FFD4: Another Faustian bargain with the private sector?
Dr. Amiera Sawas, Head of Research and Policy, Fossil Fuel Treaty.
I’ve worked at the intersections of climate and ‘development’ for 20 years, but this was my first time attending Financing for Development. No matter your area of work on climate – mine being the lived experiences of women and marginalized groups – there’s no escaping financing. There’s no escaping the issue of debt. And there’s no escaping the reality that macroeconomic injustice makes climate resilience and sustainable development impossible for so many nations.
I am now working on the issue of the ‘just’ energy transition. If we are to stem more disastrous climate change, we need to put the brakes on its biggest driver: fossil fuels. But most countries across the Global South are tied to fossil fuels – either through consumption or production and export dependencies. And those nations are at the crosshairs of systemic injustice: climate impacts are escalating their debt crises, squeezing fiscal space so they can’t respond. Don’t even think about fair financing for renewable energy and economic diversification – that’s reserved mostly for the Global North. And there’s no real plan for addressing this.
Just a few weeks ago, Afrodad and the Civil Society Debt Alliance met in Lusaka, Zambia to discuss Africa’s escalating debt.[1] By the end of 2024, Zambia’s own public and publicly guaranteed debt was US$25 billion – 97.24% of GDP! Climate impacts are devastating the economy – directly affecting energy access, causing loadshedding of up to 17 hours a day. Overlapping crises tarnish the human rights of everyone in this country – even those with the most power and privilege. In this context, what space does Zambia have to transition, let alone design and implement their own sustainable development?
For the majority of economies across the south, it’s a race to the bottom. And who faces the worst consequences? It’s women and girls, it’s minoritized communities, it’s those who have not caused these problems. It is clearer than ever that addressing polycrisis requires system change, starting with economics.
So I found myself at FFD4, because the aims of the conference are to deal with these systemic financial and economic barriers. But to my surprise the FFD4 outcome document had been finalized two weeks in advance. I’m aware of the months of intensive preparatory sessions, but I confess it felt strange to be convening after the fact. Nevertheless, I take a look.
This process was framed as needing to deliver “a renewed global financing framework for sustainable development,” but as I work through the outcome document I am perplexed. I see no references to phasing out fossil fuels (or their public financing) even though this has been identified as critical under the 2024 Pact for the Future and the COP29 outcome. I see no references to any meaningful global mechanism to address debt – despite a spiraling debt crisis.[2] How can sustainable development be achieved without a framework that addresses two of its biggest threats? Don’t even get me started on patriarchy and its close relationship to authoritarian desire, fossil fuels and militarism (AKA petromasculinity – a concept that should be central to our analysis of current times).[3]
International institutions who set the agenda on financing are not interested in the reform that is urgently needed. Justice experts from all corners came to the consensus that at least a permanent multilateral mechanism on addressing sovereign debt should be an essential outcome of FFD4. Furthermore, there has long been a strong consensus on ensuring public finance flows to the global south to ensure sustainable development and a just transition. And yet the outcome text says private and blended finance more times than I care to repeat.
“What we do is more important than what we say or what we say we believe.” bell hooks
In the venue, the notion of inclusion is wildly absent. We are conferencing in a climate driven heatwave of 40C plus and the space is also overcrowded, plagued by inaccessibility and, on the way in, heavily militarized. For anyone who struggles in chaotic environments – good luck! Clear signage and information? Forget it. On my way in I find myself helping a delegation from East Africa, who had struggled to find transport for an hour in the extreme heat. Within 1 hour of being in the venue I feel overwhelmed, anxious and desperate to get out of there. And while the outcome document makes a reference to the care economy, it is abundantly clear that the notion of care was far from the minds developing this environment. The feminists I know and bump into offer momentary solace – plugging the care gap, as usual.
I look for positives in most policy processes, but at this one it’s hard. I heard many times from those deeply involved since the 2000s, that the process and the outcomes have regressed. And that Northern countries and blocs – again – failed to deliver their fair shares of finance and support reform. Some did deliver on a fair share of bullying tactics, though. They succeeded in blocking ambition on the necessary systemic action, whether in debt, tax, financing rules or gender justice.
“Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.” James Baldwin
I did find my positive though – that was in the spaces outside of the official proceedings. Civil society is coalescing, and no matter the divide and rule tactics that try to defund us, cause competition between us, or squeeze us out of official spaces. The Cultural Hub for Economic and Climate Justice, the Global Actions, the march for Palestine, the feminist roundtables, the strategy dinners, the Signal chats. We are coming together.
Yes, we are disappointed. But we are getting more unified. And we are building our own solutions. For example, the Fossil Fuel Treaty, where I work, is driven by a coalition of 17 nations, flanked by civil society. We aren’t waiting for global consensus to come through – we are developing ideas that can address them. Right now we are working on a debt resolution mechanism, which will support nations who want to phase out fossil fuels while addressing their debt and accessing fair financing for the transition.[4] We are seeping up where duty bearers aren’t – but we won’t forget whose duty it is, and we won’t reduce the pressure on them either.