The report, which was presented today to UN Secretary-General BAN Ki-moon, makes 56 recommendations including integration of social and environmental costs into economics, and a strengthening of the links between science and policy-making through adoption of the “planetary boundaries” concept.

The launch of the report follows concerted advocacy work from many people including members of the newly-formed Alliance for Future Generations in the UK, whose members formed a working group to influence policy-making in the run-up to the Rio+20 summit later this year.

The planetary boundaries concept, which was publicised in a 2009 paper in Nature, posits that there are nine critical Earth-system processes and associated thresholds that we need to respect and keep within, in order to protect against the risk of irreversible or even catastrophic environmental change at continental to global scales.

• See the report on the Panel’s website

This paper is the final report in FDSD’s major two-year research project on The Future of Democracy in the Face of Climate Change.

The paper draws on Papers One to Four to find answers to the question: ‘how might democracy and participatory decision-making have evolved to cope with the challenges of climate change by the years 2050 and 2100?’

Four scenarios are set out in the final part of the report,  sounding the voices of five people speaking from the year 2050: ‘rationed democracy’; ‘transition democracy’; ‘post-authoritarian democracy’, and ‘technocratic democracy’.

The paper opens with a Foreword by Professor Tim O’Riordan.

download
(3.19 Mb)

The so-called “Zero Draft” declaration was put together by the UN Secretariat for the conference as an initial basis for negotiations, drawing on submissions from civil society groups, governments and international organisations.

On page 10, the ombudsman clause says: “We agree to further consider the establishment of an Ombudsperson, or High Commissioner for Future Generations, to promote sustainable development.”

We hope this will help focus discussion on integrating the needs of future generations within international decision-making and ultimately the possibility of setting up democratic structures to protect the needs of future generations around the world.

* See the zero draft (pdf, 122kB from the UN conference site)

The paper has been published by the new think tank Green House as a discussion paper for the Alliance for Future Generations, which was itself launched in March 2011 (not this week, as a blog post in The Telegraph incorrectly claimed).

Rupert Read’s proposal is for a sort of ‘super-jury’; a third House whose members would be selected by sortition (the same basis as jury service) to ensure that the needs of future generations were brought fully into the legislative process. 

The proposal is grounded in the idea that ‘the interests of future generations should be formally represented within our existing parliamentary democracy’; that what Rupert calls ‘future people’ should be given the nearest possible equivalent to a vote.

Given the practicalities (and the problem of numbers if future people were given a formal ‘vote’, since they would almost certainly outnumber those alive today – though by how much we cannot know), Rupert proposes instead a proxy veto; in other words the power to veto in whole or in part new legislation (or the repeal of existing legislation) that threatens ‘the basic needs and fundamental interests of future people’.

In addition, the Guardians might be empowered to force a review of any existing legislation that threatens the basic needs and ‘fundamental interests’ of future people; and potentially also the positive power to initiate legislation.

Rupert suggests that there might be a dozen Guardians. They would in principle be selected by lot from among the adult population, drawing on the electoral register; though possibly with a lower age limit than the current voting threshold. They might be selected for a term of between five and eight years. And they would be selected perhaps a year in advance, to give a period of year in which to ‘train up’ for the role. In their deliberations once in office the Guardians would be supported by a ‘high level and diverse support staff of administrators, facilitators and experts, including of course legal experts’.

This is far from an uncontroversial proposal.

My own unease stems from my understanding of democracy as being fundamentally about people who are alive today; from my conviction that the demos of any democracy should be drawn from those humans who are currently alive. Efforts to equip democracy to deliver sustainable development through regard for future generations would, then, focus on equipping a democracy of ‘present people with all their futures’ to make ‘future generations-regarding’ decisions.

Part of Rupert’s response to this objection is itself very attractive. For whilst the term ‘future people’ might be a ‘a bit weird’ as one commentator remarked this week; it allows Rupert to make one of his more powerful arguments: that we are all future people, because we all have futures, as people, that we have not yet experienced.

There is something quite compelling in the idea that we are all future people; but it leads me to want our system of democracy to find ways ensuring that we and our elected representatives express concern and proper regard for future generations, rather than offering future people a form of proxy representation by veto. 

I have very much enjoyed the discussion that Rupert’s proposal has triggered; particularly in the comments threads on a 4th January blog post by The Guardian’s Damian Carrington, on a strongly ‘anti’ blog post at The Telegraph, and also at a well-attended launch event earlier this week at the House of Commons, which was addressed by MPs Caroline Lucas, Jon Cruddas and Norman Baker, along with Alliance for Future Generations members Peter Roderick and Nicolo Wojewoda.

But I do not think that the metaphor of ‘enslaving’ future generations (as in Damian Carrington’s blog post)  is a happy one; and I’m concerned that the proposal is a hostage to charges of ‘ecofascism’ and worse (as in responses to Brendan O’Neill’s blog on the proposal on The Telegraph site). Neither word – ‘fascism’ nor ‘slavery’ – is one that should readily be associated with proposals to equip our system of democracy to become more ‘future generations-regarding’.

Warm congratulations to Rupert Read for opening out a discussion that is much-needed; and for doing so with a proposal that is sufficiently clear, and sufficiently radical, to stimulate imaginations and unearth closely held and often un-expressed beliefs about how, as people, we represent ourselves and make decisions.

It seems, indeed, that it’s a week for such ideas: the so-called ‘zero draft’ of an ‘outcome document’ for negotiation this year’s UN Conference on Sustainable Development was released this week. Among the proposals for negotiation over the coming months in a text titled ‘The Future We Want’ is this:

“57. We agree to further consider the establishment of an Ombudsperson, or High Commissioner for Future Generations, to promote sustainable development.“

The scene is set for discussion on how to give institutional weight to future generations to gather momentum over the coming months.

Ewan Jones, member of the Alliance for Future Generations, and Jeremy Leach from the Intergenerational Foundation present findings from a recent public opinion poll on attitudes to future generations.

The findings, which were commissioned from Ipsos MORI by FDSD and the Intergenerational Foundation in November 2011, show that more than two thirds (67%) of British people believe the UK Government considers future generations too little in decisions it makes today.

• Read more on these findings

The Minister for Future Generations, Septima Tulisa, steps back in time from the year 2050 to give a stark warning about how the world might end up if we don’t start building long-termism into all our decisions. The Minister, played by FDSD Director Halina Ward, comes from a future where humans  left it very late indeed before they began to address the needs of future generations. Her plea is that we must not do the same…

The Minister’s speech was one of eight talks given at a “TEDx” event for young people on future generations and intergenerational justice, jointly supported by FDSD and held at London Zoo in November 2011.

• See all the talks
• Visit the event website

Professor Tim O’Riordan’s commentary on democracy, climate change and and sustainability is a contribution to discussions under FDSD’s project on the future of democracy in the face of climate change.

In the wake of UK Chancellor George Osborne’s 2011 Autumn statement, the commentary is an attack on signs of  incompatibility between democracy and climate stability.

Professor O’Riordan argues that democracy as we know it may be breaking down; with a ‘local democracy of community engagement and exaltation’ its possible successor.

download
(340kb)

FDSD’s director, Halina Ward, gives an overview of what the organisation is doing to bring the needs of future generations into the heart of policy and decision making. She describes the problem of short-term thinking in UK politics and what FDSD is doing to address this, including its work in helping to found the Alliance for Future Generations.

The interview was filmed at the launch event of the Intergenerational Foundation at the House of Commons in October 2011.

It seems that we British care much more than you might think about our future descendants. More than two thirds (67%) of people interviewed thought the government was not doing enough for future generations. And when asked what was the most important legacy to hand down, far more people (45%) chose “a healthy planet” than chose other options like a thriving economy (9%) or even safety and security (16%).

• Download the detailed findings (pdf 111kB)
• See a video about the findings

More than two thirds (67%) of British people believe the UK Government considers future generations too little in decisions it makes today.

Opinion poll findings commissioned from Ipsos MORI by FDSD and the Intergenerational Foundation in November 2011 also found that nearly half of those interviewed (45%) think passing on a healthy planet is more important than passing on a thriving economy (9%), safety and security (16%) or even an unspoilt countryside (4%).

And far from looking out only for ourselves or our own children, almost two thirds (64%) think all future generations’ needs should take priority when we think about sharing the Earth’s resources.

download the detailed findings
(111kb) 

Okay, the web page is not real. And in the real world, another traditionally-structured Government ministry probably isn’t even the right solution. But we are in fact very serious about the possibility of reforms to our democratic and political systems specifically designed to defend the needs of future generations. We think such reforms would help and we think they could realistically happen, possibly quite soon.

Experience from other countries

In 2008, the Hungarian Parliament created a ‘Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations’, to safeguard the constitutional right of Hungarian citizens to a healthy environment. Dr Sándor Fülöp was elected to this post and is mid-way through his 6-year term. He is one of four Parliamentary Ombudsmen in Hungary. Others deal with civil rights, data protection and freedom of information, and the rights of “national and ethnic minorities”.

The Commissioner investigates environmental complaints, acts as a policy advocate for sustainability issues and promotes research on the long term sustainability of human societies.

That’s one approach to bringing the needs for future generations into policy processes – with a focus on the environment and sustainable development. There are others too.

In Finland, parliament’s Committee for the Future is charged with carrying on an “active and initiative-generating dialogue with the Government on major future problems and means of solving them”.

In Israel, the Knesset passed legislation to enable the creation of a Commission for Future Generations, a non-political entity which operated from 2001 until 2006.

Around the world, nineteen constitutions refer directly to future generations (you can read more on page 22 of Peter Roderick’s report for FDSD and WWF-UK).

The World Future Council is campaigning for ‘future justice’ and calling for ombudspersons for future generations.

Here in the UK, the Welsh government appointed a Commissioner for Sustainable Futures earlier this year.

And some members of the Alliance for Future Generations, which FDSD is a founder member of, have been mulling over the idea of local guardians for future generations. Together, we’re also exploring proposals for a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations.

So what shall we do?

Do you think that we need institutions and policies to bring the needs of future generations into the heart of our democracy and policies?

If you do, what do you think is the best way to do it?

We’d love to hear from you with your ideas. Please add your ideas in the Comments box below to tell us what you think – and stay in touch!

Together, we might just be able to get our elected representatives to think differently about the future….

FDSD is proud to be a key founding organisation behind the new Alliance for Future Generations (AFG). The Alliance’s members are organisations and individuals working  to ensure that long-termism and the needs of future generations are brought into the heart of UK democracy and policy processes, in order to safeguard the earth and secure intergenerational justice. Supporting the Alliance and contributing to its projects currently forms a significant portion of FDSD’s work on future generations.

The Alliance was launched in March 2011 and will, we hope, become a leading voice for those calling for reforms to our democratic system and policies that will ensure we hand on a better future to our descendants and to young people living now.

• Download the founding document (pdf, 320kB)
• See a list of Alliance members.

Keep an eye out for updates — we’ll post them here as the Alliance takes shape…

Latest news on future generations

Background information

The paper has already received support from both the former president and the current Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations in Hungary (the only country so far to have such a post). Other signatories are listed at the foot of the paper (link below).

The challenge paper, which was submitted today to the UN secretariat for consideration in the run-up to the Conference, proposes that a new UN High Commissioner for Future Generations (UNHCFG) be established to “safeguard long-termism and the needs of future generations at the global level”.

• Download challenge paper (pdf, 240k, 6 pages)

On a day when the Cabinet is coming under fire for being split on green issues [1],  the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has published a report [2] warning that business as usual may rule the day at the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development next year.

Halina Ward, Director of the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development (FDSD), whose written evidence [3] has been extensively referenced [4] in the EAC report, said:

On the EAC report:

 “There is a real risk that Rio + 20′s green economy theme will deliver little more than ‘slightly greened business as usual’, particularly given the difficult economic circumstances in which many nations find themselves.”

On the possibility of the Prime Minister not attending [5] Rio+20:

“If the Prime Minister will not be attending Rio+20, we sincerely hope that Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will go instead. It is vital that UK the shows a high-level political commitment to sustainable development.”

On the Cabinet split:

“The fact that the Cabinet is unable to come to a shared position on the green economy shows clearly that the UK is suffering from a dangerous ‘policy subsidence’ on sustainable development issues.”

“If your commitment to sustainable development is based largely on rhetoric without proper strategic and institutional underpinning, it’s like building a house on sand — policy subsidence is the inevitable result. And that’s what we’re now seeing.”

 “The emerging green split at Cabinet level is just the latest symptom of a lack of strategic thinking on sustainable development.”

CONTACTS:

Halina Ward, Director, +44 (0) 7825 164996
Joe Short, Media and Communications, +44 (0) 7967 481693
press@fdsd.org

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/26/chris-huhne-renewable-energy-critics and http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/osbornes-antigreen-agenda-splits-coalition-2375993.html
2. The EAC report is available at:
   http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news/rio-20-report/
3. Evidence from the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development is available at:
   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1026/1026vw08.htm
4. Specific parts of FDSD’s evidence referred to in the EAC’s report are listed below.
5. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15450273

FDSD’S EVIDENCE REFERRED TO IN THE EAC REPORT

It is clear that to energise Rio+20, two decades after the original Earth Summit, a new generation needs to be enthused about the need for action and the difference that they can make. As the Foundation for Democracy & Sustainable Development put it, civil society involvement in Rio+20 is needed for ‘sharing good practice and catalysing the next generation of political activism and social innovation for sustainable development’.[12]
(paragraph 7)

The Foundation for Democracy & Sustainable Development (FDSD) identified ‘signs of erosion in the overall global political commitment to sustainable development’.
(paragraph 14)

The poverty-reduction imperative, flowing from the Brundtland Commission giving the ‘over-riding priority’ to meeting the needs of the world’s poor, led to ‘an over-emphasis on economic growth’. Rio+20 might further that imbalance.[33]
(paragraph 15)

A common thread in the evidence we have taken is that a green economy should also be a fair economy.[72]
(paragraph 30)

The Foundation for Democracy & Sustainable Development (FDSD) highlighted that the North/South divide over the green economy has helped polarise discussion on technology transfer and financial assistance for developing countries.[84]
(paragraph 33)

FDSD want to see a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations created,[115]
(paragraph 43)

IIED, however, think that reform of governance at UN level is a ‘misplaced prioritisation’ because the ‘dominant governance capacity to deliver sustainable development lies at national level’.[117] FDSD made a similar point.[118]
(paragraph 43)

A further danger is that the current financial crisis will tempt countries to aim for a ‘slightly greened business as usual’.[146]
(paragraph 53)

In the international arena, the Environment Secretary has visited Brazil to discuss the Conference.[157] She also contributed to European Environment Council ‘conclusions’ agreed on 10 October,[158] which took on board the European Commission’s June 2011 paper on Rio+20. FDSD saw ‘wishful thinking’ in that earlier paper because it did not see slowing growth as a response to the need to protect the environment.[159]
(paragraph 56)

ENDS

In this video, Barrister Peter Roderick, along with FDSD’s Director Halina Ward and FDSD Trustee Dr Janos Zlinszky, discuss the implications of Peter’s report Taking the Longer View: UK Governance for a Finite Planet. The discussion was chaired by Philippe Sands, QC and law professor.

The discussion highlights the systematic failings of our short-term approach to law and democracy, which have culminated in a series of ‘crunches’ including high fuel prices and the risk of peak oil, high food prices, the financial crisis and the climate crisis.

Peter Roderick argues that Planetary Boundaries should be used as a legal methodology to protect out environment and society in years to come. Janos Zlinszky, who aside from his role as an FDSD Trustee heads the strategy and research team with the office of the Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations, shares the inspiring precedent of that office.

Halina also briefly introduces the Alliance for Future Generations, a grouping formed with FDSD’s close involvement to ensure that long-termism and the needs of future generations are put at the heart of democracy.

The host and organiser for the event, which took place in June 2011, was Alliance for Future Generations member the Gaia Foundation.