No Rights for the Future, but Obligations for the Present

Dr. Joachim H. SpangenbergSERI (Sustainable Europe Research Institute SERI Germany e.V.) CologneUFZ (Helmholtz Centre for Environment Research), Halle, Germany

Utrecht, October 29th, 2014Presentation at the Final Conference of the ESF funded project “ENRI – Rights to a Green Future”

Why no rights for the Future?

“We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”

Report of the WCED, § 25, United Nations, 1987

Why Obligations for the Present?Thus

• legal rights to future generations have limited scope due to a lack of enforceability in due time.

• liability of present agents to future generations also has limited scope as only those still around can be held liable, and problems are not avoided.

• not legal but moral rights have been claimed, serving as justification for defining and enforcing obligations for the present generation and holding them liable for misconduct.

Why not only self-interest?Because

• Every action we take now changes the future (the present will be past – we cannot change it).

• However, effects on the future can be different in the short and the longer term.

• Thus what we do for ourselves, cleaning up the environment, may be detrimental to future citizens (coal: dust SO2, NOx CO2).

• This requires institutional mechanisms to enforce longer term thinking today.

Which Obligations for the Present?“Cease doing harm” and “Minimise risks”Risks to future generation are caused, whenever the basic imperative of sustainable development is violated:

DO NOT CAUSE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO ANY OF THE SYSTEMS NEEDED FOR A DIGNIFIED HUMAN LIFE!(irreversible here means not be repaired within one generation)

That implies: It’s not only the economy (or the environment), stupid!

Why no rights, why so vague?The issue is not providing future individuals with the right to realise their individual current preferences but to allow future societies to decide how to organise them-selves (collective & future-oriented values).“Duties to the future are radically indeterminate” (Tim Hayward): focus on sustaining what WE deem important for livelihoods permitting to lead a dignified life, like adaptive capacity of society and its infrastructures, democratic institutions,…

Learning from the sustainability discourse

We can distinguish four dimensions of any societywhich must be shaped sustainably to avoid serious risks for future generations.

For the future quality of life, the caring capacityof our societies

is at least as importantas the carrying capacityof our ecosystems !

JS - EntTe 02/99

Institutionalising ObligationsOne approach that has been tested and is recommended e.g. by the World Future Council is establishing an ombudsperson for future generations.

Cases analysed include Hungary, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, and Wales. Ombudspersons were usually prominent personalities supported by an office with staff of varying size.

Most of them enjoyed parliamentary support, but few were liked by their respective governments…

Institutionalising ObligationsThey all held a clear future orientation when assessing current decisions, but their mandate to intervene varied strongly and was dismantled when they became a nuisance.

Ombudsperson, best practiceThe Case of Hungary (1. period)

• The constitution granted an individual right to a clean environment and the cultural heritage, both to be conserved for future generations.

• Legal support to local initiatives was possible and frequently granted.

• Taking decision makers to court was possible but did not happen – the threat alone worked.

(These competencies were severely curtailed after the 1st period, by parliamentary vote)

Ombudsperson, weaknesses

“Keepers of the Long View” usually cannot

• initiate court cases,

• stop planned or ongoing activities,

• initiate legislation deemed necessary from a longer view perspective,

• influence government politics other than by informing the public, or

• get issues onto the parliamentary agenda, supported by evidence.

Any other suggestions?Civil society representatives in Germany have for quite some time discussed the criteria for an effective model. It should

• be based on best available knowledge and dedication to future livelihoods,

• address the political level, not the administration,

• be based on constitutional law, and able to put arguments on the parliamentary agenda

• be able to stop policies and plans but

• strengthen, not weaken democratic legitimacy.

Suggestions off the beaten track1. All (major) pieces of legislation should come with a

substantial integrated assessment IA, explaining the reasons and ethical base for any decision,

2. A Council representing long term interests should be set up (Future Council, Sustainability Council with a specific mandate, etc.) with a right to tempo-rarily veto parliamentary decisions if the Council is convinced that major arguments have been ignored.

3. Such a veto would put the implementation on halt and send the respective piece of legislation and planning back to parliament for reconsideration.

4. A list/explanation of the arguments the Council found missing should accompany the proposal’s return,

5. The parliament should discuss the rebuttal and the reflect on the arguments. It could either alter its opinion or stick to the initial proposal, but would be obliged to respond to the arguments brought forward by the Council.

6. Public spotlight and the needto argue, plus the delay effectwould make it effective.

7. Funding should be indepen-dent of government sources.

Improving the balance

Expected results1. The parliament’s role would be strengthened as it has to

deal with the facts, even if the government would prefer not to disclose them.

2. It strengthens political responsibility. The freedom of choice is maintained, but no veil of ignorance can be claimed. Decision makers must stand to their vote.

3. The influence of the Council would be directly depending on the quality of the arguments brought forward. Civil society and experts could contribute.

4. The rebuttal option would improve governments’ IAs.

Safeguard democracy

Dr. Joachim H. Spangenberg, Joachim.Spangenberg@ufz.de

Thank you for your attention.

To download presentations and additional publications regarding sustainability, scenarios and policies for the future you are invited to visit us at

http://seri.academia.edu/JoachimHSpangenberg