This report –  Navigating New Horizons – is the first report emerging from the strategic foresight process. UNEP is advancing this process, taking an institutionalized approach to strategic foresight and horizon scanning, to provide real-time monitoring of emerging signals of change that could have implications for planetary health and human well-being.

The report encompasses a global Delphi survey, the development of scenarios, sensemaking at global and regional levels, and engaging with youth voices. This rich empirical input has been analysed and further developed by UNEP, the International Science Council (ISC) and the Foresight Expert Panel. In short, the report uncovers what the future (near and far) could hold for planetary health.

It is important to emphasise that this is not about predicting the future. Foresight is about structuring key uncertainties and imagining how the world might develop, and with these insights, people might take better decisions today. In this sense, the report links insights about the future to actions now or in a near future.

From a methodological perspective, one important takeaway is that by building capacity for applying foresight and acting on those insights, UNEP is better prepared to not be surprised by shocks.

The foresight process has widened the perspectives and enhanced the organization’s capacity to look way beyond the strictly “environmental”, to encompass a much wider spectrum of factors that – directly or indirectly – shape the context for analysis and policymaking of relevance for planetary health and human well-being.

The changing global context could imply a series of critical shifts, new emerging issues and potential threats that may or may not occur, but which we need to closely monitor. As witnessed over the past years, even seemingly improbable or distant disruptions or circumstances can quickly become reality. Thus, paying attention to signals of change, and exploring both prominent and weaker ones with a view to anticipate disruption and minimize surprise is paramount.

This is a cornerstone of the report. The report defines a weak signal as an event “with high disruptive potential (indirect or direct) and low-to-medium probability of occurrence”. The identification of weak signals was aided by a two-round Delphi survey with over 700 and 500 respondents, respectively. Ultimately, the report identifies and assesses 18 weak signals of change and potential disruptions on the horizon.

Examples of weak signals include an uninsurable future, a rapid expansion of space activity and orbital space debris, uninhabitable places and new emerging zoonotic diseases. They also include potential mental health crisis and existential threats, as well as new health risks associated with thawing permafrost – specifically pathogens that were long buried but that might reemerge and spread. As can be seen from these examples, the weak signals both include typical “environmental” developments as well as other broader developments.

In order to facilitate the design and implementation of the Foresight process, the UNEP Chief Scientist and the ISC Chief Executive Officer decided to jointly appoint an Expert Panel to provide strategic guidance and scientific leadership. The Expert Panel is responsible for ensuring that the foresight process and the output are scientifically robust, draw on the best available knowledge and expert insights, and reflect balanced views of current, emerging and unforeseen future issues related to the environment. My own main contributions have been on foresight methodologies and thematically on the role of emerging technologies in shaping the future context for UNEP’s work.

That’s right. The context in which we as scientists are supposed to do high quality research and policymakers are supposed to develop and implement effective policies is indeed bleak.

However, as this report shows, there are opportunities to act on. I think the report clearly demonstrates that foresight is indeed an effective process and tool to identify critical issues of importance for planetary health and human well-being. It is tricky to design a process that strikes a balance between “free thinking” and creativity on the one hand, with a structured approach that has scientific credibility. I think this report shows how it can be done.

We see this report as a point of departure for discussing the need for more structured long-term thinking within UNEP in particular, but also more generally in the global environmental change community. It will be an important time-period between HLPF and the Summit of the Future in September, and we will feed more insights based on this report and further analysis into the debate.

One concrete follow-up activity is the work we are currently doing in analysing how the weak signals interact, for example with regards to synergies and trade-offs. We hope this analysis will uncover positive feedback loops that can be used to catalyse change.