How a Special Envoy for Future Generations Could Help Rescue UN80 from Itself

This blog was originally published by IPI Global Observatory.

The UN secretary-general is now more or less finished with his part of the UN80 reform process. In the six months since he launched the initiative, António Guterres has produced three sets of proposals to (1) identify immediate administrative efficiencies, (2) review mandate implementation, and (3) reform the organization’s architecture. With the final proposals now published and a revised budget submitted, the process has now moved into the hands of Member States.

At a moment of deep geopolitical divides and heightened tension, UN80 has generated a surprising level of global consensus: everyone likes the idea of saving money, but few seem to like UN80 itself. Many Member States have criticized the initiative for being overly opaque, failing to account for their areas of interest, or potentially allowing some actors to shirk their duties. Experts have called it a “technocratic coping strategy” driven by tactical responses to a liquidity crisis. And within the UN Secretariat, staff complain that rapid cuts risk hollowing out key functions at a time when the UN’s work is more important than ever.

What happens next is far from clear. The General Assembly has established an ad hoc working group that will consider the proposals and report back by March 2026. In the meantime, some of the secretary-general’s efforts to consolidate administrative functions can move forward right away. But given the widespread criticism of UN80 and deep divisions among Member States, the proposals may not create much common ground for the more ambitious goals of the initiative. In fact, they could become fodder for the competitive, fractured, divisive haggling that already characterizes UN budget debates—this time with stronger downward pressure and a higher likelihood of bad outcomes.

If UN80 is going to achieve more than a rearrangement of chairs on a leaky ship, Member States need a far-sighted vision of how a reformed UN will manage global threats and address “long problems.” Achieving such a vision is especially difficult at a moment of crisis when most are seeking short-term wins.

Fortunately, the UN has already agreed on a role to combat short-termism: a UN special envoy for future generations. This position was proposed in 2021 in the secretary-general’s Our Common Agenda report, acknowledged in the Pact for the Future agreed by all Member States last year, and reaffirmed as a priority for the secretary-general during the Hamburg Sustainability Conference last June.

At a moment of uncertainty about UN80 and the future of the UN, appointing an envoy dedicated to long-term thinking and impacts could have a powerful effect on the process going forward. Such an envoy could deliver in three specific ways: providing a unifying vision for reform, prioritizing what mandates the UN should focus on, and increasing transparency and participation in the UN.

An Inspiring, Unifying Vision

Some of the harshest criticism of UN80 has been directed at its lack of vision. Experts point out that the process has been shaped primarily by an urgent need to find 20% budget cuts, largely in reaction to the US withdrawal of funding. While a narrative centered on cuts and efficiencies may appeal to those seeking a smaller price tag, it provides little for Member States to rally around as they consider the UN’s future structure and purpose.

A UN special envoy for future generations could instead provide a compelling, unifying storyline that drives more meaningful change to structures and processes. The starting point for UN reform could be the question: What form of organization would be best able to address the largest global risks facing humanity for generations to come? This approach could lead to far more ambitious changes—such as elevating the environment as a core pillar of the UN or advancing some of the more far-reaching commitments in the Pact for the Future agreed last year. At the very least, it would move the narrative away from tactical staffing cuts as a starting point for reform.

A Framework for Prioritizing across Mandates

One of the sticking points in the UN80 process has been the difficulty of prioritizing across the UN’s many mandates. Over the past 30 years, Member States have tasked the UN with producing hundreds of reports, convening thousands of meetings, deploying dozens of peace operations, and delivering life-saving aid to millions of vulnerable people. Which of these mandates are most important, and how should the UN navigate the reality that its budget is not neatly tied to specific mandates? What principles should guide a reform process that has been driven by demands for smaller budgets without clarity on what should shrink?

This “mandate maze” requires a way to do triage: to assess and prioritize mandates and to retire them when they no longer serve a purpose. Without this, UN80 risks leaving the organization overstretched—doing the same tasks with fewer resources and poorer results. Focusing on short-term cuts could generate long-term costs. For example, big cuts to the human rights pillar may save money now, but any resulting erosion of human rights is almost certain to generate massive costs and large-scale human suffering down the road. Similarly, scaling back the UN’s disaster-response capacity may help achieve 20% cost-savings today, but as the 2025 Global Assessment Risk Report indicates, the longer-term cost of disasters is already rising into the trillions.

A UN special envoy for future generations could help ground the UN80 process in the UN Common Principles on Future Generations, ensuring decisions about the UN’s architecture and priorities account for long-term risks and impacts. These principles would equip Member States with some guardrails and guidance when they assess the thousands of mandates stretching across the multilateral system. They could be complemented by intergenerational impact assessments to give Member States data to support their decisions.

Models for such an approach already exist. Countries like Wales and the Netherlands, and organizations like the International Monetary Fund, have incorporated “generational tests” and long-term planning and prioritization tools into their strategic plans. A UN envoy could serve as both clearinghouse and advocate, consolidating good practices from around the world to underpin UN reform. The envoy could also promote data-driven tools such as fiscal notes or intergenerational budget tagging to support Member States in evaluating the long-term impacts of the UN’s work. The result could be a reform process anchored not just in cuts but in principles, models, and evidence.

More Transparency and Participation

Smaller countries and young people seem particularly uninspired by UN80 thus far, seeing it as a process that could limit funding to vulnerable regions and reduce prospects for new talent to enter the organization. The fact that the process has been conducted largely behind closed doors has given rise to criticism about its opacity and lack of inclusion.

A special envoy for future generations could help counter these concerns by making UN80 more transparent and inclusive. Long-term challenges—such as sea-level rise, demographic shifts, pollution, and the inequitable distribution of the benefits of technology—are among the highest priorities for those who have the least voice in UN processes. The envoy could become an ombudsperson for these constituencies, keeping their issues on the agenda and demanding that they be consulted on major decisions.

A Mistake that Should be Reversed

It goes without saying that appointing a special envoy for future generations would not solve the deep geopolitical problems plaguing the world, nor would it magically create funds amid waning donor interest in the UN. An envoy could not force Member States to raise their level of ambition or directly influence the budgetary processes that are likely to drive the UN80 process over the coming year.

In fact, Member States have already shown themselves skeptical of the envoy position: In June the Member State–led budgetary committee rejected the secretary-general’s proposal to create a new post for the envoy, and the 2026 proposed budget no longer includes such a position.

This was a mistake that should be reversed. As Member States now consider the secretary-general’s full package of proposals, they should also consider how an envoy could provide the principles, models, and evidence needed for meaningful reform. This seems like a small price to pay to try to reverse the course of UN80 from its current worrying trajectory.