The day ended with a brief discussion on the proposed article on illicit financial flows, which will be taken up again later in the week. We’ll continue monitoring negotiations as they move into crucial discussions on transparency, information exchange and the overall architecture of the Convention.

Civil society organizations, including @inescoficial.bsky.social, APMDD and Oxfam, delivered powerful statements on inequality and tax justice. They highlighted the urgent need for systemic reforms to ensure the wealthiest contribute fairly.

Others suggested that defining HNWIs could help implementation, though no consensus emerged. Proposals included using income or wealth thresholds, or adopting national definitions.

Some States sought clarity on how information would be exchanged, particularly regarding techniques used by HNWIs to avoid or evade taxes. The co-lead clarified that exchanges would concern general schemes, not specific taxpayers.

Nigeria 🇳🇬 and Zambia 🇿🇲 pushed to replace the word “explore” with concrete language committing States to adopt coordinated approaches to ensure HNWIs pay their share.

In the afternoon, attention shifted to Article 6 on taxing high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). There was wide agreement with the current draft, though Brazil 🇧🇷, Spain 🇪🇸 and Mexico 🇲🇽 called for stronger references to effective tax rates paid by the wealthiest.

The UN Independent Expert on foreign debt, Attiya Waris, intervened to stress that fair taxation and sustainable development must be pursued together. She urged States to revisit or cancel tax treaties that conflict with the Convention’s goals.

To move forward, India 🇮🇳 proposed new text for Article 5, joining other proposals from the Africa Group 🌍 and the Sweden 🇸🇪–Norway 🇳🇴 duo. These reflect differing levels of ambition and clarity on how global taxing rights should be distributed.

Morning debates continued on the commitment to allocate taxing rights fairly. Some States, including Belgium 🇧🇪 and Canada 🇨🇦, argued that a framework convention should not include detailed obligations. This sparked broader questions about the legal nature of the treaty.

We will continue following negotiations closely. The direction is not set in stone. With enough pressure and political will, this Convention can still deliver real change. Stay tuned.

Ghana 🇬🇭, co-lead of the Convention negotiations, reminded delegates of the Secretary-General’s report that started this process. States chose to negotiate a binding treaty, not a vague declaration. That decision still stands.

The UK 🇬🇧 even argued that the current draft unfairly favors market jurisdictions. Other countries, including Mexico 🇲🇽 and several Europeans, pointed to more “flexible” alternatives like the language in paragraph 28 of the Compromiso de Sevilla.

India 🇮🇳 also proposed stronger language, asking that the Convention refer to all income rather than just a portion. In contrast, several developed countries insisted on staying general and avoiding any reference to revising existing treaties.

🌍 The Africa Group presented a more detailed and actionable proposal. They explained how bilateral tax treaties could be aligned with a fairer global system, rather than left untouched.

In the afternoon, attention turned to how taxing rights are distributed. This is a central issue for the new Convention and one that highlights the political nature of the talks.

📣 CESR and other civil society organizations urged States to strengthen the language. We also called for clear commitments to address inequality and uphold human rights. Watch our intervention ⤵️

youtu.be/Har54__LKe0?...

Brazil 🇧🇷, Mexico 🇲🇽, Sweden 🇸🇪 and Belgium 🇧🇪 called for a more meaningful commitment. They referenced the UK’s 🇬🇧 written input, which proposed grounding the text in stronger social and economic goals.

➡️The commitment to support sustainable development revealed a divide. Some countries defended keeping the text vague and high level. Others pushed to link tax cooperation to human rights, gender justice and reducing inequality.