The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, to be held in June, is a crucial test given the worrying trend in negotiations: the weakening of commitments to gender equality in the face of growing opposition. By Beth Woroniuk
This article is a translation of an article originally published on March 11, 2025, by Devex. As UN member states negotiate the future of development financing, the stakes have never been higher for gender equality. The negotiations are taking place against a backdrop of massive cuts in development aid, divisions in multilateral discussions, andgrowing attacks on the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people. Without bold commitments, the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), which begins in June, risks failing to secure the resources needed to advance women's rights, economic justice, and sustainable development goals. With the 2030 target for achieving the SDGs fast approaching, this is one of the last opportunities to mobilize the resources needed to meet gender equality commitments. Urgent action is needed to counter these setbacks. FfD4 is a potential arena for this fight. States that believe in the rights of all can mobilize coalitions to protect past agreements and identify areas where small advances are possible in the FfD4 negotiations. This will require concrete strategies and the investment of diplomatic resources.
Will FfD4 mark a further setback in terms of gender equality commitments?
The FfD4 zero draft presented in January reflects global trends of regression in gender equality and development financing. Although it includes some advances—such as commitments to invest in the care economy, gender-responsive budgeting, reducing the gender digital divide, and improving the collection of sex-disaggregated data—it does not retain the key provisions of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) from ten years ago. Women's rights and commitments to eliminate gender-based violence and discrimination, which were presented in the ADDIS Action Agenda (AAAA) as "essential for achieving sustained, inclusive, and equitable economic growth and sustainable development," are not mentioned. It is particularly concerning that calls for "transformative actions," considered necessary to address power imbalances, have been replaced by "gender-responsive" solutions—language that weakens the ambition.
Challenges to be overcome in order to advance gender equality in negotiations
One of the challenges of the negotiations is determining who the leaders are. During the third round of preparatory meetings held in New York in February, delegates debated the "zero draft" with a North-South divide. The Global North challenged the efforts of many Global South countries to push for meaningful reform of debt, taxation, official development assistance levels, and international economic institutions. In the discussions, references to gender equality appeared in a minority of interventions and were quickly attacked. The United States opposed any reference to gender and diversity, equality, and inclusion. Russia emphasized that gender equality was not "essential" to achieving all SDGs. Although a growing number of states in the Global South are adopting feminist foreign policies, states in the Global North have been the most vocal in publicly advocating for gender equality provisions. If gender equality remains primarily an issue championed by the Global North, it will be difficult to build and defend progress. Feminist activists also fear that gender equality provisions will be sacrificed as bargaining chips as negotiations progress.
What is the next step?
In discussions on development financing, arguments in favor of gender equality are increasingly being framed and defended in economic terms in order to gain traction. As a result, negotiators are seeking alternative formulations to avoid so-called red flags such as "gender equality," "diversity," and even "inclusion." While this may provide temporary relief, it raises concerns. First, even strong economic arguments—backed by data—fail to sway those who are fundamentally opposed to gender equality. Second, many feminist activists view references to gender equality as mere symbols, arguing that systemic reform is needed to achieve justice and dignity for all. They question the assumptions that increased growth is desirable or sustainable, and criticize measures to support women's economic empowerment solely as a means of increasing GDP. Third, replacing key terms with "new words" will ultimately offer little protection against organized and determined opposition. It is essential to stand firm on core values. Many international and regional agreements affirm the rights of women and girls (unfortunately, there are fewer for LGBTQ+ rights). Some states that are nationally committed to gender equality have remained quiet in discussions on development financing—it is essential to bring them into the conversation. States that champion gender equality can also align their overall development financing priorities with human rights commitments and move closer to the demands for economic justice from the Global South. This means listening to feminist activists when they talk about debt, taxation, and related issues.
Strategies for progress
States that support rights and equality can move forward by:
- Strengthen collaboration and dialogue. Engage with states that are not leading the anti-rights charge and draw on the expertise of civil society organizations. Coalitions, joint strategies, and staff mobilization can strengthen the chances of staying ahead of the curve.
- Refine arguments in favor of maintaining and strengthening vocabulary. Build on existing regional and national commitments to the rights of women and girls in all their diversity to strengthen the provisions on gender equality in the zero draft.
- Identify priority areas and red lines. Clarify key priorities and set clear limits on what must remain in the document to minimize the risk that references to gender equality will be dropped.
About the author
Beth Woroniuk is a research fellow at the Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative and an advisor to the Walking the Talkconsortium. With over 35 years of experience advising bilateral aid agencies, UN entities, NGOs, and feminist organizations, Beth is a passionate advocate for feminist approaches to funding and policy-making.
