EU Statement -- UN General Assembly: Explanation of Vote on on FFD4 Outcome Document (“Sevilla Commitment”)

Mr. President of the General Assembly,

Excellencies,

I have the honour to deliver this Explanation of Vote on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. 

I would like to start by expressing our sincere appreciation and thanks to the Kingdom of Spain  for hosting the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development in Sevilla from 30 June to 3 July 2025. The Conference, held at the highest level possible, was a resounding success by every measure. A clear sign of which was the active participation by more than 50 world leaders from 187 delegations, as well as business leaders and stakeholders from civil society,  in the hundreds of events over the four days. 

Colleagues, the EU has repeated time and again that the FFD 4 process was about showcasing that multilateralism does and will continue to deliver. Sevilla proved that multilateral cooperation is still relevant.  As the strong presence  of European leaders including both EU Presidents and numerous European Heads of State and Government and ministers shows, , multilateral cooperation to finance development has the continued engagement and strong support of the European Union and its Member States.    

We reiterate once again our engagement and support as we conclude today the final steps with the GA adoption. The EUMS have voted a resounding YES to the Sevilla Commitment. We congratulate and thank all those who have done the same, and worked hard to achieve this milestone, and look forward to working together in earnest in its implementation.   

In the meanwhile, we would like to put on record a few points where our views differ, and we disassociate from the following two individual paragraphs of the document.

First, from paragraph 50 f ), for the following reasons:

Since 2020, creditor countries have aimed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of debt treatments. Although the process has been slow, an innovative approach to working together, rather than bilaterally, has been fostered. Restructuring agreements are now in place that involve almost 90% of all relevant creditors, for example in Zambia and Ghana. 

Moreover, G20 Members recently approved a process to improve the Common Framework, informed by recommendations from a G20 Note on the lessons learned from the Common Framework’s first cases, which benefitted from direct discussions with African countries organized by the G20 presidency.

Existing mechanisms rely on the trust built up over the years between different classes of creditors through a complex process, with the independence, expertise and financing capacity of the IMF and the World Bank at its core. In a world of multiple actors and stakeholders trust should not be jeopardised by non-consensual resolutions. 

We highlight the relevant risks that could result from the consequences of this decision, which would foster market uncertainty, reduce predictability, impact the cost of financing for countries, especially from the private sector. 

All in all, the proposed wording in paragraph 50f would lead to a duplication of existing debt frameworks, thereby complicating practices rather than improving them, and running the risk of splintering and fragmenting the architecture rather than uniting it or filling gaps. All of this would hinder progress rather than promoting it and this would certainly not be in the interest of the concerned low income countries.

Second, the Group disassociates from paragraph 16 in this outcome document. Namely, we regret that paragraph 16 which is tackling climate issues, is not complemented with the principle set out in Article 2.2 of the Paris Agreement, which refers to equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances. 

Moreover, we would like to express the EU’s position regarding other elements of the text on climate financing. 

The EU and its Member States are the biggest contributor of public climate finance for developing countries worldwide and reiterate the commitment to the continued delivery of our fair share as we are committed to achieving the objectives of UNFCCC and the goals of the Paris Agreement. 

From the start of negotiations, the EU insisted on reasserting agreed language, especially from UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the latest COP29 and the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) – this, Colleagues, is our agreed reference framework for international climate finance and it will remain so. 

On that basis, we strongly regret and express disappointment with the impossibility to rely on this agreed language in the climate change and environment parts and more specifically we would like to raise the following points:  

• We would like to stress that the implementation of the NCQG requires engagement from all actors. It clearly emphasizes the need to mobilize climate finance from all sources, calling on all actors to work together. While para 41 b mentions the Baku to Belém Roadmap, it regretfully fails to address the mobilization of “all actors to scale up financing from all public and private sources” – and this is the only way we will achieve our ambitions. The reference to the ambition in mobilising climate finance is also missing in paragraph 15, which will obscure its criticality, and will not be consistent with the provisions of the Paris Agreement.
• The “critical decade” that we are facing must be strongly grounded in "the best available science", particularly the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as agreed in previous COPs and we fail to understand why it was deleted from paragraph 15.
• In paragraph 41d) we would have preferred to have the agreed language from COP16 of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) as it provides a broader donor base to address desertification, land degradation and drought.
• Finally, the EU and its MS express their strong disappointment with the fact that the text lacks reference to UNOC3, a document adopted recently in Nice. 

We request that the EU’s disassociation from paragraphs 16 and 50f) and their rationale be included in the records of this meeting.

I thank you.