This is a season of war. This is a time of crisis by Filippo Grandi UN High Commissioner for Refugees   Statement by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi to the United Nations Security Council; 28 April 2025:   "This is a season of war. This is a time of crisis. From Sudan to Ukraine, from the Sahel to Myanmar, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Haiti, violence has become the defining currency of our age. While UNHCR is not part of the United Nations response in Gaza, the situation of civilians there, which we thought could not get worse, is reaching new levels of desperation by the day.   I realize I am not telling the members of this Council anything you do not already know – which is an indictment in itself – but unfortunately that is the reality of our world.   One where, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, 120 conflicts rage unabated. Each one of them fuelled by the same perverse yet powerful delusion: that peace is for the weak; that the only way to end war is not through negotiation but by inflicting so much pain on your enemies that they are left with two choices: to surrender or to be annihilated.   And so, blinded by the idea that only total military victory will do, it should come as no surprise that the norms of international humanitarian law, once held in respect, or at least proclaimed to be – protecting civilians, upholding the neutrality of humanitarian actors, allowing the most basic aid to reach people under siege – are cast aside, dismissed as easily as the thousands of lives destroyed in the pursuit of supremacy.   As Pope Francis said, “every war represents not only a defeat of politics but also a shameful surrender.’ He is gone, sadly, but his words remain more urgent than ever.   Preventing and stopping war – upholding peace and security – this is the Security Council’s mandate. This is your primary responsibility. And one that – you will forgive me for again saying it – this body has chronically failed to live up to.   But please do not resign yourselves to the defeat of diplomacy. I speak to you today once more on behalf of the 123 million people forcibly displaced – who are among the first victims of wars, and in many ways the most visible symptom of conflict and persecution.   Caught in devastating situations, they have sought safety – or at least attempted to. But they will continue to hope for a safe return. And they – I know – will not be resigned and will not want us to be.   Like the people of Sudan, one third of whom have been displaced since the start of the conflict two years ago. One out of every three people! Forced to flee their homes because of a situation that frankly defies description – indiscriminate violence, disease, starvation, rampant sexual atrocities, flooding, droughts.   A country and a society torn apart in a context where all pretense of adherence to humanitarian norms has been abandoned. I was in Chad earlier this month, at the border with Sudan. I met women and children who had just arrived from embattled El-Fasher and Zamzam. They reported horrors, but above all fear.   Civilians in Darfur are regularly blocked from fleeing dangerous areas. Worse, they are actively targeted – you will have seen recent reports of attacks against civilians in and around displacement camps, where delivering aid is not only a security and logistical challenge, as it is in the rest of the country, but also a bureaucratic nightmare intertwined with toxic politics.   That is why it was so significant that those same families, telling me their stories, pointed at the border and said that crossing it, in spite of all hardships they knew they would endure, meant leaving at least that fear behind – no better testament to the life-saving power of asylum.   As the number of displaced Sudanese continues to grow, humanitarians have sounded the alarm about the terrible human cost exacted from the Sudanese people and from their future. Warning also – as I did again at the London Conference only a few days ago – that the consequences of this conflict have now spread well beyond Sudan’s borders, and especially to those countries which collectively host more than three million Sudanese refugees, from Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda to the Central African Republic.   The most impacted are Chad and South Sudan, which face enormous challenges of their own besides the refugee influx, but that have kept their borders open despite vastly insufficient humanitarian financing – the latest regional refugee appeal is only 11 per cent funded.   Yet, the needs are enormous. Refugees arrive with nothing and are given a fraction of what is required because of declining aid funding, plus whatever Chadian communities near the border can afford. The Chadian authorities are sparing no effort. Chadian refugee laws and policies are among the most progressive in the world. What they lack are resources, so they can continue receiving refugees. We cannot leave them alone.   Because there is nothing inevitable, Mr. President, about the decision to host, protect and assist refugees – much less welcoming responses to displacement in much wealthier countries clearly show that. All countries make choices, and you have heard me disagree with many. In this instance, refugee-receiving countries are making the right decision. They are doing their part. We, the humanitarians, are on the ground, doing our part. You must be more committed, and more united, to do yours.   Every day that passes without the parties to the Sudan conflict coming to the negotiating table makes the war worse; makes the war more complicated too: refugees talk of not just two parties, but of a proliferation of local militias, loosely affiliated to the main actors, perpetrating violent abuse.   This deadly confusion is a feature of modern wars. We should have learned lessons from wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Afghanistan, whose spillover consequences many members of this Council still contend with to this day. Because if the current dynamics – resigned powerlessness and dwindling aid – do not change, then let us harbour no illusions: the Sudan war’s destabilizing effects will grow, including the onward movement of people: there are already more than 200,000 Sudanese in Libya today, many of whom may travel towards Europe.   I also watch with great concern – like you, I’m sure – the latest developments in Ukraine – a country I have visited six times since 2022. As recently as January, I was in Kyiv and Sumy – cities that have again suffered devastating attacks just in the last few days. I saw the terrible toll this war continues to take on the Ukrainian people, and especially on the most vulnerable – the elderly, children, families – whose resilience nevertheless remains admirable, even as it has grown weary. UNHCR works closely with the government and local civil society partners to help alleviate the suffering and bring some normalcy and hope to people’s lives.   But clearly, as said by many, what people need is a just peace. My role is not to describe what it looks like, but to remind all those engaged in peace efforts not to forget the plight of more than 10 million displaced Ukrainians – seven million of whom are refugees. It is crucial to continue to plan for their eventual return to their communities. But they will not return unless they can be safe and secure, in the short and in the long term.   Unless the sirens truly stop announcing incoming attacks, unless they have access to decent housing, services and work, and unless they are confident that the terms of peace are durable, for them and for their country.   That is the essential calculus for ending humanitarian and refugee crises, Mr. President. Security and self-reliance. And both must convey a sense of being durable.   Solutions are hard work. They require commitment and compromise. You cannot make peace passively or hope for it to happen through mere attrition. That is why it is all the more important that when even unexpected opportunities emerge, we must be ready to seize them. And be ready to take calculated risks.   For the last eight years, for example, stagnation has defined the response in Myanmar. The fighting between the Tatmadaw and different armed groups has caused immense suffering and large-scale displacement throughout the country and the region – a situation exacerbated by the terrible earthquake that struck a month ago.   The plight of the Rohingya minority, in particular, has become even worse. Fighting in Rakhine State with the Arakan Army has been particularly vicious – 1.2 million Rohingya are refugees today, mostly in Bangladesh, in the camps around Cox’s Bazaar.   We must thank Bangladesh and its people for having provided them refuge over the years. But Rohingya refugees languish in the camps, without work, deprived of agency, entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, which grows ever more precarious. Half the refugee population is under the age of 18.   They are, to paraphrase Chief Advisor Dr Yunus, disconnected from opportunity but connected to the world through the internet. Is it any wonder that many feel compelled to embark on dangerous sea journeys in pursuit of opportunity? Or that those looking to recruit fighters find fertile soil?   But there is now an opportunity to break this dangerous inertia. The interim government of Bangladesh has chosen to engage with the parties to the conflict in Rakhine State in pursuit of a solution there – where it rightly lies. Many will immediately say that such a solution today is impossible for all the reasons we know: too much blood has been shed, discrimination continues, and there are too many competing interests to balance. Many will say that the root causes will never be effectively addressed, and that may well be the case.   But we have been down the path of stagnation for eight years in respect of the Rohingya situation – it is a dead end. From the perspective of pursuing solutions to the Rohingya plight, and in order to start recreating conditions for the return of refugees, dialogue with all parties is a critical first step so that humanitarian agencies – including UNHCR – can reestablish their presence and resume providing desperately needed humanitarian relief – safely and freely.   That, in turn, would provide a basis on which to restart discussions on the eventual return of displaced Rohingya – I stress: voluntarily, in safety and dignity – once the security situation in Rakhine allows, and from where other legal rights could also be pursued. It is a long shot, for sure, but I urge you to think out of the box and take some risks. I hope the Council will continue to focus robustly on the situation in Myanmar – including the plight of the Rohingya, and I look forward to the conference planned for September here in New York.   Other possible turning points are visible, literally, even from here. On Friday, the new flag of Syria was raised at the United Nations – what a powerful symbol for all Syrians! And there we have another long-standing humanitarian and displacement crisis for which an unexpected solution may now be achievable.   But to pursue that, you must all prioritize the Syrian people over long-standing politics, some of which are frankly outdated. That also entails taking calculated risks. Of course, we cannot be naive, many challenges remain – you heard Minister Shaibani describe them here on Friday. It is impossible to overcome the devastation caused by 14 years of war in a few months. But, for the first time in decades, there is a spark of hope, including for the millions of Syrians who remain displaced today, 4.5 million of them refugees in neighbouring countries.   Since 8 December, those numbers have been decreasing – slowly but steadily – as the return movement of internally displaced Syrians grows. We observe an increase of returns also from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkiye. We estimate that over one million people – one million people! – have already returned, and, based on what recent surveys show, many more may follow.   Whether they will stay in Syria or, tragically, move again – including to Europe and beyond – depends, of course, on the authorities, but also – very much – on your willingness to take risks.   To ease sanctions, seriously support early recovery, spur investment by the private sector and others: in a word, create conditions so that the basic elements of dignified life – security, water, electricity, education, economic opportunities – are available to the Syrian people as they start to rebuild their communities.   To minimize the risks that returning Syrians are taking, I am asking you to take some risks yourselves – political and economic ones. And yes, that must also mean sustained and more significant humanitarian aid, which at the moment – like everywhere else – is decreasing sharply.   I would in fact be remiss, before concluding, if I did not draw the Council’s attention on the critical situation of aid funding. In the precise moment when there is hope to finally move towards solutions to several displacement crises – not only in Syria, but also in Burundi or the Central African Republic – we see a retrenchment away from aid, away from multilateralism, even away from life-saving assistance. We hear of prioritizing national interests, of boosting defense spending – all valid concerns of course, and legitimate state pursuits. But these are not incompatible with aid, quite the contrary.   And so, I find myself making the same argument time after time, trying to convince donor countries of a reality we can all clearly see: that aid is stability. Freezing or cutting aid budgets is already having fatal consequences on millions of lives.   It means, among many other things, abandoning displaced people to their fate; taking support away from sometimes very fragile host countries; and ultimately undermining your own stability.   And multilateralism, in fact – including multilateral aid – adds to that same stability and remains indispensable to find solutions to crises, including forced displacement.   I may sound anachronistic, but after more than 40 years as a humanitarian, and almost 10 years in my current job, I continue to believe that it is by sitting at the same table that all voices can be heard – the strong and the less strong.   And to those who feel that multilateralism is stifling, slow and misaligned with your priorities, I hope you realize that leaving the debate does not mean that the discussion would end. It will not, but it will be less effective and less compelling. We need all of you.   Refugees offer one of the best examples of this shared task. Because if you look around this room, you will see, like I do, that forced displacement has concerned every member of the Security Council at one point, one way or another.   The struggle for freedom; the fight against oppression; the imperative to leave one’s home behind because of war, violence, and persecution; the refuge given to those compelled to flee – these are also familiar strands in each of your countries’ histories; deeply woven in complex and unique ways into your traditions and values. You have been the refugee. You have welcomed those who sought refuge.   Now you sit at this table, with the responsibility to end war, to bring peace. And you must succeed. You owe it not only to all those who are displaced and who count on you. You also owe it to yourselves."   http://www.unhcr.org/news/speeches-and-statements/statement-un-high-commissioner-refugees-filippo-grandi-security http://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing-notes/unhcr-funding-crunch-increases-risks-violence-danger-and-death-refugees http://www.wfp.org/news/refugees-kenya-risk-worsening-hunger-wfp-faces-critical-funding-shortfall http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/alarmed-reports-rohingya-cast-sea-indian-navy-vessels-un-expert-launches Visit the related web page
	Rescuing the SDGs: Plenty of Resources, Lack of Will by Amnesty International, agencies   25 Apr. 2025   Years of underinvestment by all states mean the majority of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are way off track from their 2030 targets. The Fourth Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) to be held in Seville, between 30 June and 3 July 2025, provides a significant opportunity to both re-commit to the SDGs and ensure the resources are provided to achieve them.   “The Sustainable Development Goals represent a bold vision: a commitment to a better, healthier, safer and more prosperous and sustainable future. But the Goals are facing massive headwinds. More than 4 out of 5 SDG targets are off track. On top of the impacts from a global pandemic, many countries are being crushed by massive debt burdens, limited liquidity and sky-high borrowing costs. Conflicts, hunger, inequalities and the climate crisis are all intensifying. The world has the wealth, the technology, and the know-how to achieve the SDGs… there is no excuse.” António Guterres, UN Secretary General   “We cannot afford a retreat from multilateral cooperation. These global challenges far exceed the capacity of any single state to respond. They can only be effectively addressed through a strong commitment to multilateralism, international cooperation and global solidarity based on mutual respect, shared responsibility, and collective action.” Draft FfD4 outcome document, para 4.   INTRODUCTION   The world is beset by multiple crises including widescale humanitarian emergencies and increasing global inequality both between and within countries exacerbated by the United States’ decision in April 2025 to impose severe global tariffs, with more threatened, many hitting some of the poorest and most vulnerable countries hardest.   The cataclysmic impacts of the climate crisis are being felt across the planet often in those low-income countries which have contributed the least to the carbon emissions driving global warming.   The global rise of authoritarian practices is undermining previous commitments to multilateralism and international cooperation and eroding the potential for collective action towards a common good. Yet precisely at this moment when the world needs to come together to address these myriad disasters, we are witnessing higher-income states reneging on their international human rights obligations and other international commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).   For example, the recent decisions by the USA and other governments to slash vitally needed international development assistance stands to have catastrophic consequences on human rights. Such retrenchment could not come at a worse time. Years of underinvestment by all states mean the majority of the SDGs are way off track from their 2030 targets. For example, it is estimated that 585 million people will still face hunger at the end of the decade, despite commitments by governments to ensure there is zero hunger by this date.   The Fourth Financing for Development (FfD4) Summit to be held in Seville between 30 June and 3 July 2025 provides a significant opportunity to both re-commit to the SDGs and ensure the resources are provided to achieve them. The gathering, which last took place a decade ago, will be attended by government leaders, together with international and regional organizations, financial and trade institutions, businesses and civil society.   Beginning in Monterey, Mexico in 2002 the conferences aim to address the financing of global development and key related issues. The outcome of the first conference resulted in a landmark global agreement between developed and developing countries, in which both recognized their responsibilities in key areas such as trade, aid, debt relief and institution building.   As elaborated in its draft outcome document,8 this Summit has bold ambitions to bolster financing at all levels, including reform of international financial architecture. The current system is rooted in historical inequalities and the continuing legacy of colonialism, which leaves many low-income countries with unsustainable debt and without the resources they need to progress towards the SDGs.   “We commit to reform the international financial architecture, enhancing its resilience and effectiveness in responding to present and future challenges and crises. To better reflect today’s realities, we commit to make global governance more inclusive and effective. We acknowledge the important role of the United Nations in global economic governance, recognizing the complementary mandates of international organizations, that make the coordination of their actions crucial.” Draft FfD4 outcome document para 6   These ambitious aims cannot be met without real commitments, concrete action and sufficient resources from both states and others including international financial institutions.   All governments attending the Summit, including those that benefit from the current unfair and unequal global economy, must confront both the immediate crisis linked to the cutting of international assistance by major donors, as well as commit to structural reforms that could provide sustainable sources of financing for the longer term – from advancing international tax cooperation and addressing the debt crisis, to reforming international financial institutions to promoting more inclusive systems of financing and development.   If governments step up, FfD4 has the potential to be a springboard for salvaging the SDGs and averting climate catastrophe. In turn, this will guarantee the human rights of billions of people currently being denied socio-economic and climate justice. This briefing sets out the need to significantly increase spending on the SDGs and proposes different measures to achieve this through fiscal reforms and responsible development financing.   THE SDGS ARE WAY OFF TRACK WITH ONLY FIVE YEARS LEFT TO 2030   "Our failure to secure peace, to confront climate change and to boost international finance is undermining development. We must accelerate action for the Sustainable Development Goals - and we don’t have a moment to lose.” António Guterres, UN Secretary General   The 17 SDGs with their 169 targets were agreed by governments in 2015 to replace the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) with an implementation deadline of 2030. In aspiring to “leave nobody behind” their ambitious aims include eradicating poverty, ending world hunger, sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, and reducing inequality within and among countries.   All of these are inextricably linked to states’ human rights obligations to guarantee economic, social and cultural rights. In addition, the Goals, particularly through Goal 16, also address governance and related civil and political rights issues such as the rule of law, access to justice and freedom of information emphasizing the interdependence and indivisibility of all rights.   Yet two thirds of the way towards 2030, the SDGs are widely off track. At the mid-way point of the SDGs, in July 2023, the UN reported that progress on more than half of the SDGs was “weak and insufficient,” while for another 30% it had “stalled or gone into reverse”.   These include key targets on poverty, hunger and climate. According to the latest report by the UN Secretary General, in May 2024 only 17% of SDGs targets were on track to be achieved, nearly half were showing minimal or moderate progress, and progress on over a third had stalled or even regressed.   Based on these current trends, by 2030 585 million people will be chronically undernourished,16 575 million people will still be living in extreme poverty, 84 million children will be out of school, 300 million attending school will leave unable to read and write and 660 million people will remain without electricity.   MASSIVE FUNDING SHORTFALLS   Despite their critical importance, it is not surprising that progress towards the SDGs has been so slow when recent estimates by the UN Agency for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) are that the annual SDG investment gap in low- and middle-income countries – from public and private sources – now stands at about US$4 trillion, compared to US$2.5 trillion before the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the deficit.18 While a huge sum, according to research by UBS bank, this equates to less than 1% of the estimated total global private wealth of US$454 trillion – over 45% of which is controlled by the richest 1.1% of the world’s population.   UNCTAD estimates that over half of the US$4 trillion needed - US$2.2 trillion – is required to invest in clean energy, while US$500 billion is required for water and sanitation, US$400 billion in non-energy infrastructure, US$300 billion for food and agriculture, US$300 billion for biodiversity and between US$100 billion and US$600 billion for health and education.   Recognizing this investment gap, in February 2023 the UN Secretary General launched the SDG Stimulus21 to try and boost progress by: Tackling the high cost for many countries, particularly middle- and low-income, of servicing state sovereign debt; and being in debt distress (the inability to meet debt obligations). Scaling up affordable and long-term financing for development. Expanding contingency financing to countries in need.   Yet over two years later, and despite subsequent initiatives such as the Summit and Pact of the Future at the 2024 UN General Assembly,22 there is a chronic lack of progress – and even reversals in some of these areas, which stands to be exacerbated by abrupt and sweeping development aid cuts and tariff hikes which could disproportionately harm the poorest countries.   IMPACT OF FREEZING AND CUTTING DEVELOPMENT AID   “In the past, we had to cut food aid to people who were hungry but not yet starving. Now we’re forced to cut assistance even for those facing starvation. That means people will die.” Carl Skau, UN World Food Programme Deputy Executive Director   Against this backdrop, the recent decisions of the US and other governments to significantly cut overseas development aid is particularly shocking. In February 2025, the US government announced it would be cutting 83% of USAID contracts sending a shockwave through the humanitarian and aid world. In 2024, the US government spent US$59 bn in overseas aid. The UK government quickly followed suit by deciding in February to cut its overseas aid budget by £6.1 billion (US$7.9 billion) in order to increase defence spending, reducing its spending from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3% by 2027. France also slashed €2 billion (US$2.27 billion) of development aid from its 2025 budget while the outgoing German government had planned to cut €900 million (US$1.02 billion), though this has yet to be confirmed. Other governments that have either cut or planning to do so include Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.   The impact of those cuts that have been implemented is already putting the health and lives of millions of people in vulnerable situations across the world at risk. The impact of hollowing out USAID has been particularly consequential given that the United States is historically the biggest donor of humanitarian aid by far, especially in terms of food provision.   The UN World Food Programme (WFP) has stated that cuts in its food aid to Somalia will push an estimated 4.4 million people into malnutrition because of drought, global inflation and conflict with many literally starving to death. The WFP has already had to halve food rations for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh with similar cuts for refugees in Kenya.   USAID cuts to HIV and AIDS programmes will also be devastating. UNAIDS estimates that globally by 2029, there could be 8.7 million people newly infected with HIV, a tenfold jump in AIDS-related deaths – to 6.3 million – and an additional 3.4 million children made orphans.37 It is estimated that the cuts could result in more than 500,000 deaths over the next 10 years in South Africa alone.   Beyond the impact of the HIV programme, funding for labs and emergency-response preparedness in more than 30 African countries has been affected by USAID cuts. The decision could result in – a worst-case scenario – 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases such as Ebola and Marburg. Other predictions based on a leaked internal USAID memo include 18 million more cases of malaria with 166,000 deaths and 200,000 children paralyzed with polio.   Such decisions by higher-income states are in breach of their obligations and commitments to provide international cooperation and assistance to other states to meet their own human rights obligations.   UNLOCKING INVESTMENT IN THE SDGS AND CLIMATE ACTION   There are numerous options available to states and international financial institutions to significantly scale up funding and unlock greater investment where it is most needed to tackle global poverty, meet climate goals and progress the SDGs. These funds, if unlocked, must be accompanied by robust means of distribution to ensure that they are accessed by low-income countries.   Meeting existing commitments would be a start. States have long committed to providing 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) for Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), including 0.15% - 0.2% of GNI to least developed countries (LDCs), as stated in the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda and elsewhere. If donor states met their ODA commitments, they would generate at least an additional US$197 billion aid assistance, between US$120.9 billion and US$150 billion of which would be destined for least developed countries.   Of course, while meeting ODA commitments is essential, there are other opportunities available to have an even greater impact. Pursuing measures to promote alternative sources of finance would be critical in reducing countries’ dependence on increasingly precarious and unpredictable ODA flows.   Debt relief, including cancellation and restructuring, is critical to enable lower-income countries to meet their social spending needs and related SDG targets. Many low-income countries continue to experience unsustainable levels of debt, with 48 countries spending more on debt repayments than on health and education.   The Debt Relief for a Green and Inclusive Recovery (DRGR) Project estimates that public and private creditors should grant debt relief of up to US$ 520 billion to 61 countries in or at risk of debt distress, in order to achieve debt sustainability. There is a precedent for this as in 2000, following the Jubilee Debt Campaign, debts of US$130 billion were cancelled for 36 countries in debt distress.   Civil society organizations advocate for a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt to address some of the systemic drivers of unsustainable debt. The Convention could provide for transparency, predictability, efficiency and cooperation among all countries around debt sustainability ensuring human rights are considered as primary over debt servicing.   Similar to debt relief in terms of providing liquidity, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued special drawing rights (SDRs), an international reserve asset to supplement member countries’ official reserves. It last did so during the Covid-19 pandemic when it issued US$650 billion.   However, SDR allocations are currently distributed to IMF member countries relative to their IMF quotas, which are based on the relative size of their economies rather than need. Most of the 2021 allocation went to high-income countries, while just US$2 billion (3.2%) went to lower-income countries.   There have been multiple calls to issue SDRs annually and to allocate them more fairly.49 The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty uses O’Hare and Hall’s estimates that US$175 billion of SDRs would have been allocated to low-income countries if distribution had been weighted by both population and need in 2021.   Significant amounts of money could also be generated to finance the SDGs from eliminating illicit financial flows which cost states US$492 billion annually - US$347.6 billion of which is lost to multinational corporations shifting profits to underpay taxes, while US$144.8 billion is lost to wealthy individuals hiding their wealth offshore. Nearly half of these tax losses are enabled by just eight countries opposed to a UN Tax Convention (Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, UK and USA).   In doing so, these states are violating their extra-territorial obligations to enable other states to generate the resources required to realize the human rights of their populations and meet the SDGs as well as undermining their own tax bases.   The world’s richest continue to benefit from inadequate taxation of their wealth and calls have been made including by the G20 for a wealth tax of 2% on the net wealth of billionaires and centimillionaires (wealth measured in US dollars). If this were to be realized, economist Gabriel Zucman, included in a paper commissioned by the G20 presidency, estimates that between US$300 billion and US$390 billion could be generated annually.   Similarly, significant amounts to finance the SDGs could be generated if states were to tax windfall profits – one-off taxes on companies or industries when economic conditions result in large, unexpected profits for those businesses. In 2022, for example, Oxfam and ActionAid estimated that US$941 billion in revenue could have been generated from taxes on the windfall profits of 722 mega-corporations.   Given that the above tax measures would disproportionately generate revenues in higher-income countries, they would have to be accompanied by robust revenue-sharing mechanisms to ensure investment in low- and middle-income countries.   In terms of climate finance, states at COP29 agreed to provide only US$300 billion annually towards climate action, despite civil society groups and lower-income countries advocating for a target of US$1.3 trillion – based on assessments of what is required.   Yet in addition to ODA, taxes and debt relief, there are other sources of finance available that are incompatible with the SDGs. Investments in fossil fuel industries from the world’s 60 biggest banks for instance totaled US$705.8 billion in 2023. These investments clearly breach the aim to phase out fossil fuels and SDGs 7, 13, 14 and 15 related to affordable clean energy, climate action, life below water and life on land respectively. Were such levels of finance invested in clean energy, it could have a major positive impact.   Similarly, explicit subsidies by governments to fossil fuel producers comprised US$1.3 trillion in 2022. Such subsidies include, for example, tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, which boost the fossil fuel economy and decrease government tax revenue.60 States should phase out fossil fuel subsidies, with due attention to ensure social protection for those subsidies that help lower income communities to afford energy and heat. They must conduct periodic reviews of revenues foregone by governments as a result of subsidies and of the justifications for their continued use including by applyinghuman rights impact assessments to evaluate any continued use.   While there will never be one single solution to close the climate and SDG financing gaps, there are many options available that states can and must commit to at the Financing for Development Forum in Seville.   WHY THE SDGS MATTER TO HUMAN RIGHTS   The SDGs acknowledge the responsibilities for all states as well as institutions (Goal 16) towards achieving inclusive, equitable and sustainable development. In relation to global economic reform, creditors, corporates, international financial institutions and states have duties and responsibilities. These actors should stop facilitating tax losses including through tax competition or illicit financial flo among others.   It is crucial that the SDGs and their respective targets are fully aligned with relevant human rights law and standards. Both are designed to be universal and to provide the same socio-economic guarantees to everybody regardless of status or circumstances. This is reflected in the fact that the SDGs explicitly state they "seek to realize the human rights of all", with more than 90% of the targets directly reflecting elements of international human rights and labour law and standards.   Fundamental human rights principles such as good governance, accountability, rule of law, transparency, participation, inclusion, equality are critical for successful SDGs implementation. At the same time, the legally binding nature of human rights law and standards, and their supervisory systems can help to fill accountability gaps in SDG implementation and monitoring whilst conversely, the SDGs framework is an important means by which human rights can be realized.   URGENT ACTION IS NEEDED NOW   As demonstrated above, options exist to generate and allocate significantly greater resources to rescue the SDGs and avoid further climate catastrophe. There is an immediate need to reverse cuts in ODA and meet longstanding aid commitments, as well as an imperative to advance reforms that would provide much greater and more sustainable forms of finance to states.   The FFD4 Summit provides an opportunity for states to act in line with their existing binding human rights obligations and demonstrate the political will necessary to translate these obligations into concrete action.   The current draft outcome document should be supported by states whilst ensuring that they work to strengthen it in certain areas in particular, the outcome document should clearly delineate the responsibilities of developed countries with regard to public financial resources, namely that they provide finance to developing countries as per their previous ODA and climate finance commitments and legal obligations.   In relation to progress towards enhanced international tax cooperation, the outcome document needs to respond to the diverse needs, priorities and capacities of all middle- and low-income countries. Finally, there is need for strengthened mechanisms for monitoring and follow up of the FfD4 national and global commitments in order to ensure sustained progress on financing for inclusive, participatory and sustainable development.   In order to rescue the SDGs and address the climate crisis, States must:   * Defend aid – the US and other governments should reverse cuts to aid budgets, and abide by commitments to allocate 0.7% of GNI to ODA   * Tax the net wealth of billionaires and centimillionaires and windfall profits of companies, investing the revenues in poverty reduction, guaranteeing public services and climate finance   * Provide debt relief including consideration of debt restructuring and/or cancellation for countries in or at risk of debt distress   * Support a robust UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and a UN Framework Convention on sovereign debt   * Redirect subsidies of fossil fuels towards investment in clean energy   * Phase out investments in fossil fuel industries and invest adequately in a just transition   * Support the issuance of SDRs based on needs instead of IMF quotas   http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/9272/2025/en/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/9271/2025/en/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/un-expert-urges-states-finance-inclusive-and-sustainable-development-not-war http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/04/financing-financing-development-summit-must-address-social-dimensions/ http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/01/17/financing-social-protection-floors-contribution-of-the-special-rapporteur-to-ffd4/ http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/02/11/joint-statement-a-call-for-action-on-financing-social-protection/ http://www.srpoverty.org/2025/03/12/joint-call-with-ituc-for-a-global-fund-for-social-protection-and-strengthened-international-commitments-at-ffd4/ http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/14-billion-children-globally-missing-out-basic-social-protection-according-latest http://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/a-new-era-for-social-protection/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories