The Summit of the Future and the Impossibility of Multilateralism Without Financing

By Javier Surasky

In September 2024, the Summit of the Future will convene in New York, with its primary objective being to promote a renewed, stronger, more open, and transparent multilateralism with the United Nations at its center. This multilateralism should be capable of addressing the current challenges facing our planet, from climate change to the advent of Artificial Intelligence and the inclusion of future generations in decision-making processes. To achieve this, the Summit should equip the organization with the tools to act more effectively and efficiently. This requires expanding the availability of financial resources.
 
The UN has long been lacking in funding. Despite its Member States' promises and constant calls for more effective action, the financial contributions necessary for strong multilateral action have not materialized.
 
Let us begin by illustrating the general reality of financing the world’s most important multilateral organization, whose mission includes maintaining international peace and security and conducting international cooperation (Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, paragraphs 1 and 3).
 
For the 2024 period, the UN had an allocated regular budget of USD 3.59 billion (A/RES/78/254 A–C). How does this amount compare with the regular budgets of other entities?
 

Figure 1: Comparison between budgets (in USD billion) 

(1) Informe Económico Real Madrid 2022/2023.
(2) A/RES/78/254 A–C
(3) France 24.
(4) New York City Council.
(5) Payments alone, the commitments that are added to them, have a value of Eur. 189.4 billionEuropean Council.

Source: Own


If we consider only the United Nations development system, the latest available figures indicate that the sum of contributions from the UN's regular budget and extrabudgetary contributions significantly increases the availability of funds, which reached a value of USD 54.5 billion in 2022 (the last year for which we have official data).

However, a part of the explanation for why Member States prefer to provide funds outside of the organization’s budget lies in earmarked funds. Most of these funds are earmarked, meaning the donor specifies the country or actions that will benefit from them, impeding the UN’s decision on how to allocate the earmarked resources according to real needs.

The states’ preference for earmarked funds is easy to explain: it allows them to align the resources they put in the hands of the UN with their own foreign policy priorities. Let's look at the evolution of the resources contributed as core funding and non-core funding between 2012 and 2022.

Figure 2: Evolution of core and non-core resources made available to the United Nations development system (2012-2022, in USD billion)

 
 
Moreover, the result of increasing humanitarian needs and the allocation of earmarked funds to the UN development system has, in 2022, shifted the priority from development assistance to humanitarian action. In other words, the focus has moved to emergency response over the promotion of structural changes for greater sustainable development. Addressing emergencies thus becomes a new limit to the more efficient use of available financing.

Figure 3: Trends in financing thematic funds of specific organizations according to whether they are directed towards humanitarian or development actions (2012–2022, USD million in real terms)

 

As a result, in the words of the Secretary-General, "the current funding architecture of the United Nations development system, characterized by the continuous decline in the proportion of core resources in total financing, the lack of predictability, and the high dependency on a small number of donor governments, is not sustainable for a system that needs to expand its work and have an integrated and strategic impact."

Under this financing scheme, the Summit of the Future will not have the opportunity to bring about changes towards a stronger multilateralism with the UN at its center. The heavily intergovernmental negotiation framework, with the almost total exclusion of other actors, does not help envision a more effective multilateralism either. Nevertheless, that is a topic for future blog entries in our Global Radar.