The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), held in Seville, Spain, was billed as a landmark moment to reshape how development is funded across the world. But the meeting ended up exposing the deep divides and imbalances in the global financial architecture particularly around the issue of debt faced by developing nations.
Convened by the United Nations, the summit took place against a backdrop of waning support from powerful economies. The United States was notably absent, having already cut back its international aid commitments. Major European powers such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany also announced reductions in financial support. As a result, the official agenda leaned heavily on private investment, blended finance, and public-private partnerships approaches that many critics argue have repeatedly failed to deliver for the world’s poorest countries.
At the heart of the criticism was the issue of sovereign debt. Many developing countries are now trapped in a cycle of borrowing and repayment, spending more on servicing debts than on critical sectors like health and education. Civil society groups and several Global South nations had rallied around the demand for a UN-led framework for sovereign debt restructuring. However, that proposal was blocked from being included in the final summit text, largely due to resistance from wealthier nations.
What emerged instead was a stark reminder of global double standards. The contrast between the rigid treatment of debt in the Global South and the flexibility enjoyed by wealthier nations and their institutions during past financial crises was hard to ignore. During the 2008 global financial meltdown, for example, major banks in the West were bailed out with trillions of dollars debts effectively erased in the name of system stability. In contrast, poorer nations today face harsh repayment terms, regardless of the social or environmental cost.
The conference also revisited past examples of resistance. Iceland’s decision to let its biggest banks collapse during the 2008 crisis, and prosecute senior banking executives, stood out as a rare act of accountability. Ecuador, under President Rafael Correa, took an even bolder step, auditing its public debt and rejecting a portion of it as illegitimate, saving the country millions in future repayments. Argentina, too, restructured its debt aggressively after defaulting in 2001, prioritising domestic needs over the demands of creditors.
India, while not taking a confrontational stance, pursued a model of fiscal prudence and resilience post its 1991 debt crisis. Though this helped stabilise its economy, it did not challenge the fundamental unfairness of the global financial system, which many now argue is overdue for reform.
Calls for a deeper, more structural transformation were also present at the Seville meeting. Civil society groups pointed out that even debt cancellation while necessary only scratches the surface. True global economic justice, they argue, must also address the lingering legacies of colonialism and exploitation. Reparations for historical injustices, along with compensation for climate-related loss and damage, are being increasingly recognised as essential elements of a just global order.
The Seville summit failed to seriously engage with these broader demands. The momentum around the Loss and Damage Fund established at COP27 was not matched by fresh commitments or serious discussions. Nor was there any meaningful response to the African Union’s call to make 2025 the “Year of Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations.”
Despite the setbacks, the push for economic justice is far from over. The Seville conference, while a missed opportunity in many respects, has laid bare the structural inequities of the global system. From grassroots campaigns to political leadership in the Global South, the demand for a fairer, more humane financial architecture is growing louder and debt cancellation is only the first step on that path.