Early in 2025 the buttresses holding up the multinational system were set on fire by the US administration. Many parts of the old structure rapidly crumbled as a result.[1] In appropriately record-breaking temperatures the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) is in part proposing how a new approach might replace the old.
In Seville, Carsten Staur, chair of the OECD DAC, told Devex on Monday that we are “at the brink of a new paradigm.” Usually such statements should be treated with caution. But in this case, Carsten might be right.
A plan was certainly needed after USAID and its funding became toast. Partly driven by that burning platform, the Compromiso de Sevilla, or Seville Commitment, is a product of technocratic consultation rather than a fully inclusive debate, and already somewhat controversial. The outcome document was adopted prior to the FfD4 conference on the 18th of June, setting out how a new approach to financing might be shaped.
From Paris to Addis
Back in 2005, the Paris Declaration sought to bring order to a fragmented aid system, setting out principles of ownership, alignment, and mutual accountability. It too was technocratic, but focused on using ODA effectively and efficiently. A decade later, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Addis Tax Initiative (ATI) shifted the focus toward domestic resource mobilisation (DRM), acknowledging that aid alone could never finance the ambition of the SDGs.
Agulhas helped draft the latest ATI Monitoring Report, published last week. The ATI report charts many meaningful gains. Tax systems are being strengthened, reforms are being pursued, and some countries have succeeded in increasing their tax-to-GDP ratios. But progress is patchy. Tax arrears and compliance gaps remain stubbornly high, and recent economic shocks have further stretched tax administrations operating under pressure.
The imperative for countries to mobilise their own resources has never been clearer. The latest ATI report shows what’s possible when countries and partners align behind shared goals. But it also serves as a warning. The report points to the limits of aid, and that a financing regime beyond aid is needed; ODA support for DRM, once on an upward trajectory, has dipped sharply in recent years—now reaching just 60% of the collective target. Diverse yet co-ordinated financing is needed if change is going to happen and global goals are to be met.
From Addis to Seville
The 2025 Seville Commitment seeks to go further that Addis went in reshaping how global finances work. This is important, and necessary. While Seville is being criticised in some quarters for a lack of ambition in this moment of crisis and therefore also opportunity, in contrast with past compacts it is arguably less about optimising what we have than questioning how the power structures of the global financial system work, how money flows and how that flow is monitored and used. Given the political moment we are in, and the support it is receiving, that it seeks to do so is probably a big win.
The Seville Commitment calls for greater equity in international financial institutions, redistribution of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), and a UN-led tax convention. It recognises that climate change, debt, and inequality are structural concerns. It looks to drive integration and collaboration on the use of resources, not least from the private sector. This is more than just a reaction to the challenges facing multilateralism. It reflects what our species is collectively experiencing on our finite earth. European Council President António Costa captured this well at the opening plenary: “We are at a crossroads in the global development agenda… climate, inequality, and poverty are converging crises that require converging solutions.” (And loss of biodiversity needs to be added to his list too). [2]
Tensions and Transformation
The Seville process is not without controversy, as mentioned. The United States withdrew from negotiations over disagreements on gender equality, climate commitments, and tax reform language. Progressive proposals—especially those on sovereign debt restructuring and international tax governance—were diluted into non-binding statements.[3]
And yet the conference is arguably demonstrating that a (much looked for) broader shift is truly underway. The BRICS countries—now ten strong including Egypt, UAE and (40 years on from Live Aid) Ethiopia— are showing assertive confidence and increasing alignment. Their vision is more state-centred, infrastructure-oriented, and free from traditional donor conditionalities than the previous mode (China being the group’s poster child). These countries are now actively shaping what post-ODA development cooperation could look like. And it is their voice and narrative that will become stronger.
The institutional models that delivered traditional ODA—donor-led aid agencies, multilaterals, and bilateral instruments—will need to get with the beat or be left behind. The governance of these institutions must become more inclusive and representative of the countries they are meant to serve. Seville acknowledges this explicitly, calling for reforms to voting rights, leadership selection, and decision-making processes in global financial institutions.
The approach aligns with what we’ve seen through Agulhas’s long-standing work on aid effectiveness and institutional accountability. If the new paradigm is to be credible, it must be rooted in voice, transparency and shared ownership.
What Comes Next?
Five implications (among others) emerge from Seville:
- The ODA-Centric Era Is Over (if it ever really existed)
We are now in the long-predicted era beyond “Development”. ODA still matters—especially in fragile contexts or for particular global challenges like Polio or HIV/TB/Malaria—but to be seen as valuable in the future it will need to be even more clearly catalytic and aimed at specific narrowly defined or very time limited problems. ODA is not central to development. The focus on rates of return and proving that ODA is a catalytic force multiplier will increase further given other available finance approaches and instruments.
- Governance Reform Is Inevitable
The calls for global tax fairness, SDR redistribution, and more representative financial institutions are un-ignorable, undeniable and growing. The decades long fingers-in-the-ears approach taken by northern countries to calls for more equitable representation will not wash any more. Institutional governance must shift accordingly. It will be particularly interesting to see what that will mean for the UN and OECD.
- Implementation Will Be Key
The Lusaka Agenda shows how Seville’s ambitions can be applied at sectoral or regional level. It also shows that the future mechanisms of global cooperation may be more clearly regional or thematic. Above all funding (whatever its source) must be focussed on domestic priorities. Enabling, evaluating and reporting on how all finances collectively support delivery at country and regional level will become an even greater priority and focus.
- Transparency
The Seville Commitment stresses the role of ESG standards, transparency, and sustainability-linked investments. It calls for better global frameworks to measure, disclose, and align private capital flows with development priorities. Progress on transparency is notoriously slow, as can be seen by the failure of UK’s offshore territories to implement actions seen as key to address financial corruption. Agulhas’ work with the Addis Tax Initiative shows that fiscal transparency gains can be made, but are inherently difficult. Publishing tax strategies is easy, but transparency in other areas (e.g., revenue and expenditure reporting) is more challenging. Having mechanisms that effectively report to and hear from citizens will be key.
- The US is not a necessary actor
Countries can make meaningful global agreements without the world’s largest economy. As it proved with the EU and Brexit, while the isolationism and loss of a key member of the community causes pain, it does not necessarily destroy the community, and in some ways it can strengthen the resolve of those who remain. For sure, the loss of the US means that multilateralism is much weaker, but the Seville Commitment demonstrates that meaningful agreement can still take place.
A New Multilateralism
So is a new multilateralism emerging? Yes, it is. Seville is key milestone along a long road. Countries can and will come together over particular challenges, in new ways and with a fluidity of alignments and coalitions. In the current political context, that a deliberate step forward is being taken is positive, even though it might not seem a giant’s stride.
Will Seville prove (as some participants have said it must) to ‘mark the moment when financial systems start to serve development and climate goals — not undermine them’. [4]? That remains to be seen.
End Notes
[1] Beyond Paris, Through Lusaka: A Turning Point for Global Health and Aid – Nigel Thornton
[3] Devex Newswire: The heat is on in Sevilla while tempers flare at UNFPA
