The UN Summit of the Future: Part 2

THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE IMMEDIATE REACTION

In my first blog on the UN Summit of the Future I considered the outcome document: “The Pact for the Future”. In this second blog, I shall consider what actually occurred.

Summit of the Future Programme, 20th-23rd September, 2024

The Summit of the Future ran from September 20th-23rd and began with two “Action Days”. These brought together representatives from member states including Heads of State and Ministers, civil society, the private sector, academia, local and regional authorities and other representatives. They were presented as an opportunity to elevate the voice of youth in the multilateral system. The Summit proper then ran on the last two days.

Summit Proceedings, 22nd and 23rd September, 2024

The formal proceedings of the Summit proper consisted of plenary sessions and four half-day interactive dialogues on specific subjects (transforming global governance for sustainable development, international peace and security, a common digital future and future generations) running in parallel.

The opening plenary began inauspiciously with the Russian Federation tabling an amendment on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, and emphasising the key role of the inter-governmental nature of UN decisions. There had been no real negotiations at the same table, they had been manoeuvred through co-ordinators and the Pact had been drawn up to suit Western countries. The amendment failed, but it was hardly a sign of any unanimity.  

The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, then again set out the context, reminding delegates that what was needed was “not just agreement, but action.”

Yet the speakers that followed both here and in the interactive sessions tended to resort again to exhortation, admonishment and even getting their markers down for future rounds of talks. The interactive sessions also consisted of a succession of prepared speeches leading one perplexed representative to confess that he had thrown his notes away because he had thought it was going to be an interactive discussion.

The right note was struck at times. President Mbumba of Namibia said: “The UN must empower nations … to provide economic opportunities and prosperity underpinned by environmental sustainability.” The President of the Maldives urged delegates to “imagine … a world where the multilateral system is not resolution after resolution gathering dust as if often believed, but a dynamic force shaping lives in real time.” The President of Malawi said, “Between the dawn and the dusk of human history, each generation has a unique assignment to contribute to the progress of the human race … and our generation’s assignment … is the implementation of the SDGs.” These three examples alone show that the political awareness was there if the will was lacking.  

Pre-Summit Events

I was able to attend remotely the Building Hopeful Futures Festival (19th September) run by the School of International Futures (SOIF) and Futures Friends designed to create momentum and mobilising action around the Summit and the Declaration on Future Generations (an annex to the Pact for the Future). This highlighted how much remained to be done. The chair of one session ruefully commented that very little foresight had any effect on policy. SOIF’s Implementation Handbook for the UN Declaration on Future Generations launched on the first Action Day of the Summit amplified this message. The Futures Pioneers Community had involved civil servants and politicians from 50 countries and international organisations. Yet in an assessment of the current state of long-term governance:

“The most significant challenge highlighted in every discussion was the concern that foresight rarely influences policy decisions.”

Reaction to the Summit

For what went on in closed sessions and behind the scenes and for wider perspectives, we can only rely on what was reported. The Summit did not draw the attention that it might have done. The Economist reported that Russia entered “135 amendments and reservations to the draft text of the Pact for the Future” (including the removal of clause on climate change and conflict mentioned in part 1). But perhaps more seriously, the Guardian reported that negotiators had confronted old problems such as “entrenched western reluctance to cede power to emerging powers – at the security council and in financial institutions.”

Conclusions

The outcome document, the “Pact for the Future” was general and limited by the bounds of diplomacy, but the actual Summit Proceedings showed that participants were very aware of the problems that the Summit was trying to get to grips with. In my final blog, I shall consider the extent of any action that resulted.  

Written by Tony Diggle, SAMI Associate. He wrote a more detailed assessment of the UN Summit of the Future in three articles which were published in the June 2024, August 2024 and March 2025 issues of “Compass”, the Journal of the Association of Professional Futurists. He writes in a personal capacity.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

Achieve more by understanding what the future may bring. We bring skills developed over thirty years of international and national projects to create actionable, transformative strategy. Futures, foresight and scenario planning to make robust decisions in uncertain times. Find out more at www.samiconsulting.co.uk

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay