The UN Summit of the Future: Part 3

THE AFTERMATH

In my two earlier blogs, I looked at what occurred at the Summit and the outcome document. In this third blog, I shall consider the extent of any effect it may have had.  

The post-Summit period

Two major conferences took place in short order following the Summit, namely the Dubai Future Forum and COP 29, were both held at the end of November, 2024, when the dust of the summit had had time to settle.

The Dubai Future Forum 2024

The Dubai Future Forum was publicised as aiming “to reflect diverse viewpoints on the Summit of the Future and then support in implementing the core outcomes and recommendations of the Summit.” However, in the sessions I was in the Summit was scarcely mentioned. I felt no sense that a chance for pivotal action had just passed: the emphasis once again was on what needed to be done rather than on what was going to be done. Notable, however, were the mentions of the importance of leadership and vision.

COP 29  

At least the 29th UN Conference on Climate Change received a good deal of mainstream media coverage, unfortunately not for the best reasons. Midway through the conference, it was reported that a letter signed by twenty-two experts including former UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon and former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres stated that the UN COP climate talks were “no longer fit for purpose”. The Open Letter, dated 15th November,  stated, among other things, that the current structure could not deliver the necessary change at exponential speed and scale; there needed to be a shift from negotiation to implementation; COP meetings needed to be transformed into smaller, more frequent, solutions-driven meetings; and processes needed to be strengthened with enhanced reporting and benchmarking, rigorous peer-review processes, independent scientific oversight and transparent tracking of pledges and action.

Yet on 25th November at the end of the conference, the Guardian ran with the headline “Climate deal ‘travesty of justice’ say poor nations”. It reported that developing nations had called on rich countries to provide them with $1.3 trillion a year to help them decarbonise their economics and cope with the effects of the climate crisis. But the final deal set a pledge of just $300 billion annually, not all of which would necessarily come from governments, with $1.3 trillion only a target. Furthermore, there was no definition of what constituted appropriate forms or uses for such finance within the UN process.

To echo the open letter above, it is accepted that $300 billion per annum will not be enough to deliver change at the speed and scale required. Enough said.

2025

Since the beginning of this year, one event has overshadowed everything else on the world stage, namely Donald Trump formally taking office as President of the United States. However much the long-term plod of events may temper the daily rhetoric, his policies to date can hardly be said to be promoting global unity. Instead, the world continues to sink back into power blocks of various sizes and forms jostling against each other with all the dangers of sudden massive disturbances.   

Conclusions

In part 1 of this blog, I said that the Summit needed a high profile, that quality leadership needed to come to the fore and that publics worldwide needed to be engaged. The Summit was a chance to put the world on red alert. Instead, the Summit attracted very little attention, leadership came up short, and, while civil participants round the fringes of the event may have done their best, the public at large was not involved. While the Pact rightly linked financial reform to sustainable development, it remained weak on the action so desperately needed, and whatever catalysed between government representatives away from the glare of the cameras, the results of COP 29 showed how little progress had been made.

Realpolitik has held sway, and world leaders have once again shied away from really getting  to grips with the world’s most pressing problems. Until they do, the planet’s environmental and social systems are likely to continue to deteriorate at an ever-increasing rate, and if they do, at some point the world’s leaders will have to act. Bismarck famously said that all great powers were travelling on the ‘stream of Time’ which they could neither control nor direct, but which they could navigate with skill and experience. There is no sign at present that world leaders collectively will come to do so sooner rather than later.

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 Enrique from Pixabay