Dialogue recording & synthesis: Reflections on Climate Week and the Summit of the Future

Tamzin Ractliffe|10 October 2024

On October 3rd, the dialogue on “Reflections on the Summit for the Future” brought together diverse voices from the fields of philanthropy, climate action, youth leadership, and futures thinking. Participants included Benjamin Bellegy from WINGS, a collaborative partner with the Impact Trust and Resilience Funders Network, Erika Gregory and Pupul Bisht from Horizon 2045 (Pupul is also from the Decolonising Futures Initiative), Melody Song from Climate KIC, and Michael Northrop from Rockefeller Brothers Fund engaged in a rich discussion about the challenges and opportunities facing global governance and collaborative action on pressing issues. The conversation spanned topics from the recent Pact for the Future to the intricacies of climate philanthropy, intergenerational dialogue, and the need for transformative approaches to address interconnected global challenges.

This summary captures the key themes and insights that emerged from this multifaceted dialogue, highlighting both areas of consensus and divergent perspectives on how to navigate the complex landscape of global cooperation and systemic change.

You can watch the recording here and read summary highlights below.

Philanthropy, Global Governance, and the Pact for the Future

Erika Gregory highlighted the significance of the Pact for the Future, calling it “historic” despite its imperfections: “It is important because with all its imperfections and gaps, it still embodies the kind of ambitions and values that we will need to embody as a global community if we have any shot at facing the challenges and coming out on the other side.”
Pupul Bisht noted key commitments in the Pact, including reforming the UN Security Council and the Global Digital Compact: “There were quite a few [commitments] that I feel like do represent a paradigm shift in how we understand and practice international cooperation.”
Benjamin Bellegy pointed out philanthropy’s absence in the Pact “philanthropy is not mentioned at all in the Pact for the Future. There’s a mention I think in the Global Digital Compact, but that’s all we have.”
Erika emphasised the need for binding actions: “How do we actually move from these bold statements and commitments, and what do the binding actions actually look like? I think that was not adequately explored and discussed during the summit.”
Pupul highlighted the significant of the summit: “I have worked with a lot of people who were quite instrumental in shaping the Pact. So, to see all of that hard work actually materialise and become a big thing, and to be there for something like the Pact of the Future to be adopted. It’s imperfect, but it is also historic” and stressed the importance of the declaration on future generations: “The most exciting part of the Pact is the annex on the declaration of the future generations.”
Benjamin pointed out that foundations have not invested sufficiently in their own multilateral bodies: “international foundations are concerned about the crisis of multilateralism and you this growing national, nationalist trend, but international foundations have never invested in having a global collective voice for their own field.”
He also emphasised the importance of philanthropy having a unified voice in global discussions: “WINGS is trying to fill that gap. But paradoxically, we’re doing it mainly with taxpayer money, because foundations still have a hard time to just say, Yeah, we need to have a collective voice, and we need to pay for that.”
WINGS is playing a role in co-chairing a working group at the G20, bringing philanthropic perspectives to this forum: “We created and co-chair that group, and we had more than 400 organisations that have contributed insights.” Its efforts are also focused on including diverse voices in philanthropy, including “grassroots philanthropy, local individual giving, woman philanthropy, youth philanthropy, indigenous led philanthropy.”
Benjamin highlighted that systemic change is a mindset and stressed that working on governance for instance is not only for the few large foundations that can influence international institutions. For instance, foundations can help improve local authorities’ capacities or help create coordination and partnership mechanisms locally: “it’s not just about the UN Security Council and the big foundations. It’s also local governments, it is an enabler mindset that we need first to change, and it could be applied at all levels and on all issues.“
He also suggested that philanthropy has a crucial role in investing in governance structures that enable collaboration across sectors: “Philanthropy has a really important role in investing in governance, beyond silos, enabling not only philanthropy to work together, but everybody else.”

Youth Leadership and Intergenerational Dialogue

Pupul highlighted the impact of youth-led sessions: “One of the most hard-hitting sessions that I attended at the United Nations Headquarters was the youth led action days, which happened on the Saturday, and that was really such a rare opportunity to hear from young activists and movers and shakers who are doing the real work on the ground.”
Pupul also noted the Secretary General’s acknowledgment of generational responsibility: “The Secretary General, very surprisingly, took a lot of account. They demonstrated a lot of accountability to go as far as saying that it is my generation that messed things up, and now we’re not. We’re doing too little, too late.
Pupul emphasised youth agency: “The next step in international cooperation is to let the people who are going to live the longest with the consequences of the decisions being made today be actually the people not just providing input and being the voice in the room, but actually the ones leading and taking charge.”
Melody Song highlighted generational disconnects: “One of the senior leaders was saying, you know, you need to work up the system. I was a youth leader when I was your age, and it took me 40 years to get where I am right now, and I’m still trying to change the system.” …. “We don’t have 40 years to change” (Erika!).
Melody noted the additional barriers faced by young immigrant leaders: “A lot of youth leaders who actually got to the United Nations are immigrants as well, like me as an immigrant, I know how difficult it is for immigrant to be like, you know, be ahead to be a leader in this society.”
Erika highlighted practical challenges to inclusivity: “There are some real challenges on the ground that continue to be barriers to participation. And so, it’s all well and good for us to talk about inclusivity and diversity, but really, how much of that are we actually achieving when we continue to hold these important discussions in the way we hold them in places that are really fortresses to the majority of the world?”

Climate Philanthropy and its Challenges

Benjamin the challenges in engaging US foundations on climate issues: Only 11 out of 800 foundations that signed the Philanthropy for Climate Movement are from the US.
Michael Northrop acknowledged the lack of integration: “It is true that there are very few philanthropies that are working on climate and nature. Both people get stuck in their lanes, and I think also just the human brain has a hard time dealing with too many systems at the same time.”
Melody observed contrasting perceptions and reality: “We look to America as the leader, actually, like the American foundations are perceived as doing lots of stuff in climate so, I’m really interested now, why there are not enough foundations in America is doing that, but at the same time in other places that we think American foundations are more advanced in some way.”
Michael pointed out structural issues: “Philanthropy is weird. It’s always weird. Too much testosterone, too many egos, too much competition. You know, there’s just, it’s not the place to go for big, holistic thinking, typically.”
Michael emphasised the challenging political context in the US: “It’s hard in the political context we’re in to do more than be thinking about swing districts in swing states. You know that we are down in the micro micro in the US right now… it’s not politically beneficial to talk about climate change in in the New York in the in the US presidential debate, unfortunately, so it doesn’t get talked about.”
Michael highlighted innovative approaches like the Tropical Forests Forever Facility: “It’s a really big idea that is a solution to climate, to nature and to economic development, alternative economic development, and there aren’t too many things out there that have attempted to try to address those three things.”
Benjamin expressed optimism about the potential for quick shifts in philanthropic engagement, including on climate in the current circumstances, citing the example of Brazil: “it can change quite quickly. With US networks taking the lead and starting a national climate commitment, I’m hopeful many more US foundations could sign on, because I’ve seen it with Brazil. In Brazil national foundation networks decided to create a Brazilian commitment and were successful at engaging unusual suspects on climate. If the same happens in the US we will also see quick positive developments thanks to the involvement of networks and associations.

Futures Thinking and Imagining Positive Outcomes

Erika emphasised the need for detailed visions of positive futures: “We don’t have a world [we want because] we have not imagined the world that we want in vivid enough detail.”
Erika described Horizon 2045’s “Far Futures” project: “It’s a collection of extraordinary stories about the year 2095, and these commissioned pieces from some of the world’s leading science fiction authors and others. What we asked them to do was to imagine, just as a thought experiment, that by the year 2045, we’ve been able to disarm the final nuclear weapon.”
She highlighted the value of backcasting: “A useful way of backcasting from a vivid depiction to think about the things that are within our grasp over the next five to 10 years, the kinds of interventions that actually might ameliorate challenges across different systems of security.”
Pupul elaborated on the concept of protopian futures: “The function of imagining better futures is that you can return to the very first step of long term thinking, which is about sensing signals of change in the present and really looking now this time for green shoots that could be presenting breadcrumbs to those futures that otherwise seem quite difficult, almost impossible.”

Interconnectedness of Global Challenges

Pupul described Horizon 2045’s approach: “The way we at Horizon 2045 has started thinking about security is through always and only through a scalar lens. So any sort of signal of change that we look at or study, we definitely look at its cascading impacts through time and in relation to other adjacent issues, spaces, so intersectionality, but also think about how is the impact of this issue, or the majority of this issue, going to unfold across different scales of security, so from individual to community, to national to regional, global and planetary.”
Pupul emphasised the need to integrate climate into security discussions: “Climate security is not separate from big S security anymore, and if the Security Council’s role is to prevent conflict, a number of conflicts in the coming years are going to be driven by the climate crisis.”
Benjamin emphasised intersectionality: “If they want to address racial equity, gender issues, inequality, peace, etc, etc, they need to integrate that lens, and they will just, you know, be even more effective if they do so.”
Erika noted the inseparability of human and planetary security: “The inseparability of human and planetary security. It is now and has always been inseparable. We’re beginning to recognize that in new ways. There’s something in this moment that is really important. It is a tension recognising that we cannot continue to prioritise sovereign interests over the collective wellbeing of people.”
Pupul noted the increasing overlap between national and global interests: “That distinction between what is in national interest and what is in planetary interest is going to blur as we move into a period of heightened climate crisis and other kinds of crises.” She stressed the importance of making these connections clear: “To really be able to those of us working towards these goals, I think need to get better at making it visible for people, that connection between their individual security and something that’s to do with global and planetary security.”
Pupul highlighted the immense importance of recognising positive developments: “Looking now this time for green shoots that could be presenting breadcrumbs to those futures that otherwise seem quite difficult, almost impossible.”

Cultural Perspectives on Philanthropy and Leadership

Melody highlighted diverse approaches: “I feel philanthropy is very different in America or in this Western way of thinking, like philanthropy. And in Asia, for example, I see Asian philanthropy very, very differently. There are lots of business ethics that involves with philanthropy as well.”
Benjamin stressed the importance of local philanthropy: ” localisation, or locally led development should not be seen as a narrow technical issue on how international donors can allocate more of their funding to local actors, which, of course, they need to do, and it’s the starting point, but it’s a much bigger conversation about rebuilding the aid system, and on building a post aid world.”
Melody shared insights on love as action from Frederick Tsao: “Love is not feeling, but action. So that’s what he hopes that we could get from you know, all of our talks and thoughts about climate and our thoughts about nature, and just actually show love with care.”
Talking about security and global cooperation, Erika pointed out the evolving nature of security: “Security is being redefined in homes all over the world right now, from Asheville, North Carolina, to Mombasa to Tuvalu, right what it means for us to be secure in this world and the promises of the PACT are going to require a kind of cooperation that is really actually a paradigm shift.”
Benjamin emphasised that enabling systemic change requires a different approach than traditional strategic planning. He suggested that systemic change is not about being a highly sophisticated organisation with a perfectly crafted strategy and theory of change. Instead, he argued that the complexity and unpredictability of systems mean that organisations should focus on being enablers for others. So, rather than trying to control or directly engineer systemic outcomes, organisations should create conditions and support structures that allow others to contribute to and drive change. They should be the enablers of change. This approach recognises the distributed nature of systemic change and the need for collective, adaptive efforts rather than centralised, predetermined strategies.
Melody the importance of internal transformation and empathy-driven inside out change in creating inclusive environments: “I feel like deep empathy and inclusion of how everybody should change. It’s not about you as a leader, saying, let’s have this guideline, check boxes, and hire more people as diverse. Change has to come from the inside out. It cannot come from the outside.”
Benjamin stressed the importance of field building and supporting networks and connectors. Being systemic means investing in networks. It means investing in this field building, and there’s very little investment happening right now. He argues that philanthropy needs to: “build the bridges, support the connectors, support those who are working to connect the pipes that will then create the solutions. Because you cannot engineer that in a top-down way in today’s world.”
Erika pointed out the evolving nature of security: “Security is being redefined in homes all over the world right now, from Asheville, North Carolina, to Mombasa to Tuvalu, right what it means for us to be secure in this world and the promises of the PACT are going to require a kind of cooperation that is really actually a paradigm shift.”

Conclusion:

The dialogue on “Reflections on Climate Week and the Summit for the Future” revealed a shared recognition of the urgent need for transformative change in how we approach global challenges. The discussion highlighted several interconnected themes that are crucial for shaping a more sustainable and equitable future. The conversation emphasised the importance of reimagining global governance structures to be more inclusive, responsive, and aligned with the complex challenges of our time. The Pact for the Future, while imperfect, represents a significant step towards this goal. It also highlighted the critical role of youth leadership and intergenerational dialogue emerged as a central theme. There is a clear need to not only include young voices but to empower them as leaders in decision-making processes that will shape their future.

The discussion on climate philanthropy acknowledged both the challenges and opportunities in this space. It underscored the need for more integrated approaches that recognise the intersectionality of climate issues with other social and economic concerns. The political context, particularly in the US, was identified as a significant factor influencing climate action and philanthropy. Futures thinking and the power of imagination were emphasised as essential tools for envisioning and working towards positive outcomes. The concept of protopian thinking provides a framework for identifying and nurturing seeds of positive change in the present. The interconnectedness of global challenges was a recurring theme, with participants stressing the need for holistic, systems-level approaches that recognise the links between climate, security, development, and other issues across multiple scales. Cultural perspectives on philanthropy and leadership highlighted the importance of diverse approaches and the need for internal transformation among leaders. The concept of love as action emerged as a powerful framework for approaching global challenges. Finally, the dialogue underscored the need for systemic change and transformative approaches. This includes rethinking how we enable change, supporting networks and connectors, and investing in field-building.

As we move forward, these insights call for a more inclusive, forward-thinking, and systemically aware approach to global challenges. They highlight the need for collaboration across generations, sectors, and cultures, and for a fundamental shift in how we conceptualise and address the complex issues facing our world today. The path ahead requires not just policy changes and institutional reforms, but also a transformation in mindset and approach, embracing empathy, diverse perspectives, and a shared commitment to creating a better future for all.

Thoughts on Climate Philanthropy from Michael Northop, Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Lack of Integration: Northrop acknowledged that very few philanthropies work on both climate and nature issues. He noted, “It is true that there are very few philanthropies that are working on climate and nature. Both people get stuck in their lanes, and I think also just the human brain has a hard time dealing with too many systems at the same time, and we’re all specialised, so it’s really a problem.”
Role of Large Philanthropies: Northrop mentioned the contributions of major philanthropists like Stan Ballmer and Bezos in integrating climate and nature philanthropy. However, he expressed concern about relying too heavily on a few large philanthropies: “It’s terrible that we’d be relying on two giant philanthropies to do all the work that needs to happen in this integration, because it won’t work, right? We all need to be part of it.”
Challenges in US Philanthropy: He pointed out structural issues in philanthropy: “Philanthropy is weird. It’s always weird. Too much testosterone, too many egos, too much competition. You know, there’s just, it’s not the place to go for big, holistic thinking, typically.”
Political Context: Northrop emphasised the challenging political context in the US noting that climate change discussions are not politically beneficial in the current environment. He suggested that more integrated thinking about nature, climate, and economic development might resurface after the November elections. “It’s hard in the political context we’re in to do more than be thinking about swing districts in swing states. You know that we are down in the micro-micro in the US right now… it’s not politically beneficial to talk about climate change in in the New York in the in the US presidential debate, unfortunately, so it doesn’t get talked about.”
Future Outlook: He expressed cautious optimism for post-election discussions: “I’m hopeful that if we get a good outcome some of these bigger conversations about more integrated thinking and about nature and climate and economic development can come back to the top of the framing, but I think we’re stuck until after November, 5th, to be able to actually, overtly see that conversation happening at the US federal level.”
Promising Initiatives: Northrop highlighted the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFF) as an example of an integrative approach: “It’s a really big idea that is a solution to climate, to nature and to economic development, alternative economic development, and there aren’t too many things out there that have attempted to try to address those three things.”

______________________________________________________________________

Posted in Leadership Lab, Resilience

Dialogue recording & synthesis: Reflections on Climate Week and the Summit of the Future