The Current Column

Beyond 2030 – A new agenda?

A renewed global agenda needs a compelling, positive narrative

Grimm, Sven / Axel Berger
The Current Column (2026)

Bonn: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), The Current Column of 13 July 2026

Bonn, 13 June 2026. With less than five years to go on the 2030 Agenda, the world is a very different place from when the agenda was negotiated and agreed. Building a positive narrative will be key to gaining public and political support. 

The discussion on “what next” after 2030 has only just begun. With a bit more than four years to go, there is little official positioning on a possible successor to the 2030 Agenda right now. At the High-Level Political Forum, the central UN format for implementing the Sustainability Goals, which is taking place these days in New York, this discussion also tends to be conducted on the margins. Even the process leading to a new agenda is still unclear, as the UN Summit on the Sustainable Development Goals that is likely to sketch the way is scheduled for September 2027 under the auspices of a new UN Secretary-General. And yet, the build-up for the negotiation of a renewed or revised agenda is short. What is realistic, what is desirable for “beyond 2030”?

IDOS’ conference on “Sustainability Cooperation Beyond 2030 – Ways forward in a messy world” on 25 and 26 June in Bonn and a roundtable discussion at the Hamburg Sustainability Conference on 30 June took a leap. Both events brought together academics, senior think tank staff as well as current and former negotiators from all continents to look at what we have learnt from sustainability cooperation and the pathways towards a desired future. 

Where we are now

We can argue that the 2030 Agenda has created more momentum than was deemed possible at its inception. We have seen progress in numerous areas and countries that is not sufficiently appreciated when just observing the global average indicators. And we do have sustainability strategies in many countries, in pioneering companies and at the subnational or local level, irrespective of the national government or “political colour” of the day. There is a good track-record of reaching decision-makers at the level of sub-national entities and municipalities, where action is taken, for instance on transport, energy, or spatial planning. 

Currently, we see backsliding on the declared sustainability goals and new vulnerabilities. This is cause for concern and requires attention. National plans are not sufficient to fully implement the 2030 Agenda, as various trackers, e.g. on climate, show us. Wars have multiplied and prevent progress. Finance for development has become scarcer as countries increasingly divert resources towards military spending rather than investing in a broader understanding of security, including human, social and economic security. Additionally, demographic change in many industrialised countries results in increasing pressure on social security systems. And we are facing more extreme weather events as a result of the climate crisis. Brief: we are going through polycrises, despite a global agenda for sustainability. 

And yet, there’s value in a global agenda. One participant in Bonn invoked the unlikely reference to the Prussian military theorist Clausewitz: No strategy should be expected to be implemented as conceptualised; it always has to adapt to dynamic real-life situations. Still, strategies help to think ahead and translate aspirations into actions – and identify gaps. 

Where’s the discussion on “beyond 2030”?

It is unlikely that there is large appetite for a fully new design of the Agenda and its goals. For starters, the current agenda is already comprehensive. Moreover, renegotiating the agenda in its entirety will be challenging due to geopolitical shifts and risk assessments of supporters of a new agenda. While Europe seems much in favour of having global goals, China emphasises its orientation towards system “stability” (while likely to work on its influence), and the USA are actively advocating against the current and likely any new agenda (while sub-national entities see the need for global benchmarks). 

Participants of our recent events discussed elements for an update, e.g. the role and relevance of AI, and a circular economy, as well as renewed discussions about how to better measure wealth beyond the GDP figure. Widely shared was also that we should not only look at the “what” (the goals and indicators) but also the “how” (often referred to as the means of implementation). Yet, it sounded like broad agreement in the wish to have a vision: an agenda we should have.

What next?

The conversation on a new agenda will go through numerous rounds of exchanges of perspectives and discussions in the coming months – on substance and on how to continue. As often is the case in multilateral settings, process is likely to influence outcomes, and who to involve beyond state actors – and how – is important.

The tasks related to the 2030 Agenda obviously do not end on 31 December 2030. It is explicitly a long-term vision, “for this and future generations”. Yet, the Agenda’s legitimacy is under pressure and to simply put a new date on it won’t be sufficient. The narrative is as important as the substance. We need to come up with a positive narrative on the global commons and the global common good – and we need to tell a good story on gains through cooperation. Imaging and planning for sustainable futures is a deeply human endeavour.