Issuu

2026 COMMEMORATIVE EDITION

DAVOS DIALOGUES

FROM DIALOGUE TO DEPLOYMENT Emerging Signals

The Institution That Serve Us

Audacity In Action

MASTHEAD CEO & PUBLISHER ANA C. ROLD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF SHANE SZARKOWSKI EDITOR JEREMY FUGLEBERG STAFF WRITER STEPHANIE GULL

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER PAMELA KELLEY LAUDER ART DIRECTOR MARC GARFIELD PHOTOGRAPHER MARCELLUS MCINTOSH

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD ANDREW M. BEATO FUMBI CHIMA KERSTIN COATES DANTE A. DISPARTE AUTHORS PHILIPPE COSTEAU LEONOR DIAZ ALCANTARA BLAIR GLENCORSE JOHN GOODWIN M. ASHRAF HAIDARI ELIOT HIGGINS ALAN JAGOLINZER

SIR IAN FORBES LISA GABLE GREG LEBEDEV ANITA MCBRIDE

IMANE KENDILI JANE MANN THOMAS PLANT IAN RALBY YASMINE SHERIF SEAN SLADE

Copyright© by Diplomatic CourierTM and Medauras Global Publishing 2026. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Medauras Global and Diplomatic Courier. LEGAL NOTICE. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form—except brief excerpts for the purpose of review—without written consent f rom the publisher and authors. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication; however, the authors, Diplomatic Courier, and Medauras Global make no warranties, express or implied, in regards to the information and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions. EDITORIAL. The content represents the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions. CITATIONS & SOURCES. All articles in this special edition have already been or will be published on the Diplomatic Courier website, including relevant hyperlink citations. PERMISSIONS. This publication cannot be reproduced without the permission of the authors and the publisher. For permissions please email: info@medauras.com with your written request. ARTWORK. Cover design via Adobe Stock. Artwork and design by Marc Garfield for Diplomatic Courier.

DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 3

A DVERTI SEMENT

DAVO S D I AL OG U E I J ANU ARY 2025

Welcome

Shane Szarkowski Editor-in-Chief

Disruption is opportunity

026 is going to be important. The last year was chock full of the unprecedented. Volatility and uncertainty were staples. It might be easy to feel despair in the face of all this immediate disruption, especially as polycrisis challenges loom in the background. Indeed, the scope of the work ahead of us is daunting. But any period of disruption is also a time of opportunity, and amid the chaos there are hopeful signals. At Diplomatic Courier, that is our unofficial motto for 2026, and that mindset is reflected in this year’s Davos Dialogues special edition. Disruptions inevitably change our governance and institutional structures, opening a unique opportunity to shape their transformation. We must learn the gaps in our institutions and governments —and determine how to bridge them. This reality is why we are focusing on multistakeholder, multi-track diplomacy—where we know private sector, non-profit, and charitable stakeholders are keen to play more proactive roles. They want to evolve, moving from business as usual to co-creators of solutions to some of our most daunting

contemporary challenges. We aim to be partners on that path. This special edition is different from what we’ve published in the past—a collection of smart analyses curated to be especially relevant to the moment, Instead, this is our articulation of an emerging theory of change. In Chapter 1, our experts analyze institutional gaps—what went wrong and what comes next? In Chapter 2, we’ve curated commentaries and essays from our network that we think powerfully illustrate some of the emerging signals from 2025 that must inform positive action moving forward. Finally, in Chapter 3, we present the audacious projects we are co-designing with members of our World in 2050 Brain Trust. This reflects World in 2050’s next stage of evolution—from ideation to action and impact. Diplomatic Courier is observing its 20th year of life in 2026, and it’s looking to be our most exciting and, we think, productive year thus far. We’re grateful to have you along for the journey. DAVOS DIALOGUE 2026 | 5

cda_8-11x11-2_PRINT.pdf

13/12/2019

09:33

A DVERTI SEMENT

Creating value for Switzerland, its economy and citizens Cisco Country Digital Acceleration Strategy #CiscoCDA #SwissCDA C

CMY

www.cisco.ch/cda

Contents DAVO S D I AL O G U ES I J ANU ARY 2026

Davos, Switzerland. Photo by Damian Markutt via Unsplash.

The institutions that serve us signals from the future

Audacity in action

10 I When systems fail, humanity rises

35 I Maintaining sovereignty in the intelligence economy

By: Yasmine Sherif

12 I Institutions power is dormant, buried in process By: Thomas Plant

14 I The silent efficiency of informal power By: Leonor Diaz Alcantara

16 I Partnership is the new leadership By: Sean Slade

18 I From feudal dues to future good By: John Goodwin

24 I Minds over AI: To tackle disinformation, look to education By: Alan Jagolinzer, Eliot Higgins, Jane Mann

26 I Governance has been, will remain, driven by people By: Blair Glencorse

28 I Africa’s emerging a harm–reduction approach to governance

37 I From data protection to data liberation 39 I Solving the invisibility crisis demands visibility 41 I A firm foundation to meet the future

By: Imane Kendili

30 I Recognizing coral reefs as critical infrastructure could save them By: Ian Ralby and Philippe Costeau

20 I Safety net for forcibly displaced has frayed, not yet torn By: M. Ashraf Haidari

DAVOS DIALOGUE 2026 | 7

Photo by Gabriella Clare Marino via Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

1. The Institutions That Serve Us As 2025 drew to a close, Diplomatic Courier asked its World in 2050 expert network to look back to look ahead in our annual end-ofyear expert commentary series. With boundary-defying volatility and uncertainty defining 2025, the global institutions we founded to navigate these times appeared to fall short. This selection of commentaries conducts a postmortem of what went wrong but more importantly, what comes next and what hopeful signals they discern among the volatility.

Photo by David Monje on Unsplash

When systems fail, humanity rises By Yasmine Sherif

10 | D I PLOM AT I C COURIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

025 stands as one of the most devastating years in recent history for millions of people trapped in armed conflict and gross violations of international law across the globe. While many of those conflicts make headlines: Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan, or the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, they’re only a portion of the crisis. According to Geneva Academy’s “Today’s Armed Conflicts” portal, over 110 armed conflicts were recorded in 2025—placing this year among the worst since the Second World War. It is tempting to conclude that institutions have failed these populations, but that explanation is only partially true. Assigning failure solely to “systems” distances ourselves from responsibility. The deeper truth is that institutions are not abstractions; they are composed of human beings. Every government and organization operates through individual choices—shaped daily by the values we hold, the laws we uphold, the empathy we extend, and the integrity we bring to positions of power. History is not something that happens to us. It is shaped by us. As we move into 2026, our shared challenge is to rise not out of obligation, but out of conviction. The question before us is whether we are ready to unleash our shared humanity and defend an international world order grounded in the rule of law, the United Nations Charter, and universal human rights. We do not need to search for solutions in the fog of realpolitik. We are the solution— imperfect, but also capable, steadfast, and accountable. Somewhere, something extraordinary is waiting to be realized: our own untapped power as human beings when we dare to awaken and act. We are called not to nostalgia or despair but to renewal. The world does not simply need witnesses—it needs human beings prepared to live their values and build a future anchored in justice, peace and collective security. When the global becomes personal, and “humanity” becomes each individual human being, our roles become clear. We

WITH OVER 110 ARMED CONFLICTS RECORDED IN 2025, IT IS TEMPTING TO CONCLUDE INSTITUTIONS FAILED THESE POPULATIONS. BUT INSTITUTIONS ARE COMPOSED OF HUMANS; RATHER THAN DESPAIR AND BLAME WE SHOULD FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON RENEWAL. each hold a share of responsibility for translating international law into lived reality and responding to the millions of voices pleading for protection, justice, dignity, and hope. This truth was articulated at the birth of the United Nations. When Dr. Eduardo Zuleta Angel of Colombia opened the first UN General Assembly in 1946, he offered a message that still resonates nearly eighty years later: “In this we shall not fail. An inner voice tells us that, animated by a broad and sincere feeling for humanity, we can lift up our hearts…” We do not need another platform. We need a new path. It does not rest on conferences and declarations alone. It rests on people— those with inner strength, moral clarity, and a sincere commitment to humanity. These are the individuals within governments, institutions, civil society and communities who shape the future and honor the call of the UN Charter of 1945: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to build lasting justice, peace and security. ***** About the author: Yasmine Sherif is a human rights lawyer and public speaker who has served with the United Nations for over 30 years, and a member of World in 2050’s TEN. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 11

Photo by David Billings on Unsplash

Institutions’ power is dormant, buried in process By Thomas Plant

12 | D I PLOM AT I C COURIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

any people see global institutions as bodies that can’t act: UN ceasefires blocked by a single veto, climate reports ignored, or development banks with no clear success stories. It’s easy to assume these institutions were designed to be slow. But they weren’t. Their architects gave them authority to rebuild after wars, contain diseases, negotiate trade, and fund infrastructure. For decades, we saw visible outputs: roads, clinics, schools, public services. So what changed? In one sentence, institutions stopped being tools that leaders use to execute decisions and became places where decisions go to get processed. That’s the dead weight: the committees meant to speed things up are now slowing things down. The drift is visible in routine development work. When leaders don’t clarify goals, staff report on what’s easily countable. The World Bank’s scorecards track monitoring forms and strategy sheets, but not whether anything changed on the ground (which is often labeled mixed or impossible to verify). In crises, the impact of the drift becomes impossible to ignore. During the Covid pandemic, post–mortem analysis found that plans existed on paper, but crucial decisions about testing, emergency funds, or travel rules stalled in approval chains. Gaza showed the same pattern. The UN drafted many ceasefire resolutions with overwhelming support (13–1), but a single permanent–member veto stopped them. On the ground, the UNRWA (a humanitarian arm) was ready with aid, but its actions hit roadblocks: crossing borders, passing inspections, requesting more fuel and supplies, and recouping lost donor funding. Each blocker required time–consuming approval processes. The delays slowed action while the death toll climbed. That said, institutions have dormant power, and we see it in rare cases when leaders treat them as tools—for better or for worse. Consider the United States. Many commentators assumed international rules would constrain President Trump when his administration started using broad powers to enact tariffs, rewrite asylum rules, and

implement travel bans without new legislation. Yet a significant portion of his agenda went into effect. The point isn’t whether these moves were wise, but that the underlying authority was far more flexible than most believed. We may see a similar dynamic in New York City under mayor–elect Zohran Mamdani. His campaign promises—fare–free buses, universal childcare, a rent freeze—depend on institutional levers which insiders insist aren’t there. Mamdani hasn’t governed yet. But as with Trump, institutions that look rigid may have more room when someone is motivated to find it. Our institutions can work again if leaders understand two things: the logic behind their original design and the discretion still buried inside them. Success stories share a pattern: clarity about who can act, and a focus on outcomes. Institutions should: 1. Devote time to measuring concrete outcomes for abstract goals. When budgets depend on measurable outputs, institutions that have not defined how to measure them risk getting cut 2. Decide ahead of time who can act. Banks have been able to move money in days—not years—when emergency windows gave staff permission to act without renegotiating every step. 3. Use small, time–bound teams that have clear permissions. Small, temporary disaster “surge” units have succeeded because they take the mandate: “You decide, you move.” 4. Give leaders flexibility, but hold them accountable. Decision–making can require unconventional solutions during emergencies, but responsibility of the outcome must lie with the leaders who used them—not the institution. ***** About the author: Thomas Plant is an Associate Product Manager at Accrete AI, and former Fulbright Scholar. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 13

Photo by Luke Jones on Unsplash.

The silent efficiency of informal power By Leonor Diaz Alcantara

14 | D IPLOM AT I C COURIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

n 2025, AI has exposed tensions at the heart of modern governance globally. Policymakers function through accumulation of data, consultation, negotiation and at a speed that is not compatible with the pace of modern technology. AI, most notably, reinvents itself before committees have finished agreeing on definitions. For example, the EU AI Act was first proposed in 2021. The legislative process stretched across several years and by the time political agreement was reached, the landscape had changed with the arrival of technology such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, with AI-generated images that are almost impossible to distinguish from reality. Whole new sections had to be added to the AI Act while it was still being negotiated, and it still hasn’t been adopted. The OECD has warned that governments need faster and more flexible ways to deal with technology as it is developing more quickly than existing monitoring structures. The UK’s Frontier AI Taskforce also argues that governance frameworks must adapt far quicker than in the past. This is backed by researchers at the Alan Turing Institute who have observed that the pace of AI development places pressure on the slower processes on which public institutions depend. Summits and papers have produced statements of shared concern, but each major jurisdiction has moved forward on its own path. Cyberattacks once required sophisticated expertise and long preparation but this is no longer true. In the U.S., CISA has described how AI tools are helping even lowskilled attackers produce convincing scams and probe systems more effectively. Europol has warned that criminal and extremist groups are experimenting with large language models and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre and the U.S. National Security Agency both state that AI is likely to make attacks faster and more adaptable. Interestingly the issues faced at national, regional, and international levels and be-

AI IS MOVING FASTER THAN GOVERNMENTS CAN REGULATE, MAKING INFORMAL NETWORKS ESSENTIAL EARLY RESPONDERS IN TODAY’S RAPIDLY SHIFTING GOVERNANCE LANDSCAPE. ing faced by these large governmental and supranational bodies are often first identified and dealt with by informal and nongovernmental networks. For example, the Shadowserver Foundation and Citizen Lab have repeatedly identified emerging threats before official bodies have done so because they can move more quickly and operate across borders without procedural delay. Whilst not regulating technology or building it, alliances are looking at some of the questions around the development of AI. Organizations such as the Ada Lovelace Institute, the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, the Montreal AI Ethics community, All Tech is Human and my own think tank, Saviesa. What we have seen in 2025 is clear. Informal power is not only increasing, it is becoming essential to effective governance. These networks can see the future forming while institutions are still anchored in the present. The work of these networks does not replace the authority of the state, but it complements it, strengthens it and, in many cases, precedes it. In a world shaped by accelerating technology, informal power has become an indispensable part of the governance ecosystem. ***** About the author: Leonor Diaz Alcantara is the Executive Chair of Saviesa and a member of World in 2050’s TEN. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 15

Photo by Natalie Pedigo on Unsplash.

Partnership is the new leadership By Sean Slade

16 | D IPLOM AT I C COU RIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

artnership is the new leadership, and that is exactly the kind of leadership we need today” Stefania Giannini, UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Education.

When Stefania Giannini spoke these words at UNESCO’s Global Education Coalition meeting in March, her message resonated far beyond that room. It was repeated, again and again, during this year’s United Nations General Assembly Week in New York. Maybe the reason it was so popular is that this statement clarified several emerging truths. Firstly, there remains a growing need for large-scale interventions focused on humanity. Secondly, approaches that create one solution targeted at one problem are obsolete or ineffective. And lastly, that successful outcomes will only be achieved in a sustainable fashion by governments and NGOs working together—in unison, collaboration, and partnership. Many institutions have been successful over recent decades in providing targeted and directed solutions to core issues. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program has provided over 5.5 billion school meals to children and families over its lifetime, boosting school attendance by an estimated 14% overall, and by 17% for girls. Similarly, the World Food Programme (WFP) has been successful in supporting governments in reaching, according to the latest WFP report, close to half a million children globally. Despite their success, such programs are increasingly under strain. Their dependence on a single core funder and narrowly defined objectives has limited their reach and resilience. In many cases, their impact remains siloed—powerful within its scope but disconnected from the wider ecosystem of social, educational, and environmental needs. Today’s global challenges are shared challenges. Climate change, displace-

ment, malnutrition, and inequity cross every border and sector. Addressing them requires an ecosystemic approach—one that connects education, health, employment, and purpose in an integrated web of human development. This is not about dismantling our existing institutions. It is about reimagining them as interconnected nodes in a shared system. The ripple effects of climate stress, migration, or poor health do not stop at the edge of a town or a country; they flow through communities, families, classrooms, and workplaces alike. Likewise the issue of ill health or malnutrition does not impact only the physical health of the individual but also impacts, and is impacted by, their education, employment and employability, personal intrinsic and extrinsic sense of value and purpose, and their connections into their society. To solve such issues we must design solutions that operate and cooperate with others. We must focus on the whole of solutions rather than targeting just their parts. We must align specific solutions that target specific issues when they address and blend within the greater ecosystem of supports. And we must also be prepared to readjust and refocus when the need wanes, changes, or grows. No longer should we target merely an issue. No longer can we see things in isolation. We live in ecosystems and we must solve issues ecosystemically. We must work and lead in partnership together. ***** About the author: Sean Slade is coHead of of BTS Spark, USA, the social impact arm of BTS—and a member of World in 2050’s TEN. He is a global education leader with over 25 years’ experience spanning five countries and four continents.

DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 17

Photo by Frank McKenna on Unsplash.

From feudal dues to future good: Updating the ‘brand’ of tax By John Goodwin

18 | D IPLOM AT I C COU RIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

or all the progress we’ve made in designing institutions that serve us, our approach to personal taxation is still haunted by its feudal past. “Tax” began life as something extracted by the powerful from those with no say in the matter. The word still carries that legacy. To be “taxed” is to be burdened, drained, weighed down. Little wonder most of us experience tax as a necessary evil rather than as our most reliable contribution to society and humanity. In brand terms, tax desperately needs a new brief. Consider three very different models: Denmark, the United States, and Singapore. Denmark couples one of the world’s highest tax-to-GDP ratios (around 43-46%) with a top marginal personal income tax rate close to 56%. Yet it consistently ranks near the top of the World Happiness Report, currently second only to Finland. The United States and Singapore, by contrast, are low-tax societies by rich-country standards: U.S. tax revenues are about 25% of GDP, well below the OECD average, while Singapore’s are closer to 14%. Their top personal rates (around 37% federal in the U.S., 24% in Singapore) are far below Denmark’s. Yet on happiness, the U.S. has slipped to 23rd and Singapore sits around 30th. High tax does not doom a society to misery, nor does low tax guarantee flourishing. Now overlay generosity. The World Giving Index 2024 places Singapore third and the United States sixth among the most generous nations on earth, with Indonesia first. In Singapore, 75% of people report helping a stranger in the past month, 68% donated money, and 40% volunteered. The Charities Aid Foundation’s analysis also notes that some of the happiest countries, including Denmark, sit in the top tier for donating money. In other words, even where the state takes a relatively small share, citizens in the U.S. and Singapore willingly give again when they feel a sense of choice and connection to the causes they care about. These comparatives raise a provocative question for the institutions that serve us:

What if paying tax felt more like giving? Imagine a system where governments still set overall rates and priorities, but citizens had genuine agency over a small, clearly defined slice of their tax bill—say 5-10%— to direct towards accredited public goods: early years education, climate resilience, local arts, and global health. Pair that with radically improved transparency. Envision personalized “tax dashboards,” facilitated by AI compilation, showing, in plain language how your contributions translate into hospital beds, school places, carbon reductions, or social housing units. Waste concerns don’t vanish, but they become visible, arguable and, crucially, fixable. Recognition matters too. Philanthropy already celebrates major donors; the tax system could quietly honor “societal contributors” based on the percentage of income they contribute, not the absolute amount, and without disclosing anyone’s earnings. Think of it as a civic honors list rooted in fairness rather than wealth. For many, especially ordinary earners who will never have a building named after them, such acknowledgement could reframe tax from an invisible deduction to a visible badge of solidarity. None of this requires a revolutionary overhaul of fiscal policy. It is, fundamentally, a design and communication challenge. If we want institutions that truly serve us, we should stop treating tax as a blunt instrument of extraction and start treating it as our baseline act of collective care— one that, like the best charities, gives us clarity, agency, and a sense of shared purpose. Tax doesn’t just need a better PR agency; it needs a better story about who we are when we pay it. ***** About the author: John Goodwin is a strategic advisor to the Learning Economy Foundation, an advisory board member of the UN Principles of Responsible Management in Education, and a member of World in 2050’s Brain Trust. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 19

Image by Nuria Gonzalez f rom Pixabay.

Safety net for forcibly displaced has frayed, not yet torn By M. Ashraf Haidari

20 | D IPLOM AT I C CO URIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

y 2025, the world’s safety net for people forced to flee is thinning in plain sight. Recent figures show well over 100 million women, men, and children forcibly uprooted from their homes. Behind each data point is a family that has packed a bag in minutes, left loved ones behind, or crossed a border not knowing if they will ever go back. Afghanistan is one stark example. In the past two years, more than a million Afghans have returned from neighboring countries, but often only under pressure or threat of deportation. Recent updates and reports from the UNHCR describe families arriving to a country where the economy has collapsed, basic services are fragile, and women and girls face severe restrictions on education, work, and movement. The numbers may suggest that refugee totals are falling; in reality, many Afghans are simply being sent back into danger. Sudan tells a different version of the same story. A devastating internal war has driven millions from their homes and across borders, turning parts of the region into one of the fastest-growing displacement crises of our time. Regional plans for Sudan and its neighbors, outlined in recent appeals and situation updates, warn that camps and host communities are beyond capacity. People arrive exhausted and malnourished to places where food rations are already being cut. In Gaza, almost every family has experienced displacement—often more than once. Humanitarian situation reports from the Strip describe parents moving from one makeshift shelter to another, carrying toddlers, elderly relatives, and whatever belongings they can salvage, all while struggling to find clean water, bread, or medicine. Even in regions with stronger institutions, the strain is visible. Across Europe, people fleeing the war in Ukraine continue to test how far solidarity can stretch. Data from the Ukraine displacement portal and temporary protection statistics show millions still hosted across the continent. Here, at least, there is evidence that a large region can offer legal status, access to services, and a degree of normality when political will, law, and resources align.

All of this is happening as humanitarian budgets shrink. A recent global overview of needs and funding and a deeper look at the funding landscape show historic gaps between what is required and what is available. Many major emergencies are funded at less than a quarter of what response plans call for. The human translation of that percentage is simple: shorter food lines, closed clinics, fewer protection workers, and more people turned away. Yet 2025 is more than a catalogue of failures. Around the world, displaced families are increasingly receiving cash instead of just in-kind aid, allowing them to decide whether to pay for rent, food, or schoolbooks. Regional cash assistance for people fleeing Ukraine shows how quickly such programs can be scaled when there is political backing. In climate-exposed areas, anticipatory payments—transfers made before a drought or flood peaks—are starting to reach communities earlier, as highlighted in recent work on climate–driven displacement. Regional response plans, such as the Sudan refugee framework and long–running arrangements for Afghan and Syrian refugees, show that responsibility can be shared rather than simply shifted onto the closest border. These stories point to a crossroads. One path leads to higher walls, chronic underfunding, and more forced returns to unsafe places—a world where institutions manage numbers, not protect people. The other path demands predictable multi-year financing, serious planning for climate–driven movement, and real power for refugee-, community-, and womenled organizations in shaping responses. For tens of millions of forcibly displaced people—from Kabul to Khartoum, Gaza City to Kharkiv—the question is no longer whether our institutions exist. It is whether they will stand with them when they need them most, or step back just as the ground gives way beneath their feet. ***** About the author: M. Ashraf Haidari is the founder of Displaced International and a member of the World in 2050 Brain Trust. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 21

Image by Yasa Design Studio via Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

2. Emerging Signals In 2025, Diplomatic Courier and World in 2050 hosted or co-hosted over 40 gatherings on three continents. From salons and roundtables to symposiums and the sidelines of summits, we facilitated hundreds of insightful discussions. From these insights, our analysts have identified several “emerging signals” f rom the future, the beginnings of trends that we believe will have profound impacts on our world in 2026 and beyond. Here, we have curated a selection of commentaries and essays f rom our expert network that we think illustrate powerfully some of these emerging signals.

Minds over AI: To tackle disinformation, look to education By Alan Jagolinzer, Eliot Higgins, and Jane Mann Image via Adobe Stock.

NESCO’s Global Media and Information Literacy Week was observed at the end of October, under the theme “Minds over AI.” It was a much-needed call to strengthen our ability to critically engage with information as AI reshapes our world. Misinformation (incorrect or misleading information) and disinformation (deliberately false information intended to deceive) aren’t new. But AI has made them faster, cheaper, and far more convincing. We are witnessing the production of information on a much larger scale than ever before. It is now personalized and targeted. And, it may be distributed by systems that reward outrage over accuracy. Collectively, this 24 | D IPLOM AT I C CO URIE R

combination has the potential to make us more vulnerable to harm as a result of disinformation. That harm can be on an individual level, but also across societies through widening inequality, sharpening polarization, and eroding trust. Information is powerful. The information we consume impacts the biggest global issues of our time, from climate action to public health to conflict. Understanding the possible harms of inaccurate or even intentionally corrupted information is vital if we are to take constructive action as individuals and communities.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

In today’s world, we need the tools to tell veracity from virality. Yet, the days of looking out for too many fingers or em dashes to detect AI-generated content are gone. We need a much deeper toolkit to navigate the seas of information ahead. There is no question this must start with education. Education is a foundational pillar to help people understand disinformation and the potential it has to cause harm. Without it, every other response is more fragile. So, we urge leaders to carry the focus on media and information literacy into the months ahead and to consider how they can help learners develop a robust approach to navigating the new information landscape. At its core, we need to equip students to ask three questions: Who is telling me this, and why? Is this information true? Could this message cause harm to me or others? These questions are the foundation of ‘epistemic security’—society’s ability to keep knowledge safe and people resilient to manipulation. When we equip everyone to think critically, weigh up sources, and spot possible dangers, individuals and communities are stronger and more secure. What does this look like for education in the real world? First, we can and should weave media and information literacy across our education systems. These three questions sound simple, but they are made up of skills that students must learn and practice. Rather than one-off workshops, we need to develop these skills across different subjects and stages. Media and information literacy skills require us to build and use our knowledge and values too. So, as a recent Cambridge report argues, we need education systems to develop the whole person to prepare young people for the future.

their plates. Instead, we need to give them the training, time, and resources to help students build media and information literacy skills. This is essential for every classroom to become a place where young people learn to think critically about what they see. Finally, we must improve access to quality education to help address the potential scale of harm disinformation can cause. Some narratives are more likely to take root and cause harm when exacerbating existing issues—from economic insecurity to social exclusion. Education is a powerful tool to tackle inequality. To build peace. To nurture community. We need to treat it as such as double down on investments in improving education for all children. To talk about rapid change is now a cliché. We need to call for a rapid response. If we invest in education now, we can build resilience that ripples across generations. ***** About the authors: Alan Jagolinzer is Professor of Financial Accounting at Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge and organises Cambridge’s annual summit on the harms of disinformation. Eliot Higgins is an investigative journalist and the founder of Bellingcat and the Brown Moses Blog. Jane Mann leads Cambridge University Press & Assessment’s work with governments around the world on national education system reform.

Second, we need to support teachers. Around the world, teachers are already stretched. We can’t just add more to DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 25

Image by Johnnie Shannon from Pixabay.

Governance has been, will remain, driven by people By Blair Glencorse

26 | D I PLOM AT I C COU RIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

here is no question that the way we govern ourselves is undergoing fundamental shifts. From the rise of authoritarian populism to the use of AI and shifting global political alliances, the postWorld War II governance structures to which we are accustomed are changing rapidly at every level. The globe is facing overlapping crises and our institutions are not f it for purpose—in this there is grave danger that we will not be able to solve our collective challenges; and many people will be left behind. But despite all of this, let me explain why I am a governance optimist. New technologies certainly have downsides, but think for example about how AI can help governments analyze f inancial transactions, monitor processes, root out corruption, and automate compliance. The eff iciency and transparency gains can be monumental. Or consider the key role the private sector is now playing in terms of governance. Examples include diaspora bonds, revolving funds to address issues such as climate change, and impact investment funds that include governance components. Multilateral institutions are also adapting rapidly. See the recent IMF Governance Linked Bond in Sri Lanka for instance, or the new CIVIC facility within the World Bank to support social innovation. Frameworks are emerging—including through the recently concluded UN Financing for Development Conference—to mobilize signif icant private capital for governance related work, including through performance-based contracts, results-based f inancing, and more. Many governments are also stepping up despite the massive challenges we face— through the Open Government Partnership for instance, Armenia has developed a comprehensive approach to countering mis– and disinformation. The Philippines has adopted laws and standards that are opening up billions of dollars of public

IN 2025 INSTITUTIONS WERE EVER MORE UNDER FIRE FOR FAILING PEOPLE, WHILE TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS TO GOVERNANCE ISSUES HAVE BECOME VERY POPULAR, YET HUMANNESS REMAINS FIRMLY ROOTED IN THE IDENTITY AND PURPOSE OF INSTITUTIONS. contracts to scrutiny by citizens. Brazil is engaging millions of citizens in collective policy prioritization—and these are only several of many other examples. But there is a thread that connects all of these efforts across domains and organizations, and that is people. These are all collections of people who are influenced(both for good and bad) by all of us, one way or another. We are not passive bystanders, we all have a role to play. Whether that is through building feedback loops in communities, engaging in participatory democracy processes like citizens’ assemblies, or driving forward decentralized decision making around issues such as climate governance through blockchain-based carbon offset trading. These efforts can start locally but impact globally. Governance is a process rather than an outcome, and it is certainly not linear. To adapt our collective governance f rameworks, f rom communities upwards to international policy and back down, it is all of us that will drive the outcomes we need. ***** About the author: Blair Glencorse is Co-CEO of Accountability Lab and a World in 2050 Brain Trust member. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 27

Photo by Carlos Torres on Unsplash.

Africa’s emerging harm-reduction approach to governance By Imane Kendili

28 | D IPLOM AT I C COURIE R

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

very day across Af rica, people care for one another where formal systems fall short. A nurse piecing together mental health care in an overcrowded clinic. A group of mothers creating a food-sharing network. Young people offering peer support where institutions are absent. Af rica is not waiting to be governed. It is already governing, just differently. This shift is not driven by sweeping reforms, but by a quiet force: harm reduction. Once a public health strategy, it is now emerging as a governance philosophy. It begins with reality, not ideology. It chooses adaptation over control, accompaniment over imposition. What once seemed temporary is becoming structural. Local practices, often invisible, are repairing the fabric of governance f rom below. They are deeply rooted in need, shaped by vulnerability, and powered by care. And they are not isolated. Through South-South networks and regional alliances, they are speaking to one another, and gaining strength together.

ACROSS AFRICA, HARM REDUCTION IS EMERGING AS A QUIET FORCE NOT ONLY IN PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT AS A GOVERNANCE PHILOSOPHY. LOCAL PRACTICES ARE CHANGING GOVERNANCE FOR THE BETTER. environments. It reminds us that effective governance does not demand control, it demands connection. The future of governance should not be dictated f rom above. Instead, we should help it to rise f rom the margins with courage and understanding. ***** About the author: Dr. Imane Kendili is the head of Af rican Global Health and a member of World in 2050’s TEN.

These practices are now influencing national policies and even shaping international debates. Af rica’s harm reduction models—flexible, community-led, and grounded—offer insights into how we can govern with humility, resilience, and humanity. But this emergence comes with a warning. Without shared f rameworks and coordination, we will face a f ragmented governance landscape—a patchwork of disconnected efforts, noble but incoherent. Avoiding this “chimera governance” means investing in collective architecture: regional collaboration, ethical alignment, and scalable structures that can hold diversity without diluting it. Harm reduction does not replace the state, it reimagines it. It invites a different kind of authority: one that learns and builds in imperfect DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 29

Recognizing coral reefs as critical infrastructure could save them Dr. Ian Ralby and Philippe Cousteau

Image by Kanenori from Pixabay.

n October 13 in the University of Exeter’s second “Global Tipping Points” report, the scientific community delivered a shocking prediction. It stated that the central estimate of the thermal tipping point for warm water corals of +1.2°C global warming has been exceeded. They concluded that, even under the most optimistic scenarios, warm-water coral reefs are likely to collapse. This bleak prediction is about more than losing snorkeling and pretty fish. Coral reefs are critical ecosystems upon which billions of people around the world rely for their livelihoods and food. Coral reefs also support 30% of marine species and serve as critical coastal shields protecting hundreds of millions of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of

30 | D I PLOM AT I C CO URIE R

coastal infrastructure. Indeed, healthy reefs can absorb up to 97% of the wave energy from storm surge, protecting houses, hotels, marinas and other coastal structures. As coastal states around the world become more aware of their own reliance on the maritime domain for national security, stability, and prosperity—an increasing amount of attention is being directed toward critical maritime infrastructure protection. Ports are often the lifeblood of national economies, subsea pipelines carry vital energy supplies and submarine cables are literally people’s connectivity to the world. Increasingly, however, states are contending with the degrading and debilitating effects of coastal erosion, storm surges, rising water levels, and other threats from the sea that not only diminish

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

the quality of life on the coast, but diminish the coast itself. As states grapple with how to reverse or at least stem the losses, living coral reefs are emerging as a critical element of coastal protection. Just as some coral systems have been legally designated as World Heritage Sites by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), it is time to start designating coral systems as critical national infrastructure (CNI) at risk. While bleaching and degradation have been occurring for years, large scale coral restoration efforts have not been scientifically possible until now. In other words, once a reef system was lost, it was considered to be gone for good. The scientific and technical advancement in this space, however, has made it so that scalable coral restoration projects are now a viable possibility. With that possibility needs to come a reevaluation of how to designate coral systems. By designating reefs not just as cultural heritage or part of environmental protection efforts, but as part of CNI, we change their character from environmental to vital for national survival. Just as railways, roads, water, and energy are treated as engines of economic stability and growth, reefs must be valued for what they are: vital to the lives and livelihoods of billions. Fortunately, more attention is being centered on critical maritime infrastructure protection. Coastal states are contending with the devastating impacts of coastal erosion, storm surges, and rising sea levels as the world was tragically reminded recently in Jamaica and the Philippines. This has caused heightened awareness of dependence on the maritime domain for national security, stability, and prosperity. For example, when reefs disappear, people lose their jobs—driving crime and illegal migration. There are three significant benefits that come with a CNI designation for coral systems: protection, investment, and insurance. Protection makes it possible to devote military, law enforcement, and other security assets to protecting coral systems when

they are considered CNI. That includes using surveillance assets to monitor them, and physical assets and personnel to physically protect them against threats. Investment in the environment is much easier when you can name a specific asset. In an area where coral systems have been depleted, creative investment into hybrid reefs that can secure the coastline against storm surge, boost fisheries, and provide attractive tourism opportunities can be approached through different financing mechanisms. Investing $100 million to rebuild a reef to protect $100 billion in infrastructure is a good idea and there is enormous appetite for this kind of mechanism. Insuring natural environments against harm is also much easier with a CNI designation. New insurance products can be developed to insure coral systems and reefs and thereby safeguard the coastal economies of susceptible states. Already, insurance companies are struggling to deal with the mounting losses that come from increasingly violent storms and storm surge. Every coastal, island, and archipelagic state should consider the extent to which its coastal areas are dependent on coral systems for economic viability, and for basic territorial integrity. If the loss of such systems would diminish the landmass or the sovereign wealth of the state, they should consider leveraging the CNI designation to safeguard their future. This new approach is vital if we are to prevent the first extinction of an entire functional ecosystem since the time of the dinosaurs. Instead of proclaiming the end of coral reefs, humanity has an opportunity to stand up, act and declare firmly that we will not allow coral reefs to disappear. ***** About the authors: Dr. Ian Ralby is President of Auxilium Worldwide and CEO of I.R. Consilium. Philippe Cousteau is a storyteller, author, and entrepreneur. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 31

Image by Getty via Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

3. Audacity in action Since its inception in 2012, World in 2050 has convened visionaries, fostered dialogue, and conducted rigorous research in pursuit of a singular mission: helping the future arrive well for all. Alongside an extraordinary and growing community of experts and members of our Brain Trust, we have explored the most pressing challenges of our time. 2026 is an important year; we are now only 24 years away f rom 2050. With time at a premium, World in 2050 is moving its focus beyond ideating into a new chapter: action and impact. In partnership with members of our Brain Trust, we are working to translate vision into reality: designing and deploying solutions that challenge the status quo and reimagine systems that have long failed to serve humanity.

Photo by Mago Brown on Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

Maintaining sovereignty in the intelligence economy

e are on the cusp of the intelligence economy, where AI will work alongside humans and augment their work. The prospect of AI that empowers us instead of replacing us in the work force is a compelling one, but the same increasing sophistication of AI that makes this possible also threatens the sovereignty of workers. With intelligent agents and digital twins becoming part of the workforce, AI now allows employers to extract human expertise into AI systems, transforming them into corporate-owned AI training data. This isn’t a fringe issue. In its most recent Future of Jobs Report, the World Economic Forum projects that digital twin technology and intelligent agents will generate more than $300 billion over the

next five years and reshape labor markets for hundreds of millions of workers globally. In this situation, individual workers no longer have ownership over their knowledge and expertise—nor do they have any assurance they will remain employed once enough training data is harvested. Beyond implications for career security, this also concentrates knowledge wealth and results in a global workforce that would be increasingly vulnerable to both exploitation and obsolescence. Innovation is driving the most profound labor market evolution since the Industrial Revolution. While that holds great promise for human creativity and productivity, existing structures defining professional identity and protecting workers are outdated and cannot protect our exper-

tise or adequately reflect the evolution of our skills. The workforce of tomorrow will continue to be deeply disrupted by the pace of innovation. Individuals will need to reskill, sometimes rapidly or radically. If our workers are to remain resilient in the face of these demands—thereby keeping our labor markets flexible and responsive—their sovereignty and agency must be protected. Owning your own expertise and knowledge does more than just protect workers from potentially unethical employers. It also empowers workers to more dynamically adjust to shifting labor market needs with control over expertise which is verifiable, secure, and portable. To ensure the future of work remains human, the first step is protecting human creativity and professional agency.

DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 35

Photo by Getty Images on Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

From data protection to data liberation

wnership of our data and agency over how it is used was already on our collective radar for years, but the introduction of AI—especially generative models—has made a thorny challenge far more urgent. The global data economy is booming: in the EU and UK combined, the value of the data economy in 2025 is estimated by the European Commission at just under €675 billion— but could exceed a trillion. The annual rate of growth tracks to as low as 7% to as high as 15%. Yet it remains extractive and exclusionary, with individuals treated as bystanders rather than the rightful owners of a commodity. Not only does this model asymmetrically concentrate wealth and influence over the digital landscape in tech giants, but it encourages the attention-focused algorithms and manipula-

tive misinformation that are fueling a mental health crisis and undermining our democracies. The digital economy is becoming more reliant on our data as a commodity. It matters so much now that the previous model, in which the fundamental market principle was user data in return for “free” services, has been disrupted, perhaps permanently. That disruption gives us an opportunity to go beyond talking about data protection and start talking about data liberation. To reimagine the digital economy as a driver of dignity and shared prosperity through personal data sovereignty models and platforms, from data markets to data cooperatives. This is more than a moral imperative about privacy or a more inclusive economy. Universal data sovereignty would reshape the digital ecosystem for the better.

As individuals gain control over their data assets, an entire new market would open up—along with new demand for data integrity and verifiability that would both improve the quality of information online and create completely new businesses and professional roles. These could be the first new job market opened up in the age of automation. We wouldn’t be reforming a market, we would be expanding markets in ways that benefit individuals, businesses, and economies alike. Even as market incentives are becoming increasingly apparent, so too are market-based models for implementation. It’s a rare moment when opportunity meets capacity, but time for action is limited. Simple momentum could lock us into extractive models for the data economy for decades, and that would be a shame because we have what we need to do better. DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 37

Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

Solving the invisibility crisis demands visibility

he latest (November 2025) projections from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCHR) are troubling. The global number of forcibly displaced and stateless people is projected to rise to 136 million. Compare this to an estimated 121 million in June 2025 and the numbers are extremely disturbing. This crisis persists and grows because it, and the millions who suffer the worst in the crisis, are functionally invisible to most of the world.

Why is this crisis functionally invisible? Around 850 million people around the world exist without any formal proof of their identity. Overwhelmingly, the forcibly displaced and stateless are among them. Lack of formal identity excludes the most vulnerable from essential services and fuels a dangerous cycle: state-

lessness deepens vulnerability, denies rights, and delays recovery, while host countries face fiscal strain and lost economic potential as displaced populations struggle to take part in the formal economy and are pushed into the informal economy, with its attendant risks. Even as the crisis grows, the UNHCHR’s funding for 2026 has dropped to around 40% of projected need. Addressing the invisibility crisis first requires we make the invisible visible. Advances in human-centered digital innovation gives us a chance. Verifiable digital credentialing alongside core bio-data can bridge existing systemic and interoperability gaps between humanitarian systems, national infrastructures, and social/economic participation in host countries. A privacy-first approach that gives dis-

placed people sole control over their personal records and data allows a safer pathway to dignified economic and social participation in host countries. This is how we transform identity from a barrier into a bridge to opportunity. The forcible displacement crisis will grow, but it doesn’t have to be invisible. Empowering the displaced and stateless with secure, self-owned digital identities allows them to fully participate in their host societies and economies. This, in turn, can transform identity into a tool for resilience, dignity, and shared prosperity.

DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 39

Photo by Getty Images on Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

A firm foundation to meet the future

ince the Industrial Revolution, literacy and numeracy were the most fundamental skills we prioritized for learners to be prepared to take part in economic and civic life. How we measured and strove for our education goals have evolved, but these skills have been the foundation from which education builds up. Today, the foundations of reading, writing, and numeracy no longer give us the tools we need to make sense of the world around us. Making sense of today’s world is no easy task, but it is vital for reasons that go beyond our individual wellbeing. A digital environment, designed to get your attention and awash in AI slop and disinformation doesn’t just polarize and confuse us. It also chips away at our mental and emotional resilience. The pace of change, whether in exponential technologies or just the frantic pace

of media that commodifies our attention, is tough to keep track of, let alone make sense of. As the shared global challenges (that we track with our World in 2050 megatrends) grow in scope, being able to make sense of the world and act in an informed way is critical to the wellbeing of future generations as well as our own. This is a known need—digital literacy, media literacy, data literacy, and climate literacy are being positioned as critical to our future by diverse stakeholders from universities to the UN to NATO—but these are only reacting to specific aspects of the deeper problem. “What” we need to be literate in, we have learned with the proliferation of new literacies, is very much subject to change, sometimes rapidly. The more foundational question is how we prepare ourselves to rapidly attain new literacies suited to the emerging challenges of the next

decade and beyond. The foundational literacies required for the future must enable us to think critically, discern bias, understand context or consequence, and remain emotionally and mentally resilient. And as AI systems increasingly participate in knowledge production and decision-making, new literacy baselines must also force a harder question: what decisions should never be surrendered to machines. Global education efforts, including UNESCO’s Transforming Education initiative, are confronting these shifts despite major funding headwinds. This moment offers an opportunity to help education systems embed new understandings of the foundational skills young people need to meet the future.

DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 41

Photo by Getty Images on Unsplash.

DAVO S D I AL O GU ES I J ANU ARY 2026

Treat information like nutrition, scientifically

he world we are living in today lacks a critical applied science.

Consider living in a world where we never developed nutrition science. The standards and quantifiable measures we developed mean we can manage things which can harm our bodies and value what is healthy. Without nutrition science, we wouldn’t know how what we consume impacts our wellbeing. There would be no basis on which to regulate food producers: no counting of calories or labeling of additives, allergens, or potentially addictive ingredients. Now imagine information as nutrition. Every day we consume masses of information, some of which we opt in to but much of which we are subjected to and consume as a byproduct of navigating the

internet and other mediums. Unlike nutrition, we don’t have standards and measures for the quality of the information we consume. This lack allows bad actors to exploit the attention economy, monetizing outrage and turning social division into power. With the average person spending nearly seven hours a day in front of a screen and young people often nearly twice that, this is a severe gap that hurts all of us. The critical applied science we lack is infotrition. To develop this science, we need frameworks, standards, and measures for the health impact of information—on individuals and societies. This is the nascent work of the Center for Applied Information Health (CAIH), which is developing tools like the Agitation Index to measure psychological agitation caused by media. Quantifiable meas-

urements of health impacts like psychological agitation go beyond whether we like or agree with the information, concentrating on how that information’s delivery is designed to affect us. Just like with nutrition science, measurements like this allow us to develop transparent standards for quality of information and to certify that quality in ways that people can trust. These tools not only expose harmful actors, they identify positive actors in transparent, immediately verifiable ways that allow us to develop a new incentive system around trustworthy and balanced content. A new science of infotrition would not only give us the agency to better choose what information we consume individually, it also offers us our best hope of salvaging the information commons.

DAVOS DIALOGUES 2026 | 43

GLOBAL CALENDAR 2026. What we are watching. World Economic Forum Davos | January 19-24

World Governments Summit Dubai | February 3-5

Munich Security Conference Munich | February 13-15

World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings Washington, DC | April 13-19 NATO Summit Ankara | July 7-8

ASEAN Summits Philippines | May & October

G7 Summit Évian-les-Bains | June 14-16

UN General Assembly (UNGA) New York City | September 8-22

World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings Bangkok | October 12-18

UN Climate Conference (COP) Antalya | November 9-20 G20 Summit Miami | December 14-15

World Health Assembly Geneva | May 18-23

World Health Summit Berlin | October 11-13