will and national action will always be needed, but in the present unjust global system, even progressive governments struggle to finance universal public services.   Thankfully, there is renewed global momentum around the case for public finance and public services. In late 2022, over a thousand representatives from over one hundred countries gathered in Chile under the banner of ‘Our Future is Public’. The Santiago Declaration for Public Services laid out a collective agenda from trade unions, organisations and movements working on a wide range of public services, including education, health, care, energy, food and nutrition, housing, water, transportation and social security.   We raised our voice against commercialisation and privatisation that harm rights, recognising that these have driven growing inequalities and injustices. We collectively critiqued the colonial structures and mindsets that continue to drive the chronic underfunding of public services. And we condemned the current international financial architecture that keeps the vast majority of the world’s population living in poverty.   The FFD Summit must commit to a new social compact that ensures a global finance system that prioritises people and the planet over profit, and that enables member states to deliver universal public services and social security for all.   We reiterate that there are clear alternatives to the status quo, many of which are laid out in the Global Manifesto for Public Services, the related Manifesto on Rebuilding the Social Organisation of Care, and Our Future is Public: Energy Democracy Declaration. We call for their realisation and the overhaul of the outdated international financial system.   On this United Nations Public Services Day, we join forces again to reiterate our demand for a future that is public. In Seville, we need governments to be bold in agreeing on an outcome document that will truly transform the unjust financing architecture so that we can accelerate progress towards quality public services for everyone, wherever they live.   http://peopleoverprof.it/resources/publications/financing-a-public-future?id=15897&lang=en http://csoforffd.org/   June 2025   Financing alternatives to budget cuts to invest in universal social protection and public services for all. (Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors)   Today, 3.3. billion people live in countries that spend more on debt service than health and education, and 6.7 billion endure austerity budget cuts. For too long, 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 or fiscal consolidation: 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. However, such measures have not led to their intended consequences of growth or economic stability, quite the contrary as we see rising discontent and protest and slow growth and economic transformation.   Evidence also shows that IMF loan conditionalities and surveillance policy advice, as well as loans from the MDBs shows that they include austerity measures, and other policies such as liberalisation and deregulation of labor markets, privatisation or commercialization of public services, and even expansion of fossil fuel sectors to generate growth and tax revenue.   Excessive debt burdens hamper countries' capacities to invest not only in much needed public services but also in climate adaptation and resilience. In this context, there is a need to rethink economic policy away from the proposed policies of budget cuts, and to promote alternative policy proposals that require a greater extent of collective political will to change the structures of the Global Financial Architecture (GFA).   The good news is that austerity budget cuts or fiscal consolidation are not inevitable, there are financing alternatives. Instead of cutting public expenditures, governments can increase revenues to finance universal social protection and public services. There are at least nine financing alternatives, available even in the poorest countries. These many fiscal space financing options are supported by policy statements of the UN and the IFIs, and have been implemented by governments around the world for years.   These include: increasing progressive tax revenues; restructuring/eliminating debt; eliminating illicit financial flows; increasing social security contributions and coverage, including adequate corporate contributions and formalizing workers in the informal economy with decent contracts; using fiscal and foreign exchange reserve; re-allocating public expenditures, increasing ODA and transfers, and, at the international level, new Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) allocations. There are very positive examples from many countries using these different funding possibilities for universal social protection and public services for all.   The FfD process has promoted many of these alternatives and made commitments, but these commitments need to be followed through in Sevilla and made actionable and time-bound in terms of commitments. There is a need fto support the reform of the tax architecture at the United Nations, to ensure strong financial transparency of beneficial owners, global asset registries and country by country reporting of corporates on a public record to end Illicit Financial Flows.   We also welcome commitments on progressive taxation and taxing high net-worth individuals, and promoting budgeting and taxation that is gender responsive, these are important normative steps towards building workable alternatives to budget cuts.   It is essential that governments explore all financing options to ensure people’s welfare and 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.   Social insurance, a key element of social security, has its own funding mechanism, employers’ and workers’ contributions, 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. Gender-responsive budgets and taxation must be implemented to ensure that both revenues and expenditures accrue to women – half of the world’s population.   Fiscal space need not be strained during economic downturns if these reforms were to be implemented, as currently public budgets are limited in many countries because governments have not explored all possible financing sources. Budget cuts are not a an external factor, but they are ultimately a deliberate decision by both governments who implement them, as well as also international organisations who promote them over workable alternatives.   In times of a rising inequality and a climate emergency, the need to create fiscal space has never been greater. It is imperative that governments explore all possible financing alternatives to promote inclusive development, realize human rights and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).   Speakers: Ms. Attiya Waris, UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and Human Rights; Ms. Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice, former Director at ILO and UNICEF; Mr. Matti Kohonen, Director, Financial Transparency Coalition; Ms. Antonia Wulff, Director of Research, Education International; Ms. Faides TembaTemba, Country Director, ActionAid Zambia.   http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/2025/06/gcspf-e-newsletter-119-june-2025-edition-ffd4/ http://www.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Statement-on-the-Compromiso-de-Sevilla http://gi-escr.org/en/our-work/on-the-ground/delivering-public-services-demands-global-economic-reform http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:10170/Tax_systems_and_policy.pdf http://economicjustice.global/ http://www.brot-fuer-die-welt.de/fileadmin/mediapool/downloads/fachpublikationen/analyse/Analysis_110_Change_Course_Now.pdf   The richest 5% in Africa hold more than double the combined wealth of the remaining 95% of the continent’s population. (Oxfam)   Today, just four of Africa’s richest billionaires hold $57.4 billion in wealth — more than the combined wealth of 750 million people, or half the continent’s population, according to a new Oxfam report.   The report – Africa’s inequality crisis and the rise of the super-rich – launched ahead of the African Union Mid-Year Coordination Meeting in Equatorial Guinea, warns that the explosive concentration of wealth is accelerating inequality, driven by policies that enrich elites while starving public services.   Fati N’Zi-Hassane, Director, Oxfam in Africa, said:   “Africa’s wealth is not missing. It’s being siphoned off by a rigged system that allows a small elite to amass vast fortunes while denying hundreds of millions even the most basic services. This is an utter policy failure —unjust, avoidable and entirely reversible."   Africa is one of the most unequal regions in the world and has some of the highest poverty rates. Nearly half (23) of the world’s 50 most unequal countries are African, while extreme poverty has soared: seven in ten people living in extreme poverty today are in Africa, compared to just one in ten in 1990. Hunger is also worsening, with nearly 850 million Africans experiencing hunger.   Despite deepening poverty and widening inequalities, African governments remain the least committed globally to narrowing the gap — slashing budgets for public services like education, health and social protection, while imposing some of the world’s lowest wealth taxes on the ultra-rich.   On average, the continent collects just 0.3% of GDP in wealth taxes. This is less than any other region and well below Asia (0.6%), Latin America (0.9%), and OECD countries (1.8%). Over the past decade, that already meagre share has dropped by nearly 25%.   For each dollar African countries raise from personal income and wealth taxes, they collect nearly three dollars from indirect taxes like Value Added Tax (VAT) — levies that deepen inequality.   The consequences are glaring. The richest 5% in Africa now hold nearly $4 trillion in wealth, more than double the combined wealth of the remaining 95% of the continent’s population. Over the past five years, African billionaires have increased their wealth by 56%.   “The solution is not far-fetched: tax the rich and invest in the majority. Anything less is a betrayal. If African leaders are serious about their commitments, they must stop rewarding the few and start building economies that work for everyone,” added N’Zi-Hassane.   Some African governments are already proving that fairer economies are possible. Morocco and South Africa collect 1.5% and 1.2% of their GDP from property taxes, respectively — among the highest in the continent. In Seychelles, the poorest 50% have seen their income share grow by 76% since 2000, while the richest 1% have lost two-thirds of theirs. The government also guarantees universal healthcare, free quality education, along with a robust welfare system for the most vulnerable.   A modest tax on Africa’s richest - just 1% more on wealth and 10% more on income – could generate $66 billion a year for the continent (2.29% of Africa’s GDP), according to the report. This would be more than enough to close the funding gaps needed to deliver free quality education and provide electricity to every home and business still in the dark.   "Every African woman, man and child deserves to live in dignity. When a handful of billionaires are allowed to hoard obscene wealth while millions are trapped in poverty, the system becomes not just broken but morally bankrupt. As leaders meet for AU Summit, delay is indefensible. Taxing the super-rich isn’t just fair — it’s essential for building the Africa we want," said N’Zi-Hassane.   “The solution is not far-fetched: tax the rich and invest in the majority. Anything less is a betrayal. If African leaders are serious about their commitments, they must stop rewarding the few and start building economies that work for everyone,” added N’Zi-Hassane.   Some African governments are already proving that fairer economies are possible. Morocco and South Africa collect 1.5% and 1.2% of their GDP from property taxes, respectively — among the highest in the continent. In Seychelles, the poorest 50% have seen their income share grow by 76% since 2000, while the richest 1% have lost two-thirds of theirs. The government also guarantees universal healthcare, free quality education, along with a robust welfare system for the most vulnerable.   A modest tax on Africa’s richest - just 1% more on wealth and 10% more on income – could generate $66 billion a year for the continent (2.29% of Africa’s GDP), according to the report. This would be more than enough to close the funding gaps needed to deliver free quality education and provide electricity to every home and business still in the dark.   "Every African woman, man and child deserves to live in dignity. When a handful of billionaires are allowed to hoard obscene wealth while millions are trapped in poverty, the system becomes not just broken but morally bankrupt. As leaders meet for AU Summit, delay is indefensible. Taxing the super-rich isn’t just fair — it’s essential for building the Africa we want," said N’Zi-Hassane.   http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/africas-richest-four-hold-more-wealth-half-continent-oxfam http://www.oxfam.org/en/research/africas-inequality-crisis-and-rise-super-rich http://www.icij.org/investigations/2025/07/the-world-bank-set-out-to-transform-health-care-for-the-poor-in-africa-it-drove-patients-deeper-into-poverty/   Feb. 2025   Africa and Latin America engage in Dialogue on Tax and Debt Justice to tackle Inequalities at the the Finance for Development Summit (FfD4).   On February 11, in New York City, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR); Oxfam Mexico; CESR; ICRICT and the Center for International Cooperation of the New York University (NYU) convened a high-level discussion under the title "Bringing the Fight Against Inequality to FfD4 Discussions: How to Achieve Tax and Debt Justice”.   The event brought together representatives from Latin America and Africa, and explored the critical need to advance on progressive fiscal reforms to address global inequality, focusing on fair taxation, sovereign debt restructuring and economic justice.   Notwithstanding an explicit pushback against multilateralism derived from recent political changes, critical global negotiations regarding the financing of economic, social and cultural rights in the Global South are unfolding in parallel: the 4th Financing for Development Conference and the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.   Given this complex scenario, as eloquently highlighted by Poliana Garcia, Project Coordinator for International Tax Cooperation at Brazil’s Ministry of Finance, enhancing the articulation between African and Latin American States through the common understanding of shared priorities, realities and negotiating strategies is now more urgent than ever.   Without a unified strategy, international negotiations risk continuing to favour wealthier nations, marginalizing developing economies and deepening global financial imbalances.   A shared diagnosis between all panelists was based on the need to strengthen States’ fiscal space to guarantee the funding of transformative public policy to tackle inequalities.   In that regard, two main issues emerged as the most significant regional threats undermining the financial capacity of African and Latin American States to achieve sustainable development: regressive fiscal systems in the case of Latin America and the existential threat that the unsustainable debt crises poses upon African nations.   Regarding the first point, many developing countries have tax systems that rely heavily on income and consumption taxes, disproportionately burdening lower-income populations, while the wealthiest contribute relatively little.   As emphasized by Alexandra Haas, Executive Director of Oxfam Mexico, taxing both income and wealth is essential to generate revenue and to counteract the influence of corporate power in shaping economic policies.   Without more equitable taxation, economic inequality will continue to widen, limiting governments’ ability to fund social protections and address urgent development imperatives.   Accordingly, an approach that is gaining traction is advancing the taxation of multinational corporations on the basis of their “significant economic presence”, a principle that would curb the practice of profit shifting, where corporations exploit legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes on the countries where they generate revenue and user engagement.   Such an initiative was explored by Dr. Jose Antonio Ocampo, Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT) and the UN International Commission of Experts on Financing for Development, who endorsed the establishment of a global asset registry to increase transparency and the reform of investment agreements to prevent corporations from using dispute settlement mechanisms to challenge progressive tax policies.   As to the issue of debt, as underscored by Dr. Agnes Mary Chimbiri-Molande, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Malawi to the UN, more than half of Africa’s population currently lives in countries where debt servicing costs exceed spending on critical sectors such as health and education. This has become an insurmountable obstacle hindering development in the region, with unsustainable repayment obligations diverting resources away from funding essential public services.   The current debt infrastructure also facilitates a massive transfer of resources from the Global South to the developed countries of the Global North, reinforcing pre existing structural inequalities rooted in historical injustices, including colonial-era financial arrangements and loans taken to address the consequences of climate change; crises largely driven by the actions of wealthier nations.   While tax justice measures could help alleviate debt repayment, speakers stressed that such efforts alone are insufficient; systemic reforms are needed to provide response to current debt crises and prevent repetition in the future.   One proposal is the establishment of a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt, which, in the view of its proponents, would provide a more neutral space for negotiations on debt restructuring, relief and accountability under the framework of a non-lender organization such as the United Nations.   Delving on the negotiating strategies to push this initiative forward, Ivo Miguel Rubio, First Secretary at Angola’s Permanent Mission to the UN, emphasized that building coalitions with high-income countries that support these changes is essential to advance on a fairer framework for debt resolution.   Jorge Murillo, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the UN, noted how advancing progressive fiscal reforms also requires breaking down the artificial divisions between tax justice, debt sustainability, climate finance and public service funding, ensuring that economic policies support broader development and human rights commitments rather than operating in isolation.   Panellists agreed upon the need to place people, not profits, at the center of development financing discussions.   In that regard, Jason Rosario Braganza, Executive Director of the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD) and CS FFD Mechanism, explored how non-concessional debt mechanisms, such as high interest loan provisions to the African region, have a direct impact on the material livelihoods of the most vulnerable due to the impacts of austerity measures.   Camila Barretto Maia, Acting Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR), highlighted the vital added value of integrating human rights obligations into these negotiations, particularly the maximum available resources provision and the international assistance and cooperation duties of developed countries.   These obligations are anchored in an established and binding normative framework that defines specific responsibilities on economic, social and cultural rights, serving as key reference for regulation and potential accountability.   Human rights are not aspirational goals but binding legal commitments that States have already agreed to uphold, and which are not subjected to changing geopolitical trends. The international financial system must therefore recognize that economic and fiscal policies should comply with existing human rights obligations.   While FfD4’s outcome, to be adopted in Seville in June, will not be the final word on these issues, it will set the course for future discussions, including the UN Tax Convention and the long-overdue reform of global debt governance.   As the world looks ahead to FfD4, one thing is clear: advancing progressive fiscal reforms and addressing the systemic injustices in global debt governance are the next essential steps in the fight against inequality.   The financial architecture must be restructured to ensure that economic policies serve people, rather than entrenching disparities that fuel poverty and exclusion.   http://giescr.org/en/our-work/on-the-ground/africa-and-latin-america-engage-in-dialogue-on-tax-and-debt-justice-to-tackle-inequalities-at-the-3rd-prep-com-for-ffd4 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.oxfamamerica.org/press/press-releases/in-january-billionaires-amassed-more-wealth-than-the-poorest-third-of-humanity-owns http://insideclimatenews.org/project/cashing-out/   Feb. 2025   Human rights, community leadership, environmental sustainability in financing decisions. (Forus, agencies)   More than 500 public development banks (PBDs) around the world play a major role in the global economy, accounting for more than 10% of annual world investment.   The coalition of civil society organisations issued a joint declaration during the Finance in Common Summit 2025 (26–28 February 2025 in Cape Town, South Africa).   Civil Society Declaration Finance In Common Summit (FiCS): Fostering Infrastructure and Finance for Just and Sustainable Growth - Cape Town, South Africa, 26-28 February 2025:   The confluence of rising inequality, debt crises, and the escalating climate emergency demands that Public Development Banks (PDBs) demonstrate genuine leadership in driving just, sustainable development. At this critical juncture, PDBs must move beyond rhetoric and commit to concrete, transformative actions, placing human rights, community leadership, and environmental sustainability at the core of all financing decisions.   Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) call on PDBs to embrace this responsibility and champion a new era of development finance.   PDBs, as publicly mandated institutions, should serve people, respect planetary boundaries, and ensure long-term benefits for communities and their environments. To achieve these goals, PDBs must uphold transparency, accountability, and meaningful engagement with civil society and communities to foster shared peace, freedom, and prosperity.   While some progress has been made by the Finance in Common (FiC) to increase engagement between PDBs and CSOs and emphasise human rights-based approaches, concerned communities must play their rightful role as a driving force in addressing global challenges.   Civil society and community representatives join forces at the 2025 Finance in Common Summit (FiCS) to amplify the voices of development experts in their own right: human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples, affected local communities, and other diverse civil society groups and networks, both present at FiCS and engaging remotely, to demonstrate the importance of community-led and human rights approaches in development.   The need for environmental and social safeguards, backed by international operational and human rights standards, is imperative. As extensions of state policy and actions, PDBs are also accountable under the Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligation principles (ETOs) as outlined in international human rights law.   We urge PDBs to ensure that energy transitions and development projects are community-centred, empowering those most affected to shape their future, and context-specific, championing community-led, local solutions and needs.   1. Strengthening Civic Space & PDB-CSO Engagement   Civic space continues to shrink globally, with only 40 out of 198 countries currently enjoying an open rating. The enabling environment for civil society continues to deteriorate, with restrictive legal frameworks, repression of human rights defenders, and financial constraints limiting civic engagement.   While FiCS has made some progress in fostering dialogue between PDBs and CSOs, critical gaps remain. PDBs must go beyond consultation and meaningfully integrate civil society perspectives in their governance, policies, and project cycles. PDBs have a duty to facilitate inclusive, transparent, and structured engagement with CSOs and affected communities.   In this context, we demand that FiCS immediately implement its commitment to structuring a meaningful, regular, systematic, and strategic dialogue between PDBs and CSOs..   2. Upholding Human Rights & Community-Led Development   Respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights must be a fundamental principle guiding all PDB operations. As publicly funded institutions, PDBs have a duty to ensure that their projects do not contribute to human rights violations but rather support the realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights for all.   Tragically, large-scale infrastructure and development projects financed by PDBs have too often led to forced displacement, environmental degradation, and the repression of human rights defenders advocating for their communities.   Stronger accountability mechanisms, greater transparency, and direct involvement of affected communities are necessary to ensure PDB investments advance sustainable, rights-based development. PDBs must ensure that human rights are at the heart of their operations, from project conception to evaluation..   3. Development Finance: A Call for Fundamental Reform   The current global financial architecture is failing to address the structural causes of poverty, inequality, and the climate crisis. It perpetuates a system that benefits wealthy nations at the expense of the global majority, hindering their ability to achieve sustainable development goals and respect human rights.   This system is characterised by insufficient public finance, crippling debt burdens, massive tax avoidance and illicit financial flows, and neoliberal policies that prioritise profit over people and the planet.   Fundamental reforms are urgently needed to create a fair and equitable global economic order. Public Development Banks (PDBs), with National Development Banks (NDBs) at their core, must play a leading role in mobilising public finance for transformative change.   This requires a shift away from extractive neoliberal policies towards a renewed global financing framework that prioritises human rights, environmental sustainability, and locally led development..   4. Climate Finance: A Call for Just Transition   Climate finance must be a tool for a just and sustainable future, not a mechanism that perpetuates inequality and environmental destruction.   Public Development Banks (PDBs) have a crucial role to play in shaping climate finance flows and championing a just transition based on the principles of "polluter pays" and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC).   The current system often reinforces inequalities through debt cycles and exclusion of communities from decision-making.   Fair, concessional, and equitable climate finance is essential to address the climate crisis, uplift communities, and create a pathway for justice-based development.   This requires a shift away from the growth-led development model towards a sustainable and equitable socio-economic paradigm, including recognising the right to remedy and reparations for affected communities.   A just transition must also provide access to electricity and resources for historically excluded communities. PDBs must establish a transformative approach to just transition with clear investment criteria and accountability mechanisms..   This declaration represents a unified call to action for PDBs to prioritise people, planet, and justice in all financing decisions. We demand accountability, transparency, and meaningful partnership with communities to ensure a just and sustainable future for all.   http://www.forus-international.org/en/pdf-detail/123822-finance-in-common-summit-2025-civil-society-declaration http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/02/civil-society-finance-common-summit-calls-community-led-equitable-human-rights-based-development/ http://rightsindevelopment.org/news/press-release-development-banks-fuel-repression-by-heavily-investing-in-countries-that-restrict-civic-freedoms/   * Human rights defenders worldwide are working to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In fact, they are integral to ensuring that the 17 Goals – which include ending poverty, reducing inequality and protecting the environment – become reality, says Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders:   http://news.un.org/en/audio/2024/10/1156006 http://docs.un.org/en/A/79/123 Visit the related web page
	Realising a fair and rights-based tax system by ICRICT, CESR, Tax Justice Network, agencies   Feb. 2025   Unpacking the first organizational session of the UN Tax Convention: progress towards a just global tax system, report from the Center for Economic and Social Rights   Countries reached key decision-making and tax dispute resolution agreements in the first round of organizational negotiations for a UN Tax Convention. A last-minute push by wealthier nations to secure de facto veto power was rejected, while civil society and Global South countries ensured that issues like illicit financial flows and taxing extreme wealth remained on the table. Meanwhile, the US isolated itself by walking away from the process as the rest of the world moved forward.   The first organizational session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the UN Tax Convention has concluded with significant progress toward just and inclusive global tax governance. Countries demonstrated flexibility in agreeing on decision-making rules and adopting two key protocols—particularly the second protocol on tax dispute prevention and resolution, which could provide significant relief for Global South countries burdened by costly tax disputes with multinational corporations.   While the United States walked out on day one, the rest of the world is moving forward. A last-minute attempt by France, Italy, Malta, the UK, and the Czech Republic to introduce decision-making by consensus—a move that would have effectively given veto power to wealthier nations—was defeated by a vote of 98 to 42.   Instead, decisions on the convention will be made by a simple majority, while decisions on protocols will require a two-thirds majority, ensuring a more democratic and balanced process.   The adoption of the second protocol on tax dispute prevention and resolution is very relevant, particularly for Global South countries that spend vast resources on costly tax disputes with multinational corporations.   While some critical issues—such as illicit financial flows (IFFs) and the taxation of high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs)—were not selected as protocol topics at this stage, Colombia and the Africa Group successfully pushed for language ensuring that these issues remain on the table for future discussions.   The first protocol, addressing taxation in the digital economy, is also a step forward in modernizing international tax rules. However, for CESR and many civil society organizations, the ultimate goal is a strong and ambitious UN Tax Convention—one that doesn’t just include these issues as optional protocols but enshrines them in its core commitments.   The United States’ decision to exit the negotiations is a significant miscalculation. As the Tax Justice Network put it, the US has scored its own goal by isolating itself while the rest of the world advances toward a more just and effective tax system. Their departure highlights the need for a genuinely multilateral process—one that does not cater to the interests of a handful of powerful nations but instead works for the rights and needs of all.   When rights, dignity, and diversity face growing resistance, establishing a strong UN Tax Framework Convention is more critical than ever. Around the world, we see increasing inequality, political retrenchment, and rhetoric that seeks to undermine the rights of disadvantaged communities.   However, the global response to these challenges is not passive. By securing a just international tax system, countries can unlock much-needed resources to invest in public services, social protections, and economic justice—foundations for a world that reinforces rights rather than erodes them.   As Dr. Maria Ron Balsera, CESR’s Executive Director, puts it: “The outcomes of the organizational session are a step in the right direction, but we must ensure the final UN Tax Framework Convention delivers real systemic change. That means creating tax rules that actively reduce inequalities, protect human rights, and end the corporate and high-networth individuals tax abuse that drains public resources from countries that need them most.”   The negotiations will continue, and their outcome will be critical. In a time of democratic backsliding and weakening commitments to fundamental freedoms, a fair and rights-based tax system is a powerful tool to push back against this erosion. The challenge now is ensuring that this process leads to a tax system that prioritizes equity, accountability, and human rights for all, not just for the wealthiest few.   http://www.cesr.org/unpacking-the-first-organizational-session-of-the-untc-progress-towards-a-just-global-tax-system/ http://www.icrict.com/corporate-taxation/icricts-statement-on-the-negotiation-of-a-un-framework-convention-on-international-tax-cooperation-un-fcitc/ http://www.icrict.com/ http://www.cesr.org/technical-note-aligning-tax-cooperation-with-human-rights-in-the-un-tax-convention/ http://globaltaxjustice.org/news/gatj-applauds-countries/ http://gi-escr.org/en/resources/publications/taxpayers-rights-and-the-un-tax-convention-addressing-the-weaponisation-of-privacy-and-confidentiality-to-reinstate-tax-transparency-in-favour-of-tax-justice http://www.cesr.org/joint-statement-its-time-for-the-oecd-to-walk-the-talk-on-human-rights/ http://www.cesr.org/resourcing-rights-how-tax-and-debt-negotiations-impact-the-enjoyment-of-human-rights/   http://taxjustice.net/press/world-losing-half-a-trillion-to-tax-abuse-largely-due-to-8-countries-blocking-un-tax-reform-annual-report-finds/ http://taxjustice.net/reports/taxing-extreme-wealth-what-countries-around-the-world-could-gain-from-progressive-wealth-taxes/ http://www.taxobservatory.eu/publication/profit-shifting-and-international-tax-reforms/ http://www.cgdev.org/blog/pens-parade-stratospheric-heights-inequality http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:10170/Tax_systems_and_policy.pdf   Jan 20, 2025   Trump signals exit from global corporate minimum tax deal. (Reuters, agencies)   U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday declared that a global corporate minimum tax deal "has no force or effect" in the U.S., effectively pulling America out of the landmark 2021 arrangement negotiated by the Biden administration with nearly 140 countries.   Trump, in a presidential memorandum issued hours after taking office, also ordered the U.S. Treasury to prepare options for "protective measures" against countries that have - or are likely to - put in place tax rules that "disproportionately affect American companies".   The European Union, Britain and other countries have adopted the 15% global corporate minimum tax, but the U.S. Congress never approved measures to bring the U.S. into compliance with it. The U.S. has a roughly 10% global minimum tax, part of Trump's 2017 tax cut package approved by Republicans.   But countries that have adopted the 15% global minimum tax may be in a position to collect a "top-up" tax from U.S. companies paying a lower rate. Trump's memo referred to such actions as "retaliatory."   "Because of the Global Tax Deal.. American companies may face retaliatory international tax regimes if the United States does not comply with foreign tax policy objectives," the memo reads. "This memorandum.. clarifies that the Global Tax Deal has no force or effect in the United States."   After years of stalled negotiations on global tax issues hosted by the Paris based-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to end competitive reductions in corporate tax rates, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen agreed to the deal in October 2021.   That 15% minimum tax rate is critical to try and minimise the impact of tactics designed to dodge paying tax in certain jurisdictions.   Another part of the OECD negotiations were aimed at a new arrangement to share taxing rights on large, profitable multinational companies with countries where their products are sold, including American technology firms like Google, Meta Platforms, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft. But these so-called "Pillar 1" talks have largely stalled, and without U.S. participation.   Republicans in the U.S. Congress have long been against the agreement, said Kimberly Clausing, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in tax law. "At first, they said they can't tax these companies because foreign countries would just undercut the US. Now they say they want to tax these companies themselves since foreign countries have raised their rates."   This Republican about-face reveals their true colors, "which is they don't want US multinationals to have to pay tax anywhere," Clausing told the DW news agency.   "So they're therefore hoping to undermine the agreement itself by threatening countries that have adopted the agreement with tariff retaliation."   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.icrict.com/non-classe/countries-should-stand-up-to-president-trumps-tax-threat-and-continue-working-together-to-deliver-a-progressive-global-tax-reform/ http://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2025/02/trump-pulled-the-u-s-out-of-global-tax-agreements-and-negotiations-it-may-backfire/ http://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2025/03/after-mass-firings-the-irs-is-poised-to-close-audits-of-wealthy-taxpayers-agents-say/ http://www.justsecurity.org/113820/us-corporate-interests-human-rights/   Feb. 2025   Brazil should retaliate against Trump tariffs with ‘oligarch tax’, leading economist says. (CNN Brazil)   The French economist Gabriel Zucman, creator of the proposed taxation on the fortunes of the super-rich and director of the Think tank Fiscal Observatory of the EU, an independent research institute dedicated to the study of evasion and tax avoidance at the global level, told CNN that Brazil should react to the tariffs on steel and aluminum imposed by President Donald Trump with the creation of a tax on American oligarchs.   “The best response to Trump’s trade threats is what I call tariffs for oligarchs. This means creating fees targeted at large multinational companies in the United States operating around the world and also their super-rich owners,” he explained in an exclusive interview.   According to Zucman, the proposal to tax large billion-dollar companies and, crucially, also their super-rich owners is much better than a retaliation that would increase tariffs on various sectors of the economy.   The economist recalls that the imposition of retaliatory tariffs, against vast economic sectors, ends up causing inflation and slowing growth also in the countries that adopt them.   Therefore, he says that it would be much more effective to condition the entry of the products of companies controlled by American billionaires in the Brazilian market to taxes that would be paid by these owners, calculated on their total fortune.   And Zucman gives a concrete example.   “We’re going to take the case of Tesla. You can say: well, if Tesla wants to make sales in Brazil, if it wants to have access to the Brazilian market, then it and its main owner must pay a minimum tax in Brazil. So Brazil should say: look, let’s condition the market access to Elon Musk until he pays his taxes in Brazil,” he said.   The expert says the idea is feasible and would also help to give more strength to emerging countries.   “Yes, it is feasible. There is this view that smaller countries are powerless against the United States. But this view is not true because the United States has a great weakness, which is its oligarchy, very internationalized,” he explained.   According to Zucman, they are “who build their wealth with multinational companies that have access to all markets in the world. This gives much power to smaller countries because they can impose these rates by better balancing the market.”   “And that is powerful. If countries were to start conditioning access to their markets for foreign companies and outside billionaires to pay a minimum tax amount, it would give incentives for nations like the U.S. to eventually start collecting these taxes themselves.   The economist added, pointing out that “so instead of a losing-lost tariff war, you can end a race with everyone winning.”   During Brazil’s presidency at the G20 last year, the group of the world’s largest economies approved a statement agreeing to explore some types of taxation on the super-rich.   The idea, however, will certainly have opposition from the new U.S. administration of President Donald Trump and his allies in the White House.   http://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/blogs/americo-martins/internacional/brasil-deveria-retaliar-trump-com-imposto-sobre-oligarcas-diz-economista/ http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/oligarch-tax-for-multinational-firms-to-maintain-market-access-by-gabriel-zucman-2025-02 http://www.taxobservatory.eu/publication/a-blueprint-for-a-coordinated-minimum-effective-taxation-standard-for-ultra-high-net-worth-individuals/   Jan. 2025   Trump demands countries surrender tax sovereignty - Tax Justice Network   US President Donald Trump has signalled plans to question the right of any country to tax American multinational corporations and is threatening to take countermeasures against countries that do not, in effect, cede their tax sovereignty over US multinationals operating within their own borders.   In a presidential memorandum issued hours after taking office, President Trump signalled plans to turn back US tax policy to a pre-League of Nations standing – to a time when companies could only be taxed by the imperial power they came from, regardless of where they were making their money.   Trump also ordered the US Treasury to prepare ‘protective measures’ against any countries exercising tax rules that the new US administration sees as exercising ‘extraterritorial’ or ‘disproportionate’ impact on US-headquartered multinationals.   In effect, this requires countries to cede their tax sovereignty over multinationals operating within their own borders – or face serious countermeasures.   The declaration was made in a presidential memorandum currently receiving much attention for killing the OECD’s long-negotiated global minimum tax rate proposal, by confirming that the US will not participate.   But the further threat in the memorandum indicates the US is preparing to deem the international tax order built over the past century, including many current international tax rules, as illegitimate – making virtually all countries potential targets for the US’s punitive measures.   Since 2013, the central thrust of international tax reforms has been to achieve better ‘alignment’ between the location of multinational companies’ real economic activity, and where they declare profits for tax purposes.   The Trump memorandum puts into doubt any measure that seeks to ensure profits are declared where activity takes place – at least if the multinational is from the US, and certainly if profits are being shifted there.   The US administration is thus putting into question the right of any country to tax an American company, including when American companies are located and do business in other countries.   The move from the US confirms warnings from tax experts and campaigners that the OECD is incapable of defending countries’ tax sovereignty from US aggression. Only a UN tax convention, formal negotiations on which begin this year, can protect countries’ freedom to tax multinational corporations doing business within their borders.   Alex Cobham, chief executive at the Tax Justice Network, said:   “Trump hasn’t just killed the OECD’s weak tax reforms, he’s effectively threatening to scrap everything built over the last century and to take the world back to ‘robber baron’-era tax policies.   “The US will now investigate the tax rules of every other country in the world, and is threatening sanctions for any measure that they view as ‘extraterritorial’ or ‘disproportionately’ affecting US companies.   Republican lawmakers have already made clear that they view most current proposals as falling foul of these criteria – and that means that all OECD member countries and many others are now under threat.   “Since 2013, the focus of international reforms has been to curb the ability of multinational companies to shift their taxable profits away from the places that they are actually doing business and making money. The scale of profit shifting has grown steadily due to the OECD’s comprehensive failure – but at least they can say they tried.   The Trump administration is now threatening anyone who seeks to claim their fair taxing rights over US multinationals, including the OECD itself.   “Some business leaders may have hoped that Trump would save them money by preventing effective tax reforms. But they should be careful what they wish for: this reckless step will raise tax uncertainty to unprecedented heights.   “Policymakers of other OECD countries, including the EU and UK, face a stark choice. They can give up any hope of exercising their taxing rights over major multinationals for at least four more years, and simply try to avoid a fight with the new bully. Or they can join together and work to defend each country’s tax sovereignty, by committing to ambitious and inclusive progress in the negotiations of the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation which begin in just two weeks.   Only in collective action is there a chance to address the deep failures of international tax rules, and at the same time resist the bullying of the new US administration.”   http://taxjustice.net/press/trump-demands-countries-surrender-tax-sovereignty-at-economic-gunpoint/ http://accountable.us/top-10-corporations-reaped-disproportionate-share-of-benefits-from-trump-tax-scam-report-finds/ http://itep.org/corporate-tax-avoidance-trump-tax-law/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories