Following the publishing of the Fourth Global Trends ESPAS report in April 2024, Futures4Europe had the pleasure of interviewing the editor and two co-authors of the report about their reflections and key trend insights throughout the foresight research and writing process. ESPAS, or the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System, unites nine EU institutions and bodies to collaboratively identify and analyze medium- and long-term trends affecting the EU, informing policy-makers about their implications.
The Fourth Global Trends ESPAS report is available here.
Eamonn Noonan, co-author of the report, is an official of the European Parliament Research Service in the Foresight Unit, which has had a quality secretarial role for ESPAS ever since the unit was set up in 2015. Salvatore Finamore, also a co-author, is a member of the Analysis and Research Team in the General Secretary of the Council of the European Union and was involved in the initial scoping and facilitating parts of the foresight process. Geraldine Barry is the editor of the ESPAS report and Adviser for Knowledge Synthesis at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. She coordinated the drafting efforts across all 9 European institutions and bodies involved in the process.
What key global trends have emerged since the last ESPAS report, and how does it compare to previous editions in terms of its identified trends and recommended strategies?
Eamonn: In the previous report, we addressed the full spectrum of trends, such geopolitics, economics, and environment. While we’re still addressing them, there's a sense of intensification. Things are more serious now than they were five years ago. Two elements have emerged since 2019, namely more fragmentation, both in geopolitics and in democracy. We were already aware that geopolitical tensions had worsened, and now there is much greater awareness of democratic fragility. The other dimension is interconnectedness. Democratic fragility is a source of geopolitical fragility, and vice versa. The interconnections across trends are now more apparent and more appreciated.
Salvatore: Foresight is a study of possible futures, but there is also another element, namely the study of present images of the future. That’s why it's interesting to look at previous ESPAS reports and see how they compare. In this report, one key observation is that we are more focussed on the uncertainties we face. The previous report contained more definitive statements, which was probably in part a stylistic choice, but perhaps also a reflection of a different time. Our current report sees the future as less certain: in fact, one of our main sections for each chapter is entitled ‘key uncertainties to 2040’. Another aspect is that for some trends you can expect to see a large degree of continuity with previous reports, but also signs of a shift in the accompanying narratives. The clearest example perhaps is that of an increased awareness of the importance of climate change adaptation, together with mitigation. While climate change was already a well-established trend at the time of previous reports, adaptation is also increasingly seen as a key component of the strategies that we need to put in place, as we are aware that some elements of climate change are simply unavoidable given the current trends. Additionally, elements such as climate, energy, food security, health increasingly seem to have geopolitics attached to them. Indeed, if you look for ‘geopolitics’ in the text of the current report compared to the previous one, it appears twice as frequently. Reflecting on the present images of the future, I think this ‘geopoliticization of everything’ is a very significant development that we didn't see previously and which for me also carries risks for self-fulfilling prophecies.
What trends were clearest to identify and which still present uncertainty in light of this interconnectedness?
Salvatore: The key uncertainties section of the climate change trend was a challenge because we don't want to present climate change as uncertain. There are of course uncertainties linked to climate change but overall there is more clarity due to quantitative data. Therefore, the trend is relatively more straightforward compared to others that are more qualitative, for example geopolitics. At the same time, there is also a risk in presenting some trends as too well established for us to have agency in altering their course.
Eamonn: On the economic front, discussions on how to return to prosperity and how to achieve competitiveness continue. Forecasting, as distinct from foresight, can help in the near term, but we need to use foresight in preparing for the long term.
What foresight methodologies were used in the report?
Salvatore: We started with an initial scoping exercise with the members of the core team, which was a larger group of colleagues than just the final drafters. There, we used a simple environmental scan based on the STEEP framework and then a clustering exercise where we scoped what subjects we see in our collective awareness. After doing this, we had a first round of validation with the ESPAS steering group. Then we engaged in more in-depth trend analysis, looking at drivers and impact analysis. For each trend we analyzed, we employed a modified futures wheel approach where we examined both the historical drivers and the potential future impacts. This involved making links and identifying overlaps to understand the interaction of these elements. To further explore the systemic complexity and interconnections between various drivers, we also conducted a cross-impact analysis. This allowed us to map and analyze the intricate relationships and dependencies across different factors. We had several rounds of consultations with experts, both from the EU institutions and outside. Finally, we also incorporated some of the results of the ESPAS horizon scanning process.
What challenges did you encounter and how did you overcome them?
Geraldine: We had to identify the key uncertainties beyond what we already know, as it is easier to focus on what we observe now. Compared with the previous report, the interconnectedness and convergence of trends pose difficult challenges, which we tried to frame in the strategic choices in the last chapter, striving not to be prescriptive in any way. Running deep dive workshops across the EU institutions and reflecting on each trend was very helpful. One of the things we hope to transmit is that there is agency and choice in the strategic decisionmaking that comes as a result of responding to trends. Lastly, this being an interinstitutional process with nine EU bodies also meant maximising knowledge synthesis and condensing a lot of information. Our steering group ensured we had a strong approval process throughout.
Eamonn: Strategic foresight is actually intended to challenge orthodox viewpoints. In an exercise of this kind, there can be reservations about certain framings. Ultimately the strategic choices identified in this report are broadly compatible with the priorities of the mainstream political groupings within the EU.
Foresight looks decades into the future, compared to the length of political mandates. To what extent does embedding foresight in policy making also align with the decisions taken by elected representatives?
Salvatore: One of the key messages of the report is that we have long-term trends and we need to act now if we want to shape the long-term future. What we convey is that, ultimately, if we don't act, then the trends will make the choice for us.
Eamonn: The report seeks to provide a long-term analysis that can inform policy and strategy formulation today. Several trends do not align with the EU's strategic interest in collaborating with others to reduce global polarization and prevent rivalries from escalating into conflicts. If these trends continue and we do nothing, then it will be increasingly difficult to maintain the peace and prosperity that the EU hopes will continue. The overall tone of this report suggests that, if left unattended, several things are not going in a direction that benefits Europe. At the same time, communicating uncertainty is very difficult. Politicians and, indeed, the general public, expect to have control and stability. The shift from the clear-cut certainties of the Cold War, where the lines between "good" and "bad" were well-defined, to a more ambiguous political landscape creates a complex environment. This trend toward uncertainty requires strategies to reassure people that, despite unpredictability, there are ways to manage it. It's a reminder of the importance of flexibility and preparedness for various outcomes.
How should then European countries adjust their long-term strategic planning to accommodate for unseen global shifts?
Salvatore: It’s really about building preparedness, so thinking in a way that can prepare us for different futures. It's more about putting yourself in a position where you can easily accommodate for whatever the future may throw at you.
Eamonn: One point that we make is that once you establish a strategic direction, it's good for Europe if the different institutions act in an aligned fashion. That equally applies to different policy areas. If you're doing something in one policy area that conflicts with the objectives of another policy area, then you make it harder to achieve overall strategic objectives.
In what ways do you expect this report to be taken up by policymakers?
Salvatore: This report will be part of the briefings that senior level policymakers will receive. Personally, I expect this kind of report to contribute to the policy discourse and the broader narrative rather than policy itself. It's meant to stimulate a debate and I think it will create an impact by influencing the information environment in which policymaking is conceived and implemented.
Eamonn: The 2019 report significantly overlapped with the European Commission's priorities, likely reflecting the prevailing thoughts within the institutions about upcoming challenges. Similarly, this report may overlap with the issues identified by the incoming Commission. This is more correlation than causation. The new Commission will take office after the European Parliament elections, which will refelect many different perspectives. When that all comes together it will reflect a much more diverse European picture, centred and rooted in the Member States. The ESPAS report draws from a broad spectrum of inputs, but it is influenced by thinking within the participating institutions.
Geraldine: The timing of this report is very deliberate, as it was released in April before the upcoming mandates of the Commission, Parliament, and the Council. The aim is to stimulate reflection and discussion and encourage the notion of embedding the capacity to adapt quickly, not just stay on one course. If this approach becomes more reflexive rather than exceptional, it would entail a significant shift in traditional policy-making practices.