logo
Nations are meeting to drum up trillions to combat poverty — but the US isn't going

Nations are meeting to drum up trillions to combat poverty — but the US isn't going

Independent14 hours ago

Many of the world's nations are gathering starting Monday in Spain for a high-level conference to tackle the growing gap between rich and poor nations and try to drum up trillions of dollars needed to close it. The United States, previously a major contributor, pulled its participation, so finding funding will be tough.
The four-day Financing for Development meeting in the southern city of Seville is taking place as many countries face escalating debt burdens, declining investments, decreasing international aid and increasing trade barriers.
The United Nations and Spain, the conference co-hosts, believe it is an opportunity to reverse the downward spiral, close the staggering $4 trillion annual financing gap to promote development, bring millions of people out of poverty and help achieve the U.N.'s wide-ranging and badly lagging Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.
U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed said Wednesday that despite 'the headwinds' and high geopolitical tensions, there is hope the world can address one of the most important global challenges — ensuring all people have access to food, health care, education and water.
'This conference is an appeal to action,' Spain's U.N. Ambassador Hector Gomez Hernandez said, 'and we have the extraordinary opportunity to send a very strong message to defend the international community's commitment to multilateralism.'
High-level delegations, including more than 70 world leaders, are expected in Seville, Mohammed said, along with several thousand others from international financial institutions, development banks, philanthropic organizations, the private sector and civil society.
At its last preparatory meeting on June 17, the United States rejected the 38-page outcome document that had been negotiated for months by the U.N.'s 193 member nations and announced its withdrawal from the process and from the Seville conference.
The rest of the countries then approved the document by consensus and sent it to Seville, where it is expected to be adopted by conference participants without changes. It will be known as the Seville Commitment — or Compromiso de Sevilla in Spanish.
The document says the leaders and high-level representatives have decided to launch 'an ambitious package of reforms and actions to close the financing gap with urgency,' saying it is now estimated at $4 trillion a year.
Among the proposals and actions, it calls for minimum tax revenue of 15% of a country's gross domestic product to increase government resources, a tripling of lending by multilateral development banks, and scaling up private financing by providing incentives for investing in critical areas like infrastructure. It also calls for a number of reforms to help countries deal with rising debt.
U.N. trade chief Rebeca Grynspan told a news conference Friday that 'development is going backward' and the global debt crisis has worsened.
Last year, 3.3 billion people were living in countries that pay more interest on their debts than they spend on health or education — and the number will increase to 3.4 billion people this year, she said. And developing countries will pay $947 billion to service debts this year, up from $847 billion last year.
She spoke at a press conference where an expert group on debt appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres presented 11 recommendations that they say can resolve the debt crisis, empower borrowing countries and create a fairer system.
While the U.S. objected to many actions in the outcome document, American diplomat Jonathan Shrier told the June 17 meeting: 'Our commitment to international cooperation and long-term economic development remains steadfast.'
He said, however, that the text 'crosses many of our red lines,' including interfering with the governance of international financial institutions, tripling the annual lending capacity of multilateral development banks and proposals envisioning a role for the U.N. in the global debt architecture.
Shrier also objected to proposals on trade, tax and innovation that are not in line with U.S. policy, as well as language on a U.N. framework convention on international tax cooperation.
The United States was the world's largest single funder of foreign aid. The Trump administration has dismantled its main aid agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development, while drastically slashing foreign assistance funding, calling it wasteful and contrary to the Republican president's agenda. Other Western donors also have cut back international aid.
The U.N.'s Mohammed said the U.S. withdrawal from the conference was 'unfortunate,' stressing that 'many of the recommendations you see cannot be pursued without a continuous engagement with the U.S.'
After Seville, "we will engage again with the U.S. and hope that we can make the case that they be part of the success of pulling millions of people out of poverty.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

It's still OK to like ‘American' food — here are London's best
It's still OK to like ‘American' food — here are London's best

Times

time10 minutes ago

  • Times

It's still OK to like ‘American' food — here are London's best

'I wasn't looking to open a bagel shop,' says Dan Martensen, founder of It's Bagels ( 'I was just a New Yorker in London who wanted a proper bagel.' What began as a lockdown craving fast developed into an obsession, as Martensen strove to perfect the taste and texture of Manhattan's culinary icon. Yet the closer he came, the more he realised the final missing ingredient wasn't the Manhattan water, as many claim; it was the 'feeling of a bagel shop: the music, the photos of and by New Yorkers, the subway maps, the shouting servers.' Five years on, Martensen has three across London, in Primrose Hill, Westbourne Grove and Soho. It's a familiar tale among the new wave of restaurateurs dishing up regional American food in London — the realisation that the flavours they are looking to create are inextricably linked with the cultures that gave rise to them. This was true of the fast-food chains that gave American food culture a bad name — McDonald's and Burger King, say — brands that still capture a particular type of 1950s Americana. But it is even more pertinent when it comes to the regional cuisines that have historically not been well represented in the UK. • Read more restaurant reviews and recipes from our food experts 'The buffalo wings you'll get here are as good as any you'd get in Philly,' JP Teti says. He's founder of Passyunk Avenue ( London's 'First True Philadelphia Jawn'. 'My aspiration was more to sell the Philly lifestyle than it was cheese steaks and picklebacks,' he says. The walls are covered with Philadelphia Eagles merch and dollar bills, there's a lifesize model of Danny DeVito by the loos, and the service is generous and fun with a 'a little bit of Philly frankness' mixed in. It is, Teti says 'an intensely ethnic cultural experience'. 'Food is an output of culture,' Jacob Kenedy, chef patron of Plaquemine Lock ( points out, 'and the food of Louisiana is very symptomatic of where it has come from.' At Plaquemine Lock, Kenedy serves Cajun and Creole cuisine: a melting pot of Louisiana's French, African and American cultures. The restaurant is a love letter to New Orleans (where Kenedy has family) and to his fascination with how 'a truly repugnant period in history — slavery — resulted in a comfortable marriage of cuisines and cultures that permeates everyone's life, everywhere,' he says proudly, pointing out the city's formative influence on jazz and cocktails. Unlike more generic iterations of southern cuisine in the UK, this food feels as nuanced as the walls adorned with family memorabilia and hand-painted Mississippi murals. It is, on the one hand, part of a larger, longstanding trend toward more regionally specific restaurants in London. Just as Brat is Basque, not Spanish, and Bouchon Racine is Lyonnaise not French, so Plaquemine Lock is Louisianian, not American. Yet it feels more significant, in part because of the identity crisis gripping the States, in part because American food has been (and still is) so caricatured. 'Dude food, mama's mac and cheese, fast food — everything has been obvious pastiche,' the chef Tom Browne says. In 2014 he founded Decatur ( a pop-up restaurant showcasing southern specialities like shrimp boils. The clichéd American food that has made its way round the world, Browne reckons, 'has been linked to capitalism, rather than immigrants seeking a better life'. The truth is that most American food comes out of the waves of newcomers who have settled in different parts of the United States and made their culinary peace with what came before them. 'The regional foods which are associated with different immigrant communities, and the interplay between them, that's what's interesting,' the food writer Felicity Cloake reckons. Tex-Mex for her is a perfect example. Richard Burghardt, the co-founder of D Grande in Chiswick, agrees. 'It's wildly varied because it's had decades of evolution since Mexican immigrants first established Mexican restaurants in Texas — and the cuisines of Mexico are wildly varied in the first place,' he says. Hence a menu that includes fajitas, whose name is derived from the Spanish word for belt but which first emerged on the ranches of West Texas — only to be evolved into the sizzling, steak-and-salsa dish we know today. When the Philadelphian Teti opened Passyunk, it was because he would 'constantly see new American hospitality concepts here that were broad brush and generalist, when the America I know is idiosyncratic and regional.' Of course, it is impossible to talk about American food without mentioning the man in the White House. Not one of the restaurateurs I speak to are running 'political' restaurants — yet Trump's effect on their country's global reputation in the last six months has made their specificity interesting. 'Trump's own burger-based diet reinforces the very clichés that these restaurateurs have been trying to upend,' Browne says. Like his political ideology, Trump's view of American food is informed by 'a rose-tinted idea of America under Eisenhower in the 1950s: the glory days of fast food, and people getting refrigerators. They are his glory days — not the glory days of American cuisine,' says the journalist and podcaster Jon Sopel, who found much to love in its regional specialities during his six years as the BBC's North America editor. • Your guide to life in London: what's new in culture, food and property Nevertheless, 'Brand America suffers as a result of what Trump is doing, and that applies to food as much as anything else,' he continues, pointing out the declining interest in American tourism in the UK and in Canada, where he was struck recently by efforts of several restaurants to highlight their use of Canadian, not American, produce. 'When you're in the business of selling Americana via a hospitality medium, it is not entirely helpful when the government of the day launches a global insult tour that undermines the values that many people find so attractive about American culture,' Teti says. The specific cultural nuances of Passyunk Avenue, which Teti feared would be lost on non-Americans, have proved a saving grace. 'American regionality — its glories, weirdnesses and aspiration — is what we represent and it's a bite-sized interpretation of America which people everywhere can relate to or at least find curious.' Americans are proudly American — but their local identity matters as much, if not more. 'The way I feel when I say I'm American versus when I say I'm a New Yorker is very different,' says Martensen, who points out that New Yorkers are New Yorkers first and foremost. Equally, 'the people of New Orleans have this passionate, enchanted relationship with the place,' Kenedy says, 'which I can't recreate at Plaquemine, but I try.' Politics and dinner are not supposed to mix. 'One is powerful and scary, and the other is delicious,' says Kenedy. In their passionate regionality, these restaurants showcase what non-Americans love about American dining: the generosity, the familiarity, the funny blend of excitability and earnestness. In so far as these restaurants are political, it's as 'an antidote to the disappointment and malaise', Teti says. 'We're showing this positive form of America, which we hope will come again and will cling on to.'

Energy firms missing Ofgem capital rules ‘should be named'
Energy firms missing Ofgem capital rules ‘should be named'

Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Times

Energy firms missing Ofgem capital rules ‘should be named'

Energy suppliers that are failing to meet Ofgem's financial resilience targets are getting an unfair advantage and should be named, according to rivals. The regulator has come under fire from Utility Warehouse, Britain's seventh-largest supplier, and Good Energy, a leading smaller supplier, for failing to identify three companies that are falling short of the minimum 'capital target' that came into force at the end of March. The rules were introduced after dozens of poorly-capitalised suppliers went bust in the energy crisis of 2021-22, costing households billions of pounds. Octopus Energy, Britain's biggest supplier, told The Times in April that it was one of those that had not met its capital target. Ovo, Britain's fourth-largest supplier, is the only big company that has refused to say whether it has met its goal. Stuart Burnett, chief executive of Telecom Plus, the FTSE 250 owner of Utility Warehouse, and Nigel Pocklington, chief executive of Good Energy, both said they believed the situation created an uneven playing field and called for more transparency. Burnett told The Times: 'We estimate over one third of energy consumers are currently with a supplier that falls hundreds of millions below their capital target. The urgency of the situation will only grow as these suppliers continue to acquire more customers unchecked. 'Ofgem's approach is already creating an unlevel playing field, and should undercapitalised suppliers fail, it is the consumer that will suffer the most.' The financial resilience requirement comprises a capital floor of £0 at all times and a capital target of £115 adjusted net assets per dual fuel equivalent customer. Suppliers can be below the target if they have an Ofgem-approved plan to achieve it. Pocklington said that his company had had to turn down business because it 'didn't feel it prudent given both capital requirements and the lessons of the market over the last few years'. 'It's deeply concerning to see that others appear to be permitted to operate differently, effectively socialising risk while not meeting the same standards,' he said. • 'There needs to be far greater clarity over which suppliers are failing to meet minimum capital targets and how long they're being given to comply. The current approach risks creating an uneven playing field, where specialist and compliant suppliers like us are penalised for doing the right thing.' MPs on the energy security and net zero committee quizzed Jonathan Brearley, Ofgem's chief executive, last week about the lack of transparency, citing figures suggesting that one supplier had been almost £1.3 billion short of its capital target as of December 2023 and another almost £900 million short as of April 2024. Brearley responded: 'There remain companies of concern and we are working with those on transition plans to make sure that they get themselves into a place where they are meeting all of our capital adequacy rules.' He added that the regulator had not expected that every company would meet its criteria 'on day one' and that if they failed to meet milestones the regulator could stop them taking on new customers. Octopus has said it is 'fully compliant with Ofgem's new financial resilience rules'. It says it has a balance sheet of £1.7 billion and a trading arrangement with Shell 'that eliminates the key financial risks to which most suppliers are exposed' and gives it 'greater capacity to absorb shocks than many longer-established companies'. An Ofgem spokeswoman said: 'We've seen vast improvements in supplier financial resilience, and any company below the target has taken concrete action. We've taken a market-wide approach to the report, rather than focusing on individual supplier performance, and we've committed to reviewing how we publish this data in future.'

How does Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain differ from Reform UK?
How does Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain differ from Reform UK?

The Independent

time25 minutes ago

  • The Independent

How does Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain differ from Reform UK?

Just when you thought politics couldn't fragment any further, along come two new political movements on the far right, both spawned from Reform UK like replicating amoebae. The very newest is 'Restore Britain', which proclaims it is not a party but a 'movement'. That one is led by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe. The other is the creation of former Reform UK deputy leader Ben Habib, and is a party, albeit a slightly peculiar one. Habib was sacked from his Reform role by Nigel Farage after the general election last year, and left what he called 'the cult' soon afterwards. Although Reform UK is still arguably the main force on the right of British politics, with a comfortable polling lead over the Conservatives, it has many smaller competitors, and has itself – including in its previous incarnations (Ukip, Brexit Party) – shown a distinct tendency to splinter at the first sign of success. After all, its chair, Zia Yusuf, recently resigned and un-resigned in one day. They're a volatile lot. Hasn't Habib got a party already? Well, he did have. 'Integrity' was its name. It actually never registered with the Electoral Commission, and as a corporate entity it has now been renamed Advance UK Party Limited, according to the records at Companies House. Integrity Party Limited was originally incorporated on 19 November 2024. Its directors were Habib himself; Christian Russell (resigned 11 April 2025); Richard Shaw (also resigned on 11 April); and Mohammad Sohail (resigned 13 December 2024). So Habib is apparently now its sole director, and he is the only 'person with significant control', holding, directly or indirectly, 75 per cent or more of the shares in the company. So is it democratic? That remains to be seen. It's curious, because one of the reasons Habib gave for leaving Reform UK was the personal control Farage exerted on Reform UK Limited – but this has now altered significantly (albeit Farage would still be practically impossible for the membership to depose). For what it's worth, Advance UK seems to have an extremely complex, opaque and unworkable system of governance, as part private company and part conventional political party. So: the board of directors (currently just Habib) approves policy and 'oversees' what is referred to as 'the leadership', while party members elect 'the college', which elects the leader and can remove him or her. (Habib is officially 'leader in waiting'.) The college is overseen by its chair, who is also the chair of the board of directors (Habib, presumably). It's almost as if Habib deliberately created a structure guaranteed to create internal friction and splits because he enjoys a ruckus, and likes things done his way or not at all. Not unlike Farage, Yusuf, Lee Anderson, and Lowe, in fact. Is it extremist? Quite possibly. Habib got into some bother last year when, as a Reform UK spokesperson, he advocated leaving migrants to drown in the sea if they refused the offer of a boat that would return them to France: 'We could, as an idea, provide them with another dinghy into which to climb and then go back to France. If they choose to scupper that dinghy, then yes, they have to suffer the consequences of their actions.' Challenged by the Talk TV host Julia Hartley-Brewer on whether he would leave them to die, he added: 'Absolutely: they cannot be infantalised to the point that we become hostage to fortune.' Sadly, some agree with him. It's a crowded field, though? Indeed, as the far-right fringe tends to be (mirroring the far left, as it happens). There's also the remains of Ukip, now run militantly by street politician Nick Tenconi (after the previous leader defected to Reform); Reclaim, led by Laurence Fox, though it's electorally inactive; and the 'SDP', which it's fair to say is unrecognisable to those who recall the 1981 Roy Jenkins version. There's also the Heritage Party, English Democrats, BNP and Britain First. Plus others. Could it work? Maybe if it got massive financial support from Elon Musk – he's no fan of Farage, and favours Rupert Lowe, but Lowe is not leading Advance UK. What of Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain? Aside from the Farage factor, an even more extreme 'mass deportation' stance, and an obsession with grooming gangs, it is hard to see how Restore Britain really differs that much from Reform UK, Advance UK, or various of the other organisations. In fact, eccentric as ever – or maybe cunningly – Lowe has thrown his movement open to people in any party 'if they share our values and want to be part of a bottom-up movement that has the potential to transform Britain'. Indeed, Habib, on the day he launched his own party, also joined Restore Britain; Lowe, however, shows no sign of joining Advance UK. Habib claims to be in constant touch with the maverick anti-burqa MP. Will they split the right-wing vote? Not to any noticeable degree. Advance, Ukip, Reclaim and the others will probably continue to have negligible electoral impact, generally lacking resources, mass membership, well-known personalities, local organisations, sympathetic coverage in the right-wing press, or their own television station – all advantages enjoyed by Reform UK, which of course also now has a significant body of elected representatives (though these are inexperienced at best). The scrap between the Conservatives and Reform remains the more significant one, bearing in mind that closer links between those two would also alienate moderate pro-Europe Tories who would then back the Lib Dems or Labour instead, basically out of fear and loathing of Farage. 'Unite the right' sounds appealing, but it would mean the end of the Tories, so it won't happen at national level. Under first-past-the-post, the next election could be quite chaotic. Anyone else on the extreme-right populist bandwagon? The cynically minded might add Keir Starmer and the Labour Party, who, at least in their 'island of strangers' moments, seem to have the attitude that 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'. Joking aside, some centre-left and centre-right parties in Europe have become increasingly hardline on immigration, albeit none want to leave the EU. They're not that mad.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store