By Prof Lauren Graham, South African Research Chair in Welfare & Social Development
As a scholar of social development, while I maintain an interest in global social policy shifts and debates, I have not been involved in or researched multilateral engagements. This year, that changed. Earlier in 2025 I was part of a team from the Centre for Social Development in Africa (CSDA) that supported the South African leadership team of the G20 Development Working Group (DWG). Our involvement meant a steep learning curve regarding how multilateral negotiations took place and what multilateral engagements can and cannot do. Later I was fortunate to form part of the ICSD delegation that attended the WSSD2 in Doha where we led and participated in side events and had the opportunity to see the Doha Declaration be adopted by consensus.
What has struck me over the past year is how much multilateral engagements and agreements do for global order, stability and progress. I have often been asked in the past few months why countries spend so much on these engagements when they do not really result in any real change. It was in those moments that I was able to point towards the incredible progress we have made globally in reducing unemployment (from 36% of the world’s population to just 5% today) and in reducing extreme poverty from 37.9% in 1990 to 8.5% of the world’s population in 2024. These are gains that we reflected on in the ICSD response statement to the WSSD draft declaration. Yes, we still have a long way to go, but these are remarkable achievements in a period of around three decades. And much has to do with multilateral commitments. The First WSSD in Copenhagen paved the way for the adoption of the Millenium Development Goals and later the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Most countries today measure progress against the SDGs, despite these global goals not being based on binding agreements. This progress proves that having a shared commitment and vision, even when not binding, does contribute to social progress.
And as we have moved into a period of increasing political instability, rising conflicts, erosion of human rights gains, especially for women, and a rolling back of welfare; one might wonder about the power of these engagements to foster change. I would argue that it is precisely in these times that multilateral engagements are so important, as they hold the centre, provide some protection for the gains we have made, and envision a more just and equitable world.
Consider that many of the outcome documents adopted in multilateral engagements this year contain statements that in countries that have elected more conservative governments would be seen as very liberal. The Compromiso de Sevilla – the outcome document from the Financing For Development Conference – explicitly mentions enhancing efforts to address tax evasion and avoidance by high-net-worth individuals and ensuring their effective taxation (page 8), possibly prompted by significant civil society advocacy. This adoption paved the way for the DWG outcome document on Illicit Financial Flows to include similar language, demonstrating that the wording of multilateral agreements is reinforced in different domains.
My experience in supporting the negotiations on the Social Protection outcome document of the G20 DWG demonstrated that where states with more conservative governments tried to step back from prior commitments (for example on gender equity or on Agenda 2030), other countries were able to leverage the wording in several other multilateral documents to hold them to these commitments. It seemed to be very difficult for countries to erode the gains of the past. Even as the United States attempted to oppose a Leader’s declaration of the G20, the vast majority of the working groups have agreed outcome documents and ministerial declarations already in place that will continue to shape their future engagements and their national agenda setting.
The WSSD Doha declaration was therefore a triumphant moment. For the declaration to be adopted by consensus in the context of such global political instability is, in itself, remarkable and indicates that despite individual governments’ retracting from prior commitments, most countries continue to pursue justice, peace and equity. The declaration was not only holding the line as the global ship sways, but of ensuring that our bow is pointing in the right direction.
I may be criticised for being an optimist. But as Thomas Friedman said, “pessimists are usually right and optimists are usually wrong, but all the great changes have been accomplished by optimists.” It was a privilege to be surrounded by 14000 optimists who feel that another world is indeed possible.