Discussing the role of G20, G7, BRICS an the UN

I am at the 39th UN Academic Council Conference in Lisbon. I was asked to be on the enclosed panel. See my comments below.

A1. Panel/Roundtable 15. Continuity and Contestation: The G20 at a Crossroads and its Implications for the UN System.

• Washington's G20 turn, with its focus on deregulation and domestic objectives, comes after four successive presidencies focused on commitments to the formal multilateral system. How do we assess the outcomes of those four presidencies, and what is the place of the G20 in the multilateral system now? 
• The notion of an inclusive, rules-based international order is under increasing strain, in an era of “contested global governance” that may pit growing economic nationalism against more traditional approaches to global cooperation. What are the opportunities for the present and future G20 presidencies to bridge this gap for the benefit of all countries and their citizens?
• Against this backdrop, how do we understand the respective roles of the G20, G7, and BRICS+?  Are they complementary, competitors, or both?

The G20 at a Crossroads and its Implications for the UN System.

We are a large panel and so I will focus a little more on the issue of whether we are in an era of contested or complementary global governance.  It’s true our inclusive, rules-based international order is under increasing strain.

My engagement was for six years with the G7/G8  (2000-2006) where I was a member of a very small group of NGOs meeting the sherpa/s. It was in fact the Russian G8  in 2006 that there was for the first time a meeting of NGOs with ALL the 8 sherpas.

It’s amazing seeing how the ecosystem around the G7 and the G20 has grown and mimicked the Rio Earth Summit nine stakeholder chapters as opposed to the industry/civil society/government approach which considerably limits the space for key stakeholder views.

I have four very quick observations.

1.      We have seen the last four G20 Presidency put the UN at the centre of the multilateral world – as they should.

For all its imperfections and the present UN 80 reform process the world does need a functioning, relevant for successful UN.

 

I have been working and engaging with member states for the past year on Work Package 27 on the environment. I can’t comment on other work packages, but I have found there to be real interest in strengthening the environment pillar when member states have had well-argued and feasible proposals.

2.      Policy development is very difficult in 2026 but that doesn’t mean we should give up on institutions – it’s not the fault of international instructions if the political will isn’t there.

We have been through other times when there has been a need to defend work and to prepare for opportunities as times change.

 

The SDGs process started during the financial crisis. The Paris Climate Agreement was born out of the failures of the Copenhagen Climate COP in 2009.

 

I am reminded of the saying:

 

“When the going gets tough, the tough get going"

 

Suggesting that strong, resilient people don't give up when faced with challenges; instead, they work harder and rise to the occasion.

 

3.      The present ecosystem G20/G7/BRICS I could mention others like the Commonwealth and the relevant UN bodies, for me it is places like the Climate, Biodiversity and Chemicals and Waste whose negotiations play vital roles in the multilateral ecosystem.

 

Its important that just like the discussion in the UN 80 reform it’s clear what their mandate is and how it supports the work of others.

 

The G7 remains influential, but it no longer has enough representational legitimacy to claim that it speaks for the world economy.

 

Particularly when you have by 2030 China and India top of the GDP table and in the top 10 Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil.

 

A first policy coordinated in the G7 gains broader credibility if it is later accepted, softened, or adopted in the G20.

 

BRICS+ enables grievances and can articulate dissatisfaction with the existing order.  It provides and allows middle powers an ability to hedge geopolitical risks, mediate differences, and broker incremental reforms to global governance

 

4.     Finally  A reflection on the deadlock in much of the Climate negotiations as I think it is relevant here. A quick background there are rules in the Framework convention for majority voting allowing for 2/3rds in some cases 3/4^th voting. Unfortunately, since 1992 Governments never agreed to these rules as they had to be agreed unanimously and so ALL climate text has to be agreed unanimously.

 

If majority voting it had been agreed much of the blocking that is being done could have been averted. I give this background to a problem which like the reform of the UN Security Council is not likely to move soon.

 

So, what do you do? You build “coalitions of the willing”. Those that want to move forward can start designing and agreeing to steps to do so.

 

We have seen this on issues like the Methane Pledge and the Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels initiative.

 

This approach will only increase in the short term and will accelerate implementation of these agreements at the national level.

 

To end with as Einstein said, “You never fail until you stop trying.” We must never stop trying!!