
Blistering heat, empty chairs and the C-word mar UN's flagship development event
But at a once-a-decade UN development finance conference in Seville, two key ingredients were in less abundance: money and power.
Just one G7 leader - France's Emmanuel Macron - attended the event, where he and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez addressed rooms filled with dozens of empty chairs. Organisers initially said they expected 70 heads of state; that was whittled to 50 as the conference got underway.
Back in Washington, Paris, London and Berlin, rich-country leaders are slashing aid and cutting bilateral lending in a pivot to defence spending and rising debt at home.
"The mood is ... I would say realistic, but also a sense of unity and of pragmatism," said Alvaro Lario, president of the International Fund of Agricultural Development, adding the question on everyone's mind this week was how to do more with less.
"How can we come together, or think out of the box, or create new type of ways of really stretching it more?"
The Financing For Development meeting is a flagship UN conference, charting the trajectory to help tackle changes the world must make to tax policies, aid spending or key areas such as debt, health and education. Its outcomes guide global aid funding and UN policies for the decade to come.
Few disagree over the need for action; hundred-year floods and storms are happening with alarming regularity, and rising debt-servicing costs are siphoning money away from health, education and infrastructure spending in the developing world.
But even top developing-world leaders Mia Mottley, the Barbados prime minister and prominent global climate champion, and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, currently chairing the Group of 20 major economies, backed out of the event at the last minute.
The media room was stacked with bored-looking Spanish press gossiping about a domestic political scandal while disillusioned civil-society leaders stalked the halls, upset with the watered-down agenda and the lack of fiscal or political firepower.
"We are facing a backsliding of many agendas that we had advanced a few years ago," said Henrique Frota, director of ABONG, a Brazilian association of NGOs. "Developed countries are reducing their investment in (official development assistance) and European countries are not fulfilling their commitment ... they are giving less and less money right now for every kind of agenda."
Event leaders were relieved to produce an outcome document - despite gnawing fears in the past months that Washington would torpedo any deal.
In the end, U.S. officials backed out altogether.
"The entire community was very afraid of coming here because one country wasn't attending," said UN Assistant Secretary General Marcos Neto. "But the document ended up working out ... I'm leaving happy, with more optimism than I thought I would leave with."
Neto highlighted significant steps toward implementing climate and development goals, including the Seville Platform and multiple agreements from public and private sectors to leverage funds for the biggest possible impact.
The Seville Commitment included tripling multilateral lending capacity, debt relief, a push to boost tax-to-GDP ratios to at least 15%, and get more rich countries to let the IMF use "special drawing rights" money for countries that need it most.
But in Seville, only host nation Spain signed on to commit 50% of its "Special Drawing Rights" for the purpose.
UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed acknowledged that the attendance was not as star-studded as hoped, and that public funds are under pressure.
"But there's innovative financing, there's the private sector, there's the triple lending of MDBs ... so the resources are there," she said.
"We just have to have the political will to leverage through these mechanisms that have come out of the platform of action and continue moving with them."
U.S. President Donald Trump, despite his country's absence, loomed large over the event; his climate change scepticism, hostility toward diversity initiatives and pledge to review U.S. participation in multilateral organizations made some keen to strip the "c-word" - climate change - and rebrand initiatives as focused on resilience, education or health.
Still, some say the gloomy backdrop should not deter leaders focused on progress.
"Ultimately the important thing is doing it," said Jose Vinals, former group chairman of Standard Chartered and co-chair of both the FFD4 Business Steering Committee and the Global Investors for Sustainable Development Alliance.
"The private sector is, for the most part, still willing to walk the talk."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Commerzbank official tells UniCredit CEO to sell and go home
FRANKFURT, July 4 (Reuters) - UniCredit's ( opens new tab recent push for a tie-up with Commerzbank ( opens new tab has prompted calls by a top official of the German bank for the Italian lender's CEO, Andrea Orcel, to abandon the pursuit. With UniCredit continuing to face fierce resistance in Germany, Orcel last month sent a flurry of letters to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and others, urging them to come to the table to discuss a deal. But the latest offensive, which only became public this week, has come up against steadfast resistance from Sascha Uebel, deputy chair of Commerzbank's supervisory board, adding to previous opposition from the German government and the bank's board since UniCredit's initial approach last September. "His next step should be to sell his shares, take his profits and go home," Uebel told Reuters on Friday. UniCredit, which last year bought a large stake in the Commerzbank and began to press for a merger, declined to comment. In his letters, Orcel wrote that a tie-up would be beneficial "economically, socially and politically" and would create a new national banking champion for Germany. Orcel was also given short shrift by the Verdi labour union, which said its concerns had not been allayed, according to copies of their correspondence seen by Reuters. "We are continuing to campaign against a merger and are in favour of an independent Commerzbank," Verdi boss Frank Werneke wrote to Orcel in a response dated July 2.


Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The year that permanently shattered our political mainstream
Normalcy favours Labour. The conventional course of events is for a party to win a general election, run into trouble, lose popularity, grit its teeth, recover somewhat – and go on to be re-elected. Only once since the Second World War, during the roller-coaster 1970s, did a Government fail to win again: in 1974, the Conservatives' stiff, luckless Edward Heath was narrowly defeated by Labour's manoeuvrable, wily Harold Wilson. Wilson had lost to Heath four years earlier, but had won in 1966. Sir Alec Douglas Home had lost to Wilson in 1964, but the Conservatives had won a third successive election victory in 1959 under Harold Macmillan. Clement Attlee had lost to Sir Winston Churchill in 1951, but had won a year earlier for Labour in 1950. The same pattern was observable almost half a century on. Sir John Major lost to Tony Blair in 1997, but the Conservatives had won four elections in a row previously, three of them under Margaret Thatcher. Gordon Brown lost in 2010 – turned out by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – but Blair had previously won three elections of his own. Which takes us to Sir Keir Starmer – victorious in 2024 after four terms of Conservative or Tory-led government. At 172 seats, his majority was only seven fewer than Tony Blair's 179 seat margin in 1997. A year into his premiership, he has good reason, if his history is anything to go by, to look forward to the next election with confidence. But history repeats itself until it suddenly stops doing so. And the question that the Prime Minister must surely be asking himself this weekend, as he reflects on the implosion of his authority this week, is whether the orderly, stable, predictable Britain of those election results is becoming more like, say, Italy – a country in which established political parties can unexpectedly collapse. For they hold firm only if their base is solid. What is Labour's? The clue is in the name: Labour, traditionally, was the party of the working class, drawn from the trade unions, in a country that was largely white. Their rivals, the Conservatives, stood for capital, property and, in the broadest of terms, the middle class. Such was the politics of the post-war settlement. In retrospect, it can be seen to have been quietly fading for three quarters of a century – since 1962, to be precise, when a Liberal by-election victory in Orpington heralded the erosion of the two party monopoly in England. Winnie Ewing signalled the rise of the SNP in Scotland five years later, winning a by-election in Hamilton. In the first of 1974's two general elections, the Liberals won six million votes and the SNP gained seven seats. By 1997, the age of three party politics in England had come: the Liberal Democrats won 46 seats. Ten years later, the SNP formed its first Government in Scotland itself, and has held power there ever since. Where is Labour's base in this brave new world? Much of the white working class doesn't vote at all: only three in five voters turned out to the polls last year. Older, working class, and former Leave voters are deserting Labour for Reform. Younger urban voters, many of them women, are opting instead for the Greens, Liberal Democrats and independents. In short, the coalition that Sir Keir built was shallow as it was wide – and the 411 seats he won may turn out to matter less than the 34 per cent of the vote he won it with: the lowest proportion of the vote for any winning party since 1945. Indeed, the combined share for the two main parties, at 57 per cent, was its lowest in modern times. Labour could recover, as history suggests that they will. Or a crisis in the markets could somehow rescue the Conservatives – establishing them in the public imagination as the party least likely to over-spend, over-tax and over-borrow (despite their record in Government in the wake of Brexit). But the electoral trends of this fragmenting politics suggest a hung Parliament – especially if, on the one hand, Labour clings to economic orthodoxy and, on the other, Jeremy Corbyn's new party gains significant traction and adds definition to the emerging coalition of Greens, Islamists and unreconstructed socialists. Meanwhile, the Conservatives lost control of all 15 councils they were defending in May's local elections, have fallen from 24 per cent in the polls last year to 17 per cent, and face hazardous local elections next year – especially in the east of England, where Reform is very strong. As matters stand, they are set to be the smaller of Britain's two Right-wing parties. The last major political party to collapse here as a governing force was the Liberals – dominant for much of the nineteenth century, displaced on the Left by Labour in the twentieth. 'To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness,' wrote Oscar Wilde in The Importance of Being Earnest. One wonders what he would have said of an age that sees the loss of not one but two great political parties as dominant governing forces. It hasn't happened yet and may not happen at all. But a combination of fractured continental-style politics, with a multiplicity of parties and first past the post are set to produce unsettling results. Lord Goodman of Wycombe is a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange


Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Women who believe in ‘white male privilege' protected from discrimination
Women who believe in ' white male privilege ' are protected from discrimination under equality laws, a judge has ruled. Believing in the notion that white men have an 'unseen advantage' because of their gender and race is a legally protected belief, akin to veganism or gender-critical feminism. The ruling comes in the case of self-proclaimed feminist Misti Kilburn, a senior HR manager suing a global manufacturing company for belief and sex discrimination. Ms Kilburn stopped working for the company in November 2023 and began proceedings in February the following year. She is claiming for discrimination, as well as unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and victimisation. A genuine belief system The tribunal found that Ms Kilburn's views on white male privilege amounted to a genuine belief system that affords protection under discrimination laws. Employment Judge George Alliott said: 'It was clear to us, and we find, that [Ms Kilburn] does genuinely believe that white middle-aged men have an inherent advantage, in particular in the workplace, and that women remain disadvantaged, in particular in the workplace. 'We accept that many would subscribe to the view that in the workplace white middle-aged men have an advantage and women are disadvantaged.' Judge Alliott also said the court took note of the fact that 'glass ceilings' for women are often referred to in political debate and demonstrated by reference to the under-representation of women on the boards of FTSE 100 companies. He added: 'That said, such views, in our judgment, represent the reflection of, at least, the perceived reality where unfairness in the workplace needs to be acknowledged and addressed by equality in the workplace and the promotion of women's rights. 'It is how [Ms Kilburn] perceives the world.' 'The future is female' The preliminary hearing in Watford was told that Ms Kilburn started working for Sensient Technologies Corporation in July 2014. The business is a global manufacturer and marketer of colourants, flavours and other speciality ingredients. The hearing was told Ms Kilburn held the philosophical belief that 'white middle-aged men have an unseen, unconscious advantage or privilege in many public and private areas of their life by consequence of their gender, age and race'. She also said: 'Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their life and that factors such as ethnicity and age affect women's experience and the types of disadvantage to which they might be subject'. The panel found that Ms Kilburn promoted equality in both her work and private life and even referred to a gift given to her by a colleague, which read 'the future is female'.