These days, the word “future” seems to be everywhere around the UN. It appears 127 times in the Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda report; the High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism’s report proposes that we need to “future proof” multilateralism; a UN Futures Lab was recently established; Guterres has pledged to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations; there is a dedicated pillar for “youth and future generations” in General Assembly resolution outlining the Summit of the Future; and Member States have agreed a draft Pact for the Future as a main deliverable for the Summit.
But what does it mean to make the UN system “fit for the future”? There is a real risk the phrase becomes a hollow refrain. Worse, the notion of orienting the UN system towards the future could become a point of contention between developed and developing countries, a code word that indicates wealthy countries do not care about poverty and inequality today. The word “future” could become a sort of profanity – a new F-word – that impedes, rather than facilitates convergence around our biggest global challenges.
If the Summit of the Future is to succeed, we believe it will need to take seriously the concept of “thinking and acting for future generations.” We offer three steps in the right direction:
Value the Future
Humans tend to undervalue the future. Our “presentist bias” means we consistently give more weight to current risks over future ones, even if the future ones are much greater. When we do develop policies that are meant to protect against big future risks, our responses tend to come far too late. Our presentist tendencies mean we actively discriminate against future generations all the time, privileging our own needs over those of the future. Worse, our neglect of existential risks (nuclear weapons, biological threats, unfettered AI) threatens to deprive future generations from coming into being at all.
Here’s a relatively easy way to think about the future. Imagine a person living on the other side of the world. The value of that person’s life does not change based on where they are. But a person’s life does not change based on when they are, either. A human being in fifteen years is no less valuable than one alive today. This means the generation of people we know will be born five, ten, or even 100 years from now should be treated with the same dignity and respect as the generation of people on the planet now.
This is not easy, and we will need to constantly grapple with our tendencies to privilege the present over the future. In fact, the main question may become, How do we “human proof” global governance?
Deliver Win-Wins for the Present and Future
The famous 1987 Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “development without harming future generations.” This is often seen through a zero-sum lens as needing to choose between the present and the future.
But the evidence is clear: addressing the rights and needs of future generations is not part of a zero-sum game within or across generations. Public and private investments globally can quickly accelerate a transition to sustainable practices, with massive benefits for the Global South that will cascade positively for all of us. Here, the High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism has offered a package of steps, including on decarbonization, green technology transfer, and reforms to trade and subsidies, which could move this forward in an equitable and beneficial way for all. The Summit of the Future needs to offer these kinds of win-win outcomes, to show that we can benefit the future and the present at the same time.
Future-Proof Our Systems
Getting serious about future generations requires a clear set of principles to guide our work, new ways to measure progress, and dedicated capacities to integrate future orientation into our governance approach. Here are some steps, building on the Secretary-General’s proposals, that could be taken between now and the Summit of the Future:
- A Declaration on the Rights of Future Generations: The Declaration on Future Generations is an opportunity to build consensus on our duties to not discriminate against future generations, and should serve as a normative document that stands the test of time like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Summit of the Future is a moment to articulate a set of rights for future generations, providing the hooks that allow us to build more institutional checks and balances (here’s a useful starting set of principles).
- An Earth Stewardship Council: As a subsidiary of the General Assembly, such a council could serve as an oversight body of the Declaration on Future Generations (including through a “Future Generations Review,” modeled on the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review). Such a council could ensure the UN’s commitment to the future is not a one-time shot in 2024. Rather, a multistakeholder forum could re-interpret and operationalize the Declaration on Future Generations over the coming decades, allowing it to evolve.
- Beyond GDP: Overcoming short-termism in socio-economic environments requires us to move beyond Gross Domestic Product as our sole measure of progress. This could include specific measures that account for future harm. But the Beyond GDP concept could also include a Multi-Dimensional Vulnerability Index that could help to address the needs of vulnerable people today. The key here would be to unburden our current system from the monolithic understanding of progress as solely economic expansion, opening the possibility of a far more creative and beneficial set of measures of human progress.
- Appoint an Envoy for Future Generations ahead of the Summit of the Future. As a first step in demonstrating a meaningful shift toward a future-oriented UN, we recommend the appointment of an Envoy for Future Generations ahead of the Summit of the Future. This envoy could be responsible for ensuring the principles of the Declaration on Future Generations are implemented beyond the Summit, and to act as a focal point for the multilateral system.
These are just a few options that could be considered. But many member states and experts appear resigned to a Summit of the Future that merely reflects our inability to reach a consensus on most of the big issues. Certainly, with the wars raging in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere, deep divisions amongst major powers, and a growing sense among the developing world that its interests are not being met, achieving a big win at a Summit seems like a long shot. But we believe the idea of “future generations” could become a rallying cry around the world for a high-ambition Summit that delivers for today and tomorrow.
The UN Needs to Embrace the F-Word
By Adam Day • Nudhara Yusuf
International & Regional Organizations
These days, the word “future” seems to be everywhere around the UN. It appears 127 times in the Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda report; the High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism’s report proposes that we need to “future proof” multilateralism; a UN Futures Lab was recently established; Guterres has pledged to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations; there is a dedicated pillar for “youth and future generations” in General Assembly resolution outlining the Summit of the Future; and Member States have agreed a draft Pact for the Future as a main deliverable for the Summit.
But what does it mean to make the UN system “fit for the future”? There is a real risk the phrase becomes a hollow refrain. Worse, the notion of orienting the UN system towards the future could become a point of contention between developed and developing countries, a code word that indicates wealthy countries do not care about poverty and inequality today. The word “future” could become a sort of profanity – a new F-word – that impedes, rather than facilitates convergence around our biggest global challenges.
If the Summit of the Future is to succeed, we believe it will need to take seriously the concept of “thinking and acting for future generations.” We offer three steps in the right direction:
Value the Future
Humans tend to undervalue the future. Our “presentist bias” means we consistently give more weight to current risks over future ones, even if the future ones are much greater. When we do develop policies that are meant to protect against big future risks, our responses tend to come far too late. Our presentist tendencies mean we actively discriminate against future generations all the time, privileging our own needs over those of the future. Worse, our neglect of existential risks (nuclear weapons, biological threats, unfettered AI) threatens to deprive future generations from coming into being at all.
Here’s a relatively easy way to think about the future. Imagine a person living on the other side of the world. The value of that person’s life does not change based on where they are. But a person’s life does not change based on when they are, either. A human being in fifteen years is no less valuable than one alive today. This means the generation of people we know will be born five, ten, or even 100 years from now should be treated with the same dignity and respect as the generation of people on the planet now.
This is not easy, and we will need to constantly grapple with our tendencies to privilege the present over the future. In fact, the main question may become, How do we “human proof” global governance?
Deliver Win-Wins for the Present and Future
The famous 1987 Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “development without harming future generations.” This is often seen through a zero-sum lens as needing to choose between the present and the future.
But the evidence is clear: addressing the rights and needs of future generations is not part of a zero-sum game within or across generations. Public and private investments globally can quickly accelerate a transition to sustainable practices, with massive benefits for the Global South that will cascade positively for all of us. Here, the High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism has offered a package of steps, including on decarbonization, green technology transfer, and reforms to trade and subsidies, which could move this forward in an equitable and beneficial way for all. The Summit of the Future needs to offer these kinds of win-win outcomes, to show that we can benefit the future and the present at the same time.
Future-Proof Our Systems
Getting serious about future generations requires a clear set of principles to guide our work, new ways to measure progress, and dedicated capacities to integrate future orientation into our governance approach. Here are some steps, building on the Secretary-General’s proposals, that could be taken between now and the Summit of the Future:
These are just a few options that could be considered. But many member states and experts appear resigned to a Summit of the Future that merely reflects our inability to reach a consensus on most of the big issues. Certainly, with the wars raging in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere, deep divisions amongst major powers, and a growing sense among the developing world that its interests are not being met, achieving a big win at a Summit seems like a long shot. But we believe the idea of “future generations” could become a rallying cry around the world for a high-ambition Summit that delivers for today and tomorrow.
Recent & Related