In this discussion paper, which follows on from an earlier summary paper, Halina Ward makes the case for the creation of a High Commissioner for Future Generations within the United Nations, and sets out proposals on the powers and responsibilities of a High Commissioner and how it could work in practice.

In 2012 and beyond, it is apparent that multiple pressures increase the temptation for ‘short-termism’ at government, individual and organisational levels. The result is a systematic failure to respect the needs of future generations.

The mission of the High Commissioner for Future Generations, the paper argues, should be inspired by the original Brundtland definition of sustainable development: “to promote and protect the interests of future generations in the context of the imperative to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

As the paper shows, the creation of a High Commissioner for Future Generations would build on and complement existing references to future generations in a wide range of regional and global treaties and other international instruments.

The paper also proposes a set of possible powers and responsibilities for the role of the High Commissioner for Future Generations; considers how it might evolve over time; and where it could be sited.

The discussion paper is published jointly with the World Future Council, and its preparation co-funded by FDSD, World Future Council and WWF-UK, as a contribution to discussions in the run-up to the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. Annexes were co-authored with Barrister Peter Roderick.

download the discussion paper (pdf, 693KB)

download the Annexes (pdf, 835KB)

Currently the draft would commit states only “to further consider” the establishment of a High Commissioner for Future Generations “to promote sustainable development”.

The text is further weakened by that niggling doubt about whether it’s proposing as alternatives an ‘Ombudsperson to promote sustainable development’ or ‘High Commissioner for Future Generations to promote sustainable development’; whether the Ombudsperson is supposed to be an ‘Ombudsperson for future generations’ too; and what exactly the words ‘future generations’ signify within the text (in other words, what they add to the words ‘sustainable development’).

The Rio+20 outcome document should commit UN member states to a timebound process leading to the creation of a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations by means of a General Assembly Resolution.

In a discussion paper published earlier this week by FDSD and the World Future Council, I make the case for an independent and impartial High Commissioner for Future Generations, plus an associated Office, housed within the United Nations. It really is a discussion paper – setting a direction; designed to trigger further debate.

The proposal in the paper is that the new High Commissioner should have a mandate that is directly inspired by the original Brundtland definition of sustainable development; a definition that provides real clarity that intergenerational and intragenerational equity are closely linked.

The mission that’s proposed for a High Commissioner for Future Generations in the paper is “to promote and protect the interests of future generations in the context of the imperative to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

When it’s understood in the context of sustainable development, there is no trade-off between fairness between present generations and fairness to future generations. But there have been deplorable failings in global and national efforts to tackle inequality and unfairness between people alive today.

In 2012 and beyond, it’s apparent that multiple pressures increase the temptation for ‘short-termism’ at government, individual and organisational levels. The result is a systematic failure to respect the needs of future generations. On the other hand, it’s very clear that the world’s nations have accepted responsibilities in respect of future generations (the paper draws on analysis of nearly thirty references to future generations in international instruments, and since then I’ve learned there are probably at least twenty more).

Many advocates of ‘ombudspersons for future generations’ are inspired by their potential role in handling citizens’ complaints. Get into the nitty-gritty from a ‘future generations’ starting point (rather than, say, an ‘environmental’ starting point) at the international level though and it’s a bit more tricky.

From the start, the High Commissioner for Future Generations should be empowered to receive representations from all sorts of people and groups so that his or her work is always informed by a well-developed network. The more radical proposal is that the High Commissioner might, as the role evolves, seek to initiate a process to develop a People’s Charter on Future Generations to set out expectations of people around the world for a ‘future generations-friendly’ United Nations. That could provide the basis for development of a subsequent complaints function; a set of ‘people’s operating principles on future generations’ for the UN.

International agreements between governments are a bit different: there’s a patchwork of commitments already in place when it comes to future generations. Through analysis and advice, the High Commissioner for Future Generations could play a role in the development of international law relating to future generations. The High Commissioner’s powers and responsibilities should also be sufficiently broad from the start to encompass provision of advice, good offices and mediation in the event that requests for such services are received from states and accepted by the parties to any compliance-related question or procedure.

At the UN level, an early priority for the new High Commissioner for Future Generations should be to lead the development of a coordinated UN-wide strategy for protection of the interests and needs of future generations. Once adopted following discussion in the General Assembly, the High Commissioner for Future Generations would become the official charged with leading the United Nations future generations strategy.

At national level, with the consent of states, a High Commissioner should have a strong capacity-building function in relation to future generations-friendly decision-making; as well as authority to initiate multistakeholder peer review processes either on a country or region-specific basis, or across nations on particular thematic issues related to the mandate.

The powers of a High Commissioner for Future Generations could to some extent be inspired by two existing UN High Commissioners: those on Refugees and on Human Rights. But this needs, also, to be a different sort of institution; one tailored to the current institutional and legal reality of its core subject: intergenerational equity in the context of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development; i.e. intergenerational equity that is inextricably linked to intergenerational equity, too.

The paper proposes fourteen powers and responsibilities to equip a High Commissioner for Future Generations to carry out his or her mission.

In a new discussion paper, she makes the case for a High Commissioner for Future Generations, and sets out proposals on the powers and responsibilities of a High Commissioner and how it could work in practice.

The paper also looks at how the creation of a High Commissioner would build on commitments that UN member states have already made; how the role of the High Commissioner might evolve over time; and where it could be sited.

Halina says “In 2012 and beyond, it is apparent that multiple pressures increase the temptation for ‘short-termism’ at government, individual and organisational levels. The result is a systematic failure to respect the needs of future generations; a failure that diminishes us as people and undermines, to the point of destroying, the collective commitment of nations to sustainable development”.

A High Commissioner for Future Generations offers a central part of the way forward.

Download the paper

Download the Annexes

The paper, published by FDSD and the World Future Council, has been released to help UN member states and international organisations to prepare for “Rio+20”, the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. It recommends that the mission of a High Commissioner should be:

“to promote and protect the interests of future generations in the context of the imperative to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The paper goes on to suggest specific powers and responsibilities that the UNHCFG could be given.

Download the paper (pdf, 315kB)

The standard, which was introduced last year, offers guidance across themes including human rights, labour, environment, consumer protection, fair operating practices and community development.

Halina Ward’s paper, ISO 26000 and Global Governance for Sustainable Development, assesses the standard in the light of democracy and sustainable development. It welcomes the standard but makes a series of recommendations that must be adhered to if we want to ensure that ISO26000 will help to enhance global governance in a way that advances sustainable development.

• See the report (Can be downloaded free from the IIED website)

Our evidence is highly critical of the Government’s approach to strategic thinking when it comes to sustainable development. Highlights from our submission are:

• Sustainable development is taken insufficiently seriously as a political or strategic imperative
• Overarching strategic capacity on sustainable development across Whitehall is sub- optimal
• A political commitment on the part of the Coalition government to end political short- termism does not appear matched by a strategic architecture capable consistently of delivering long-termism aligned with sustainable development.

•  Download our full submission (pdf, 185kB)

• See the enquiry website (where you can also download written evidence from other organisations)

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)

Download the report

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.