Financing for Development after Addis Ababa and Sevilla: Changes and Continuities

By Javier Surasky

Spanish version (ES)

Conceptual illustration of financing for development, comparing the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Sevilla Commitment in the multilateral system.


Financing for development is entering a phase of political redefinition. Ten years after the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), the Sevilla Commitment (Commitment) shows how the international debate has moved from a more technical logic of means of implementation toward a more explicit discussion of fiscal justice, financial reform, international cooperation, artificial intelligence, and the legitimacy crisis of multilateralism.

This article compares both documents to identify continuities, shifts, and new priorities. The central question is not only which issues appear in Addis Ababa and Sevilla, but what those changes reveal about how the international community now understands sustainable development, international financing, and the global distribution of resources.

Before delving into specific matters, the first thing that has caught my attention is a change in language observed between both documents: while the AAAA expresses itself through predominantly multilateral and technical logic, the Commitment does so by orienting itself toward the production of a geopolitical and normative agenda. This reflects how the Financing for Development (FfD) conferences adapt to contexts: the Addis Ababa conference was guided by the technical spirit derived from the construction of the SDGs, while the Sevilla Conference was impacted by the Pact for the Future, the UN80 initiative, and the current processes of reconfiguring international power.

This general language change can be seen in different elements:

  • In the AAAA, we have a marked predominance of technocratic/neutral language, with a focus on implementation instruments such as financing, cooperation, and development of statistics oriented toward increasing the effectiveness of the financial system without deeply questioning its foundations.
  • The Commitment shows the use of much more political and evaluative language oriented toward promoting fiscal justice, structural reforms and financial architecture, incorporating actors and open disputes over power as part of the problems facing development financing, ultimately adopting rules and principles on matters such as equity, AI governance, and creation of new development indicators.

In sum, Addis prioritizes the efficiency and coherence of the means, while Sevilla questions the ends and structures. Addis focuses on increasing aid effectiveness, whereas Sevilla is built upon the current crisis of legitimacy in the multilateral order.

As a result of this change, while the AAAA appears to identify the resource deficit as the primary problem to address, the Commitment takes a step closer to the political by identifying multiple systemic crises, including governance and trust in multilateralism, as the root of the failures.

However, this change should not lead to confusion. There is no "rupture" between the AAAA and the Commitment, but rather a shift in the center of attention of debate, which moves from good practices and effectiveness toward the dispute over the fair distribution of financial resources for promoting development.

Having clarified this crucial point, we can create a preliminary list of themes that appear in both the AAAA and the Commitment: those that were in the AAAA but were left out of the document adopted in Sevilla, and those that this new document includes but were not included in the Addis Ababa one. A comparative table offers us a simplified entry point to the result of this exercise (paragraph references where each topic is considered are in parentheses):

Topic

Addis

Sevilla

Included in

2030 Agenda and SDGs

✔️

(2, 11, 19)

✔️

(2, 5, 6, 13, 26, 34)

Both

Sustainable development

✔️

(1-3, 11, 19)

✔️

(2, 4, 5, 13)

Both

Taxation

⚠️

(22-24)

✔️

(27c-j, 28.a-h)

Both (broader in Sevilla)

Resource mobilization

✔️

(20-21)

✔️

(26-27)

Both

Fiscal governance

⚠️

(18)

✔️

(3, 27.a-b.)

Both (broader in Sevilla)

Environment

✔️

(17, 62-63)

✔️

(9-10, 27.h, 47-48)

Both

Private sector (partnerships)

✔️

(35-39)

✔️

(31-33)

Both

SMEs

✔️

(38)

✔️

(31.h-m)

Both

Remittances (goal to reduce cost to <3%)

✔️

(40)

✔️

(33.o)

Both

Peace and post-conflict consolidation

✔️

(18-19)

⚠️

(Preamble)

Both (broader in Addis)

Gender equality

✔️

(6, 21, 41)

✔️

(11, 27.g)

Both

International trade / WTO

✔️

(80-83)

✔️

(42-43.)

Both

Access to science and technology

✔️

(123-124)

✔️

(58-59)

Both

ODA critique and "0.7 commitment"

✔️

(50-55)

✔️

(35-36)

Both

Development measurement beyond GDP

✔️

(55)

✔️

(36.d, 40.c)

Both

Tax cooperation and the fight against illicit flows

✔️

(23-27)

✔️

(28-29)

Both

South-South and Triangular cooperation

✔️

(56-57)

✔️

(35, 36.e-h)

Both

Intergovernmental follow-up

✔️

(127-131: With schedule and forums)

⚠️

(61: Proposes ECOSOC forum)

Both (broader in Addis)

Debt relief and sustainability

✔️

(94-102)

✔️

(47-51)

Both

Digital currencies/payments

⚠️

(39)

✔️

(33.o, 44.b, 59j)

Both (broader in Sevilla)

Philanthropy

✔️

(121-122)

(33.o: Only one mention in a list)

Addis only

Fossil fuel subsidies

✔️

(31)

Addis only

Global financial reform

(105-106, 109)

✔️

(52-56)

Sevilla only

Artificial Intelligence

✔️

(59.i-k, 61.e-f)

Sevilla only

UN Reform

✔️

(7, 40.b, 52)

Sevilla only

Pact for the Future

✔️

(6, 10, 59.k)

Sevilla only

Source: author's elaboration

This discussion on ODA also connects with the risk that falling development assistance may widen the digital divide; the appearance of AI in the Sevilla Commitment also connects with emerging United Nations spaces for AI governance.

Following this initial comparison, in a forthcoming entry we will analyze in greater detail the treatment given to some of the topics included in the table, bringing our magnifying glass a bit closer to both compared documents to determine whether countries are fulfilling the first promise they made at the First Conference on Financing for Development in 2002: “We, the Heads of State and Government (...) have resolved to address the challenges of financing for development around the world, particularly in developing countries. Our goal is to eradicate poverty, achieve sustained economic growth and promote sustainable development as we advance to a fully inclusive and equitable global economic system" (Monterrey Consensus, paragraph 1).