Blog by Ponke Danker, INEW Coordinator
At the end of June, I was heading towards Sevilla, Spain, for the Fourth Financing for Development Conference (short “FFD4”) with quite some anticipation.
The United Nations have held four conferences on financing for development over a period of almost 25 years – starting in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002. The conferences aimed at discussing and coordinating reforms of the global financial structures and systems to achieve sustainable development — addressing global challenges such as gender equality, climate change, limited education outcomes, and poverty. The conferences were closely linked with the Millenium Development Goals agreed on in 2000 and its successors, the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), agreed in 2015.
Monterrey and the following conferences in Doha, Katar, in 2008 and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in 2015 brought together governments, multilateral organisations, civil society, and the private sector. Their outcome documents addressed six relevant areas of financing, including
- Domestic financial resources (tax),
- International and domestic private business and finance,
- International development cooperation (including overseas development assistance, ODA),
- International trade,
- Debt,
- And systemic issues of global economic governance.
The fourth conference, held 10 years after the last, between 30th June and 3rd July in Sevilla, was announced as “a unique opportunity to reform financing at all levels, including to support reform of the international financial architecture” in order to address “financing challenges preventing the urgently needed investment push for the SDGs” (see 4th International Conference on Financing for Development).
So far the idea….
Civil society has over the years taken a strong role in influencing the decision-making at and ahead of the conferences. This is driven in great parts by the Civil Society Financing for Development Mechanism (FFD Mechanism), an open group of civil society organisations (CSOs) dating back to 2002, actively engaging in the UN’s financing for development process to transform the global economic system and advance systemic change.
As such, the CSOs and the CSO FFD Mechanism welcomed the new conference and process.
However, the reality turned out somewhat different and the conference and its outcome document, the Compromiso de Sevilla, have not only fallen short of the promise of reform but also became an unprecedent pushback against civil society engagement and inclusion.
The Impact on Education
As a representative of an education focused CSO, I had the pleasure to meet and connect with the strongly interconnected and active education CSO stakeholders at the conference. INEW worked closely with the Global Campaign for Education (GCE) and several other GCE regional and country coalitions. The Malala Fund, Action Aid education experts, the Tax Ed Alliance, the Education Researcher of the Tax Justice Network, and NORRAG, to name a few, where all represented – all advocating to tackle the chronic underfunding of education.
What’s being decided in the financing for development negotiations impacts worldwide education efforts in several significant ways:
- As one of the essential public services, education is directly affected by decisions on domestic financial resources and taxation. A global trend toward regressive taxation as well as tax abuse or evasion by multinational corporations reduce the funds available for education, severely impacting education outcomes. According to the Tax Justice Network, countries are losing US$492 billion in tax a year to multinational corporations and wealthy individuals using tax havens to underpay tax. Progressive reforms face blockages by global tax rules dominated by wealthy countries.
- With privatisation on the rise, fueled by underfunded public services, commercialisation and asymmetric public-private partnerships (PPPs) risk to prioritise profit over people, deepen inequalities, and weaken public accountability in accessing safe quality education.
- The rollback of development cooperation and slashing of ODA budgets – a significant source for many education projects and reforms across low- and middle-income countries – is putting any global progress made over the past decades at risk.
- With a surge in global public debt, disproportionately affecting developing countries, 46 governments of developing countries spent more on interest payments than on either education or health. At the same time, borrowing is more expensive for developing countries, and lenders and financial governance bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), impose austerity constraints on borrowing countries restricting investments in education and recruitment of teachers. With historical roots in colonial-era economic structures and persistent power imbalances embedded in the international financial system, this takes a toll on education, and primarily children carry a heavy burden.
- Overall, the persisting inequalities between low- and high-income countries, sustained by the global financing architecture, mean that the global learning crisis is not efficiently countered. In 2022, governments in low-income countries spent just $55 per learner annually, compared to $8,543 in high-income countries (GEM Report, Education Finance Watch, 2024). And it leaves the most vulnerable and furthest behind, including girls, most negatively affected.
This only represents a glimpse of why the financing for development process is so essential for achieving SDG 4 — and all the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda. Read the very informative Global Campaign for Education (GCE)’s fulls statement about FFD4 here and a UNESCO and Tax Justice Network Blog about Tax and Education here.
Education mentioned but falling short of actionable pathways in the Compromiso
With much effort by CSOs and supportive member states, education – which initially, in the zero draft, was not mentioned – got its own stand-alone paragraph in the Compromiso with the commitment “to support adequate financing to ensure inclusive, equitable and quality education for all.” The outcome document further contains a commitment to taking “action to leverage the positive impacts of digitalization in education” and reaffirm “to foster innovation, financial literacy and digital capacity-building, including through education and skills development, particularly for children, youth and older persons.”
Further, the Compromiso commits to “also enhance the availability of scholarships to students in developing countries to enrol in higher education”. And an entire paragraph is dedicated to efforts to “promote vocational education, training and skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” with an emphasis on fostering “public-private partnership and engagement with industry”. Additionally, “financial and digital literacy programmes” are to be integrated in educational curricula.
It is a significant win for education that, after lengthy negotiations, it is recognised in a stand-alone paragraph with a dedicated commitment to financing SDG 4. However, a key criticism from education stakeholders and civil society organisations is the absence of clear, actionable pathways or concrete financing strategies — with no explanation of how the promised support will actually be delivered, despite education being chronically underfunded for over a decade. It also raises serious concerns that, while digitalisation and privatisation receive significant attention, there is no mention of teachers and the global teacher shortage, or a stronger commitment to addressing educational inequalities.
Failure to confront reform and a process untransparent and exclusionary
Additionally, it is the broader failure of the Compromiso to confront the inequitable design of the current international financial architecture and global economy — including urgently needed reforms on tax, debt, and austerity measures, which heavily impact education as outlined above — that fuelled the widespread criticism and frustration voiced and felt by civil society throughout the conference.
To make matters worse, the process leading up to the outcome document — and the conference itself, stands out as one of the most untransparent and exclusionary toward civil society in recent times, marking a sharp and disappointing reversal after decades of hard-won progress toward securing a meaningful role in governmental decision-making.
Instead of fully focusing on substantive contributions and influencing decision-making, civil society was forced to spend much of its energy simply fighting to be included.
Remarkably, the Compromiso was not negotiated at the conference itself. While it’s standard practice to develop a zero draft in the months leading up to such events, what was unusual — and deeply concerning — is that the document was finalised during the 4th Preparatory Committee in New York on 17th June 2025, well before the conference began.
With the final blow being that in the final weeks before its adoption, the document was discussed under a ‘silent procedure’ — meaning negotiations took place behind closed doors, with no space for civil society to engage, intervene, or even observe.
FFD4 Civil Society Forum a powerful reminder of partnership
During the FFD4 Civil Society Forum — organised by the FFD Mechanism on the weekend prior to the conference — civil society organisations from around the world working on diverse topics, some having travelled for days, came together to strategise and formulate a collective response to the FFD4 process, the conference, and its outcome document.
The CSO Forum was a powerful reminder of the partnership, strength, and resilience of CSOs. At the end of the weekend, civil society had produced a declaration on the FFD4, clearly outlining the shortcomings of both the process and the Compromiso. Thanks to the inclusive and collaborative process, GCE successfully achieved the inclusion of a key demand in the debt chapter of the declaration: a call to “eliminate harmful loan conditionalities such as education, health and other public sector budget cuts or public sector wage caps”. Read the full and powerful CSO Forum declaration here.
The forum ended on a strong and symbolic note with a demonstration through the streets of Sevilla on the eve of the conference — in over 40°C heat, with clear heat-safety instructions accompanying the march.
The start of the conference, however, made clear the determination of organisers and decision-makers to sideline civil society — quite literally.
The venue was split into separate buildings: one for the official conference and plenary sessions attended by government representatives (“FIBES 1”), and another, separate space designated for side events and civil society (“FIBES 2”). On the first day, CSOs were entirely denied access to the main part of the conference. In the days that followed, only a handful of observer seats (without tables) were made available, CSOs were not allowed to move around freely in the plenary, and opportunities to intervene remained extremely limited.
On the second day, the news spread amongst CSOs that security confiscated any materials connected to political messages or campaign slogans, including fans (against the heat) saying “debt kills development” or “turn debt into hope”, “tax the rich” or “fill the finance gap” stickers as well as standard NGO report publications and info sheets — actively searching bags and calling such items polemic at times.
“The Charter of the United Nations does not start with ‘We the member states’ but with ‘We the people’ “
When the CSO Mechanism finally secured a speaking slot, Tove Maria Ryding’s (Eurodad) powerful intervention focused on the exasperation of civil society of not being treated as equal partners and not heard as representatives with diverse expert experience and expertise from the frontline of economic inequalities. In Tove’s words, “the Charter of the United Nations does not start with ‘We the member states’ but with ‘We the people’“. Watch the full speech here.
A particularly low-point for the education sector came during the major side event on education, co-hosted amongst others by UNESCO and the Global Partnership for Education (GPE). The only CSO and youth speakers — including the Chairperson of GCE, who had travelled from Palestine — were removed from the panel at the last minute due to time constraints. An apology was later issued, and the hosts assured that internal follow-up would reflect on the role of civil society in such events. Given the broader exclusion CSOs faced during the conference, this incident was deeply disheartening. We sincerely look forward to the promised meaningful steps toward greater inclusion in the future.
Ireland promises to increase ODA
Amid these concerns, Ireland’s participation in the conference stood out as a rare beacon of hope. Irish Minister of State for International Development, Neale Richmond, strongly reaffirmed Ireland’s commitment to increasing ODA and called on other governments to do the same — a notable stance among EU member states who are cutting their development budgets.
In a meeting organised by Dóchas, he joined various Dóchas members and affiliates present at the FFD4, sitting casually among civil society representatives listening attentively — a rare sight in “our building” during the conference and a strong testament to Ireland’s ongoing commitment to civil society engagement.
In the end, Sevilla made more headlines for its record-breaking heatwave than for the FFD4
— a conference meant to set international agendas and standards for the global financial system, development and international cooperation. The underwhelming outcome is reflected not just in its content but also how it was (and still is) referred to, the “Compromiso”. Compared to the earlier conferences between 2002 and 2015 — which produced documents titled Consensus, Declaration, and even Action Agenda — this signals the shifting political climate and the deepening global challenges we face.
For the sake of education, achieving SDG 4, and the 251 million children still out of school worldwide, we must keep pushing for reform of the inequitable international financial architecture – while ensuring that the commitments made at this conference are upheld and translated into meaningful action.
Learn more about Education and Financing Development here.
