Opinion: Gender equality is at risk in Financing for Development talks

As United Nations member states negotiate the future of development financing, the stakes have never been higher for gender equality. Negotiations are unfolding against massive cuts to development assistance, fractures in multilateral discussions, and escalating attacks on the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people. Without bold commitments, the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, or FfD4, starting this June risks failing to deliver the resources needed to advance women's rights, economic justice, and the Sustainable Development Goals. With the 2030 target for achieving the SDGs fast approaching, this is one of the last opportunities to mobilize the resources necessary to meet gender equality commitments. Actions to counter these rollbacks are urgently needed. FfD4 is one potential arena for this fight. States that believe in the rights of all can mobilize coalitions to protect past agreements and identify where small steps forward are possible in FfD4 negotiations. This will require concrete strategies and the investment of diplomatic resources. Will FfD4 mark another step back on gender equality commitments? The FfD4 zero draft presented in January reflects global trends of regression on gender equality and development financing. While it includes some wins for advocates — such as commitments to investments in the care economy, gender-based budgeting, closing the gender digital divide, and improving gender-disaggregated data collection —it fails to retain key provisions of the Addis Ababa Agenda for Action, or AAAA, from 10 years ago. Mention of women’s rights and commitments to eliminate gender-based violence and discrimination, which were featured in AAAA as “essential to achieving sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth and sustainable development,” are absent. Of particular concern is the shift from calls for “transformative actions,” seen as necessary for addressing power imbalances, to “gender-responsive” solutions — language that weakens ambition. Challenges to advancing gender equality in negotiations One challenge in the negotiations is who the champions are. At the third round of preparatory meetings held in New York in February, delegates debated the zero draft with breakdown along global north-south lines. Global north states challenged efforts championed by many global south states to push for meaningful reform on debt, taxation, official development assistance levels, and international economic institutions. In the discussions, gender equality references featured in a minority of interventions and quickly came under attack. The United States opposed all references to gender and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Russia stressed that gender equality is not “essential” to meeting all the SDGs. Despite a growing number of global south states adopting feminist foreign policies, global north states have largely been among those publicly advocating for gender equality provisions. If gender equality remains primarily a global north-led issue, it will be difficult to build and defend progress. Feminist activists also fear that gender equality language will be sacrificed as a bargaining chip as negotiations progress. Where next? In FfD discussions, gender equality arguments are increasingly framed and defended in economic terms to gain traction. As a result, negotiators seek alternative language to avoid so-called red flags like “gender equality,” “diversity,” and even “inclusion.” While this may provide temporary cover, it raises concerns. First, even strong economic arguments — backed by data — fail to sway those fundamentally opposed to gender equality. Second, many feminist activists see references to gender equality as mere tokens, arguing that systemic reform is required to achieve justice and dignity for all. They challenge assumptions that more growth is desirable or sustainable, and criticize measures aimed at supporting women’s economic empowerment solely as means to increase GDP. Third, replacing key terms with “new words,” in the end, will offer little protection in the face of the organized and determined opposition. Standing firm on core values is key. Numerous international and regional agreements affirm the rights of women and girls (regrettably, fewer to the rights of LGBTQ+ people). Some states with national commitments to gender equality have been quiet in FfD discussions — bringing them into the conversation is crucial. States advocating for gender equality can also align their overall FfD priorities with human rights commitments and move closer to the demands of the global south for economic justice. This involves listening to feminist activists when they talk about debt, tax, and related issues. Strategies for progress There are paths forward for states supporting rights and equality: 1. Strengthen collaboration and dialogue. Engage with states not leading the anti-rights charge and draw on the expertise of civil society organizations. Coalitions, joint strategies, and mobilization of staff can bolster the likelihood of holding ground. 2. Sharpen arguments for maintaining and strengthening language. Leverage existing regional and national commitments to the rights of women and girls in all their diversity to strengthen gender provisions in the zero draft. 3. Identify priority areas and red lines. Clarifying key priorities and setting clear boundaries on what must remain in the document will minimize the risk that gender equality references will be traded away. The 30th anniversary of the Beijing Conference on Women in 2025 comes at a time of fierce and determined mobilization against gender equality. This pushback extends into FfD negotiations. Investments, smart strategies, and alliances to set a financing for development framework that will support dignity, equality, and justice for all are needed now more than ever.