From June 27 to July 3, Seville became the epicenter of a crucial debate on the future of sustainable global development: the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) and its preceding social forums. More than one thousand representatives of social organizations, trade unions, and movements from around the world gathered to denounce an economic system that deepens economic, social, gender, racial, and environmental inequalities and to demand structural change in the rules that govern the international economy.
In this context, Global Education Time Spain, represented by the Andalusian Coordinating Body of NGOs for Development (CAONGD) project partner took an active part both in the Civil Society Forum and in the Feminist Forum—held in the days leading up to the conference—as well as in FfD4 itself, as part of the Civil Society Financing for Development Mechanism (CSO FfD Mechanism).
From these alternative spaces, civil society raised its voice to question the lack of ambition of the final document, called the “Seville Commitment,” which was negotiated behind closed doors, excluding the historic voices that have been fighting for decades for a fairer and more democratic economy.
One of the main demands was the urgent need to guarantee adequate financing for free, public, and high-quality education, in line with the Global Campaign for Education (GCE). Several CAONGD-affiliated NGOs present in Seville denounced that the right to education was sidelined in the official negotiations, despite the fact that currently 244 million children are out of school and educational gaps have worsened following the pandemic and the global crisis.
The GCE argued that education must be recognized as a right, ensured through stable and sufficient public investments, financed by progressive taxation systems that fairly tax great wealth and multinational companies. They also warned about the growing privatization of education systems and demanded that, in emergency contexts, at least 10 % of humanitarian funds be allocated to this sector, thereby guaranteeing access to education even in times of crisis. This approach aligns with the goals of the GET project, which promotes transformative and critical education within classrooms and youth spaces to foster a citizenship committed to global justice and human rights.
“You cannot talk about development without talking about education. More than 244 million children are out of school, and education budgets have been cut in over 60 countries since the pandemic. The lack of political will to fund public education is a form of structural violence,” stated a GCE representative during the Civil Society Forum.
The Feminist Forum, held in the days leading up to the conference, was a key space for articulating an intersectional, critical, and transformative perspective on development financing. This Forum was promoted by international feminist networks and the Civil Society Financing for Development Mechanism.
The Forum denounced the patriarchal nature of the international financial system, which renders care work invisible and perpetuates the structural inequalities that affect women and LGTBIQ+ people.
Feminist activists demanded that development financing recognize care work as both a right and a collective responsibility, not merely as a burden imposed on women’s unpaid labor.
They also called for an equitable redistribution of care responsibilities and the strengthening of public social protection systems supported by stable funding. They rejected private investment as a substitute for public financing and warned against public-private partnerships that compromise universal access to and quality of essential services such as education and healthcare.
It was also emphasized that gender-sensitive education is fundamental to dismantling stereotypes and promoting cultural change toward more just and equitable societies.
“There is no tax justice or climate justice without gender justice. But women are not invited to negotiate global budgets, only to bear their consequences,” they declared in their final manifesto, denouncing the systematic erasure of gender perspectives in economic decision-making.
One of the strongest messages from the Social Forum was the denunciation of the current international financial system, which replicates domination relations inherited from colonialism and exacerbates global inequalities. Civil society demanded a UN Framework Convention to establish fair global tax rules, end tax evasion and avoidance by the wealthy and multinational corporations, and tax polluting companies to fund rights and public services.
Regarding external debt, they called for a transparent and equitable multilateral mechanism—led by the United Nations—to restructure or cancel illegitimate debts that strangle many countries and directly affect the fulfillment of human rights and climate action. They fiercely criticized the conditionalities imposed by financial institutions for their regressive impact on the most vulnerable populations.
They also raised concerns about the decline in Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is often used for migration control or militarization. As an alternative, they proposed a new international cooperation architecture based on historical justice, shared responsibilities, and UN leadership.
In terms of global governance, the hegemony of the IMF, World Bank, and G20 was questioned, and demands were made for these institutions to be democratically accountable within the UN system. They also called for strict regulation of rating agencies and reform of the international reserve system to enable more inclusive and transparent economic decision-making. FfD4 offered a historic opportunity to address structural flaws in the international financial system.
However, the “Seville Commitment” remained vague—mere statements of intent on global taxes, vague promises on tax cooperation, and rhetoric lacking legally binding mechanisms for debt cancellation or eliminating tax havens. Organizations such as Eurodad, Jubilee South, and various African and Asian networks denounced that the current financial architecture continues to operate under a colonial logic: extracting resources from the Global South through debt payments, tax evasion, and the imposition of economic models that prioritize growth over rights.
“It repeats the same old formula: voluntary suggestions for the powerful, strict conditions for the impoverished,” denounced the Latindadd consortium, insisting on the need for a multilateral mechanism under UN auspices to resolve sovereign debt crises fairly and transparently.
One of the most significant silences at the conference was the scarce attention given to migration. Barely mentioned in the official documents, this vital issue was relegated to the sidelines—a worrying and significant omission, according to human rights organizations and migrant networks.
This invisibility reflects a persistent logic that associates human mobility with threat or insecurity, rather than recognizing it as a fundamental human right and a complex phenomenon rooted in deep structural causes. Migrants are, in fact, key economic actors in their countries of origin and destination.
Organizations demanded inclusive fiscal policies that recognize migrants’ economic contributions and guarantee cross-border social protection, meaning access to rights and services even when people change countries. They also urged addressing the structural causes of migration, such as chronic poverty, armed conflict, the climate crisis, and extractive economic models that devastate territories and displace communities. This call insists that migration cannot be seen merely as a border management challenge but as a matter of social, economic, and environmental justice requiring comprehensive and solidarity-based responses through development financing.
“Remittances from migrants sustain many Southern economies, yet they are not recognized or protected. They cannot continue to be invisible actors in development,” declared the Civil Society Forum in their statement.
Climate finance was another major point of contention. Although the “Seville Commitment” mentions decarbonization goals and proposes the creation of climate funds, civil society vehemently criticized the proposed tools—primarily green bonds, public-private partnerships, and market mechanisms. These instruments were questioned for their opacity, lack of accountability, and potential to generate new forms of debt, particularly for countries in the Global South.
Moreover, the conference avoided addressing a crucial demand from ecological and feminist movements: the cancellation of climate debt. This debt represents the accumulated responsibilities of industrialized countries that have caused global warming and its devastating effects, while demanding that developing nations take on impossible financial commitments under the same economic model that imposes unpayable debts on them. Instead of addressing the historical and environmental debt the North owes the South, the system perpetuates one in which the most vulnerable nations assume financial burdens that worsen their socioeconomic fragility.
Therefore, the market-based approach and private financing model are seen as insufficient and dangerous, as they do not guarantee climate justice or equitable socio-environmental transitions. Instead, public, transparent climate financing based on international cooperation and recognition of historical responsibilities was demanded.
“Current climate financing doesn’t repair—it only recycles injustice. The countries most affected by climate change are still paying the bill, with interest,” denounced the Global Alliance for Climate Justice.
The Forum also demanded political and economic sovereignty for countries of the Global South, along with binding rules obliging transnational corporations to respect labor, social, and environmental rights, and to eliminate mechanisms like ISDS, which allows corporations to sue states when public policies affect their interests.
In the technological sphere, the creation of an international body was proposed to evaluate the social, environmental, and human rights impact of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies, thus guaranteeing fair and democratic use of these technologies.
Finally, civil society insisted that development financing must be transparent, inclusive, and democratically governed, with intergovernmental processes that listen and respond to social and ecological urgencies. Consequently, they have already proposed convening a 5th Conference on Financing for Development (FfD5) in 2030, with an agenda genuinely committed to global justice.
The active participation of the GET Spain partner CAONGD reinforces the fundamental role of local organizations in connecting global struggles with European and regional agendas. Seville witnessed how organized civil society can challenge and offer alternatives to an exclusionary and unequal global financial system. The “Seville Commitment” may not meet the needs of the planet or the people, but civil society has made it clear that the struggle continues: real transformation will come from below, from the voices and organizations of the people, with education as the fundamental tool to imagine and build another possible world.
Only through critical, inclusive, and transformative education can we build a future where rights, social justice, gender equality, and environmental sustainability form the foundation of global coexistence: within the GET project we bring GCE in schools, among youth, and across civil society by sharing reflections, training sessions, educational initiatives and resources on these crucial global issues. Discover and download GET resources on the dedicated section of our website.
