(3rd EEnglish EEdition) ISSN 11617 - Generationengerechtigkeit · Unit pprice 110 EEuro Issue 33/2005 (3rd EEnglish EEdition) ISSN 11617 - 11799 Foundation for the Rights of Future

Unit pprice 110 EEuro

Issue 33/2005

(3rd EEnglish EEdition)

ISSN 11617 - 11799

Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations

INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE Review

INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE Review 3/20052

Index of Contents

Book Recommendations and Reviews 38

Internal matters 40

Responsibility for Future Generations: Scope and Limitsby Prof. Dr. Dieter Birnbacher 22

John Rawls on Rights of Future Generations by Prof. Dr. Claus Dierksmeier 23

Intergenerational Justiceby Ass. Prof. Emmanuel Agius 24

Justice Between Generations: Limits of Procedural Justiceby Prof. Michael Wallack 25

Principles of Generational Justiceby Prof. Dr. Christoph Lumer 26

The Impossibility of Intergenerational Justiceby Prof. Dr. Wilfred Beckerman 27

Towards a Pragmatic Approach to Intergenerational Justice inGermanyby Dr. Johannes Meier and Dr. Ole Wintermann 27

A Constitutional Law for Future Generations - The “other” Formof the Social Contract: The Generation Contract by Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Peter Häberle 28

The French Constitutional Charter for the Environment: AnEffective Instrument?by Prof. Dominique Bourg 29

Establishment of the Rights of Future Generations in NationalConstitutions by Dr. Jörg Tremmel 30

Rule Change and Intergenerational Justiceby Dr. Axel Gosseries 31

Institutional Determinants of Public Debt: A Political EconomyPerspectiveby Prof. Dr. Robert K. von Weizsäcker and Dr. Bernd Süssmuth 32

The Economic Sustainability Indicatorby Dr. Peer Ederer, Dr. Philipp Schuller, and Stephan Willms 33

Institutional Protection of Succeeding Generations –Ombudsman for Future Generations in Hungaryby Dr. Benedek Jávor 34

The Role of CPB in Dutch Economic Policy Makingby Rocus van Opstal and Jacqueline Timmerhuis 34

Commission for Future Generations in the Knesset – LessonsLearntby Prof. Shlomo Shoham and Nira Lamay 35

The Committee for the Future - Future policyby Dr. Paula Tiihonen 36

Publisher: Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (Stiftung für die Rechte zukünftiger Generationen)Editors-in-Chief: Jörg Tremmel, Yanti Ehrentraut, FraukeAustermannEditorial staff: Tobias Kemnitzer, Thomas WiechersLayout: Katarzyna Opielka, E-mail: [email protected]äuser Allee 5, 35037 Marburg, Tel/Fax: 06421 97 22 76Concept and Implementation: Jörg TremmelPrint: Druckhaus Marburg, Im Rudert 13, 35043 MarburgPrinted on chlorine-free bleached paper.Postal address of PublisherFoundation for the Rights of Future Generations,(Stiftung für die Rechte zukünftiger Generationen)Postfach 5115,61422 OberurselGermanyTel.: +49(0)6171-982367Fax.: +49(0)6171-952566E-Mail: [email protected],Online: www.srzg.de

The Journal Intergenerational Justice Review is issued three timesper year in German and one time in English. It aims at encourag-ing the consciousness of our responsibility for future generations.In addition, it informs on relevant developments aroundIntergenerational Justice and Sustainability. Moreover, it reportson the work of the Foundation for the Rights of FutureGenerations (FRFG) as well as on projects that deal withIntergenerational Justice of other organisations, particularlyyouth organisations.

The annual subscription costs 25 Euro and has to be paid inadvance. The cancellation period is three months until the end ifthe year. For subscription, see last page. Membership dues ofmembers of FRFG include the subscription fee.

Published contributions do not necessarily reflect opinions ofmembers or organs of FRFG. Citations from articles are permit-ted upon accurate quotation and submission of one sample ofthe incorporated citation. All other rights are reserved.Sponsored by the German Federal EnvironmentalFoundation.

Special: Documentation of FRFG Event

Topic: Institutionalisation of IntergenerationalJustice

Impressum

Young Leaders Congress, 22nd - 26th June, 2005 in Berlin:„Ecological Generational Justice into the Constitution?“ 4


Dear rreader,In this third English issue of Intergenerational Justice Review(IJR), we present to you an elaborate documentation of the"Young Leaders Congress - Ecological Generational Justice intothe Constitution?". This highly successful event took place inBerlin, Germany, from 22nd to 26th June 2005. Almost fifty par-ticipants from all over Europe and beyond took part in theCongress, and discussed together with twenty internationalexperts on environmental policy, law and economy persistentproblems, developments and solutions. The unique spirit of theYoung Leaders Congress can probably best be reflected by somelines of the final declaration which was formulated by all partici-pants:

"One vision shared by the youth of Europe is that ofSustainability and Intergenerational Justice throughout the world.We came together to seek solutions for one of the paramountproblems of our time: political short-termism. …We agreed toform a network to further pursue these goals. We want to putIntergenerational Justice and Sustainability on the political agen-da. Being young people from different countries, we will start ini-tiatives to overcome the problem of political short-termism."

As a preparation, the participants were provided with a readerconsisting of articles written by distinct experts of the topic,among them speakers of the Congress. In this issue, we alsoinclude these essential viewpoints. The complete versions ofthese papers will be published in an upcoming "HandbookIntergenerational Justice". For the IJR issue at hand, we provideyou with precise and concise summaries of the papers.As a starting point, Prof. Dr. Dieter Birnbacher, teaching atHeinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany, approachesthe topic by analysing the ethical appropriateness of actual proce-dures to institutionalise generational justice. He reveals daily com-placency to be a special hindrance within the attempt to takeresponsibility for future generations. Tying up to the ethical aspectProf. Dr. Claus Dierksmeier, who teaches Philosophy at Stonehill-College in Easton/Boston, USA, pleads for a moral-based, meta-physical explanation. In his article he criticises John Rawls's ratherrational theoretical approach in his work "A Theory of Justice".Prof. Emmanuel Agius from the University of Malta sets a frame-work of ethical principles that should be taken as a guide whenrealising intergenerational justice. Moreover, he also takes JohnRawls into account, especially his 'just saving principles'. MichaelWallack, Associate Professor of Political Sciences at MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland, broadens the critique on Rawls andproposes a principle of "Minimum Irreversible Harm". In thiscontext, Prof. Dr. Christoph Lumer, Professor of Philosophy atthe University of Osnabrück, Germany, then develops five con-crete moral axioms which come directly under practical scrutiny.Prof. Dr. Beckerman renews his critic from the last IJR that a the-ory of intergenerational justice is not only impossible but alsounnecessary. Dr. Meier and Dr. Wintermann describe a pragmat-ic approach for reaching the aim of sustainability. ThereforeGerman politics should look beyond national borders. To realiseand assure the need of generation protection, a reform of thesocial contract into a 'generation contract', as well as its constitu-

tional anchorage is needed. This is the demand of Prof Dr. Dr.h.c. mult. Peter Häberle, who is director of the Bayreuth Institutefor European Law and Law Culture. Häberle's demand wouldimply a drastic rule change. The article of Dr. Jörg Tremmel fromthe Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations justifies theneed to institutionalise Intergenerational Justice. Focussing onchanges of constitutions, it deals with Beckerman´s argumentthat future generations cannot have rights. Prof. DominiqueBourg elaborates further on the constitutional anchorage ofSustainability by evaluating the effects of the FrenchConstitutional Environment Charter. The entailed impact on cur-rent and future generations, namely transition losses, are dis-cussed by Dr. Axel Gosseries, permanent research fellow at theFonds National de la Recherche Scientifique in Belgium and forthe Chaire Hoover d'éthique économique et sociale at theUniversity of Louvain. Having introduced a 'morality test', heapplies his theoretical framework to three exemplary rule changes.To continue with practical problems that hint at the desperateneed for institutionalising Generational Justice, Prof. Dr. RobertK. von Weizsäcker and Dr. Bernd Süssmuth, both teaching at theFaculty of Economics of the Technical University of Munich,outline the gravity of public debt for Germany and other states.Especially the short-sightedness of politicians who prefer beingre-elected rather than tackling fundamental issues constitutes anobstacle in solving long term problems. In order to raise the pub-lic's awareness concerning this lack, Dr. Peer Ederer, Dr. PhilippSchuller, and Stephan Willms, founders of the think tank'Deutschland Denken!', developed the 'Economic SustainabilityIndicator'. Another possibility to institutionalise generational jus-tice is the establishment of an ombudsman for future generations.Dr. Benedek Jávor, Assistant Professor of EnvironmentalSciences at the Department of Environmental Law at PazmanyPeter Catholic University, Budapest, describes how this was initi-ated by the Hungarian NGO 'Protect the Future!'. Having dealtwith two non-governmental initiatives, the article by Rocus vanOpstal and Jacqueline Timmerhuis from the Netherlands Bureaufor Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) introduces how a ratherindependent governmental institution can trigger more long termthinking. Another successful governmental institution is theCommission for Future Generations of the Knesset, the IsraeliParliament. Shlomo Shoham, Professor at the Faculty of Law ofTel Aviv University, and Nira Lamay, Deputy Commissioner forthe Knesset Commission for Future Generations, evaluate thisyoung and worldwide unique establishment. Finally, Dr. PaulaTiihonen discusses origins, history and main tasks of Finland'sCommittee for the Future and evaluates its work.Beyond this, we inform you about current activities of the FRFGand YOIS and further important literature to the topic.

We hope you will enjoy our third English issue ofIntergenerational Justice Review

Dr. Jörg Tremmel Frauke Austermann Yanti Ehrentraut

Editorial


Contents:

1. Introduction2. The Elements of the Congress2.1 Simulation Game Fish Banks ltd.2.2 Speech: "Ecology as a luxury - a goodinitiative at the wrong time?"2.3 Presentation of members of theGerman Parliament2.4 Debate: "13 years after Rio - how farare we in achieving ecological Generational Justice in Europe?"2.5 Lecture: "The Idea of GenerationalJustice in an ecological sense. Possibilitiesof its institutionalisation"2.6 Study Groups:2.6.1 Criteria for Intergenerational Justice2.6.2 Constitutional Change2.6.3 Commission for Future Generations2.6.4 Ombudsperson for Future Genera-tions2.6.5 The European Union Strategy forSustainable Development2.7 Panel Discussion: "Bad news are goodnews - The image of ecology in themedia?"2.8 Presentation of the intention of par-ticipants for a campaign in their owncountry or Europe2.9 Presentation: "How to start a cam-paign in Europe" Ann Mettler, ExecutiveDirector,Lisbon Council asbl.2.10 Panel Discussion: "25 years afterJohannesburg - visions of an ecologicalEurope in asustainable world"3. Feedback4. Declaration of the Congress5. Biographies of the speakers and mode-rators6. Epilogue7. Participants, Organisers, Sponsors

1. Introduction

Young Leaders Congress 2005 - oneleap forward

"Ecological Generational Justice into theConstitution? Europe's Green Future inthe 21st century" was the topic of theYoung Leaders Congress, which took

place from Wednesday, 22nd to Sunday,26th June in Berlin. Almost fifty partici-pants from all over Europe and beyondtook part in this great event. Twenty inter-national experts on environmental policy,law and economy discussed persistentproblems, developments and solutions.The Congress was structured as follows:the first main debate on Friday with thetitle "13 years after Rio - how far are we inachieving ecological Generational Justicein Europe?" examined the current situa-tion of our continent. Markus Knigge,Fellow with Ecologic, moderated thedebate between Dr. Karsten Sach of theFederal Environment Ministry ofGermany and Dr. Manfred Bergmann ofthe European Commission.The next day, the panel discussion "Badnews are good news - the image of ecolo-gy in the media?" took place and created alot stuff to talk about. Edgar Göll fromthe Institute for Future Studies, guided thediscussion between journalist MatthiasUrbach from the newspaper TAZ, JörgGeier, Deputy Secretary-General of theClub of Rome, and the Press Officer ofGreenpeace, Svenja Koch.The final panel discussion on Sundaymarked the end of the Congress andaddressed the topic "25 years afterJohannesburg - visions of an ecologicalEurope in a sustainable world".Furthermore, five workshops were organ-ised. Dr. Jörg Tremmel of the Foundationfor the Rights of Future Generations(FRFG) held the workshop"Constitutional Change" and TorgeHamkens, the Vice Chairman of theGlobal Contract Foundation, explained"The European Union Strategy forSustainable Development". The partici-pants could also join a workshop about"Ombudsperson for Future Generations"which was managed by Benedek Jávorfrom Hungary. Prof. Dr. Wallack from theMemorial University of Newfoundland,introduced "Criteria for IntergenerationalJustice" and Nira Lamay of The Knessetinformed about the "Commission forFuture Generations".Beyond the level of political and environ-mental education, we tried to create afriendly atmosphere between participants,

organisers and speakers. The simulationgame "Fish Banks Ltd." was one of themore relaxed parts of the Congress.Furthermore, a Case Study Trip to theGerman Parliament "Reichstag" includinga short speech about the energy systemsof the building gave the chance to discov-er some sights of the wonderful cityBerlin. The "Country Fair" sought toshow typical features as well as symbols ofSustainability in each country and present-ed the different nationalities in a humor-ous way.Between the three main debates, we couldalso hear other presentations such as aspeech by Prof. Dr. Weizsäcker, theChairman of the Bundestag Committeeon Environment, Nature Conservationand Nuclear Safety, about "Ecology as aluxury - a good initiative at the wrongtime?". Also, we heard a lecture and a pre-sentation by Dr. Jörg Tremmel on the"Handbook Generational Justice". Lastbut not least, Ann Mettler, ExecutiveDirector of Lisbon Council asbl., gave avery enthusiastic speech on "How to starta campaign in Europe". One afternoon,the participants presented individual cam-paigns for their own country or for theEuropean Union. The participants,among them several members of parlia-ment, examined different constitutionsregarding their "long-termism". The pro-posals for reform ranged from new para-graphs for Intergenerational Justice tonew institutions. The Congress was a veryimportant step forward, because thedeveloped concepts can indeed be realisedby many of the participants.

In this documentation of the YoungLeaders Congress, we would like to pre-sent summaries of the different eventswritten by participants for participantsand everybody who is interested in thetopic of the Congress. At the end of thisdocumentation, the reader can find the"Declaration of the Congress", which wasformulated together with the YoungLeaders. It includes basic problems andaims of Sustainability and tries to providea thought-provoking impulse to developown solutions and ideas. Just be willing tomake one leap forward in the fight for a

Documentation"Young Leaders Congress - Ecological Generational Justice into the Constitution? Europe's Green

Future in the 21st century"

- Berlin, 22th June - 26th June 2005 -


more fair-minded world.

Authors: Tobias Kemnitzer, JörgTremmel, Kristin Tecles, YantiEhrentraut, Frauke Austermann, CaterinaBressa, Andrea Heubach und ThomasWiechers from the FRFG

2. The Elements of the Congress

2.1 Simulation Game "Fish BanksLtd."Thursday, 23rd of Junemanaged by Tile von Damm, "PerGlobal" and Johanna Brinkmann, PhD-Candidate at the Chair for EconomicEthics, University of Halle-Wittenberg

The Simulation Game took place in theFriedrichstadt Church and started with anintroduction given by Johanna Brinkmannand Tile von Damm on the game's rules.The experts explained that the partici-pants had to divide up in seven groups ofabout seven people. After that, each groupgot some information sheets and thegame leaders explained that every groupconstitutes one fishing company. As anext step, everybody got to know that theaim is to make as much profit as possible.Each company had the same starting con-ditions of six boats and the equal amountof capital. Then the participants had toevaluate how to act. It was possible tosend the boats into the deep sea, to thecoast or to the harbour, but everywheredifferent costs had to be paid. Moreover,every group could buy further ships in dif-ferent manners, e.g. from the bank orfrom other companies. As in real life,advantages and disadvantages occurredwith each decision. In addition, theSimulation Game contained some surpris-es, e.g. nobody could know how theweather would develop, how much fishwould be left in the sea and how othercompanies would react.The game was structured in ten rounds

and after each roundevery group got an indi-vidual information fromthe bank about theirprofit or loss. At thebeginning of the game,everybody caught a lotof fish and was more orless successful, butalready in the secondround, fish got very littleand in the 7th round theparticipants received apress release, whichannounced the status ofoverfishing. A discus-

sion followed about the absolute and rela-tive quotas, but without an agreement.After the last round, there was a group,which had the most capital, but they couldnot really be called "winners" because ifwe had continued the game, everybodywould have been a loser. The lack of fishin the sea was just irreversible.The better solution would bean agreement between thecompanies, to catch only thatmuch fish, that it is still possi-ble to keep the balance. Fish islimited and "Sustainability"was the conclusion of thegame. It became clear, thatnatural resources are not ableto grow as fast as economy ina capitalistic society. An agree-ment between companies isnecessary to make fish-catch-ing efficient for everybody.One proposal is to create lim-its of fishing in order to create a naturalbalance between men and nature.

(Summary by Kristin Tecles and YantiEhrentraut, organisation team)

2.2 Ecology as a Luxury - a goodInitiative at the wrong Time?Friday, 24th JuneSpeech by Prof. Dr. Ernst-Ulrich vonWeizsäcker, Chairman of the BundestagCommittee on Environment, NatureConservation and Nuclear Safety

The Young Leaders Congress 2005enjoyed a presentation by Prof. Dr. Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker about remediesagainst dangerously ignorant attitudesconcerning ecological and social rights ofFuture Generations, mostly threatened bypolitical short-termism derived from vot-ing cycles.

Von Weizsäcker offered a beautifully fresh

bunch of observations concerning topicalsocial debates: We have been captured bythe hegemonial speech of economicgrowth as the only rational means ofadvancing and developing our societies; allintentions, action and promises we directto it with no other criteria. From a finan-cial point of view, from the resource side,sustainable growth would have been pos-sible for a long time. During the 19th andthe 20th century, optimism gained spacefrom the conservative viewpoint towardssocial change. Optimism got it firstremarkable hit worldwide in form of thebook Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in1962, followed by the Club of Rome withits alarming book Limits to Growth of 1972.

Talking about economic Sustainability inthe European context, or the lack of it,von Weizsäcker mentioned the chronicfinancial deficit suffered by EasternGermany, as well as the unsustainable

financial flow between the north and thesouth of Italy. In Germany, regardless ofthe party in power, there is 45 % more ofconsumption compared with production.This situation is far from being sustain-able, even though examined just from thefinancial point of view.

Von Weizsäcker remembered and chal-lenged the words of Indira Gandhi (1972)stating poverty to be the worst polluter.The statement of Gandhi was followingthe then actual perception, where thewealth growing by advance of time wasbelieved to automatically guarantee an endto pollution after it would have reached acertain peak. Von Weizsäcker disagreed tothis: "It does not work like this, not in theworld as we now know it. Actually, theyare the richest and "cleanest", in environ-mental classic terms, who nowadays mostamend and destroy environment due tothe volume of our consumption."

Photo: The Participants of the Congress

Photo: Markus Götz-Guerlin (left) of the Protestant Academy introduces thetwo leaders of the Simulation Game Fish Banks Ltd.

Von Weizsäcker named the indicator ofecological footprint as a descriptive tool inorder to piece together "the westernimpact" on global threats, such as climatechange and loss of biodiversity.According to calculations behind the con-cept of ecological footprint, a wealthyEuropean citizen consumes four hectaresof the surface of the globe; an averageNorth American consumes more thaneight hectares, and an average Chinese orIndian less than one hectare.

Environmental problems are not just aquestion of pollution; they are a questionof resource usage. Von Weizsäcker wasactually just heading for China, for theChinese have just become conscious ofthe meaning of the effective use ofresources, a concept called "factor four",and they want to change the patterns oftheir resource usage. The actual ideologi-cal battle is being fought between tradeunions and representatives of differentindustrial sectors. In Germany, for exam-ple, the industry is demanding more rightsfor CO2-emissions presenting themselvesas the safeguard of jobs.Why does it sound that sarcastic, askedvon Weizsäcker. He elevated the Nordic

Countries as a promising example repre-senting the possibility for better futureprospects: here, the best environmentaland competitiveness indicators are met.Other examples can be found in Asia,more precisely Japan, where the top run-ner-principle for effectiveness leaves com-panies four years of transition time inorder to switch to the most effective tech-nology: if a company does not comply,first it suffers a shame punishment andthen, if needed, a fee.

Furthermore, von Weizsäcker appealed toEurope to face it's backwardness in terms

of technological development: In Japanrefrigerators are on the market that areseven times more effective than the onessold in Europe. Another example is thecar industry. While General Motors is liv-ing hard times, Toyota falls from one vic-tory to another. Arnold Schwarzenegger,the governor of California, has declaredhis intention to enhance the carbon effec-tiveness of California until 2040 to 80 percent from actual levels. Further themesrequiering prompt action are, inter alia,effective usage of water and metalresources.

Unfortunately, Germany is not yet on theright track, as stated by von Weizsäcker.Still, this message has not broken through;there is a lack of information and aware-ness with respect to which questions. Weneed to start focusing on genuine factorsaffecting social dynamics, for example, theactual structure of incentives provided forarchitectures spur construction of expen-sive houses and not being energy efficient.Von Weizsäcker appealed to us to bringthis message further, and to work for itspractical implementation.

(Summary by Tuuli J. Lehtinen, partici-pant from Finland)

2.3 Initiative ofMembers of the GermanParliament toInstitutionalise Gene-rational Justice

Friday, 24th JuneModerator: Dr. JörgTremmel, FRFG,Foundation for the Rightsof Future Generations,Speakers: MichaelKauch, FDP, Liberal FreeDemocrats party and AnnaLührmann, GermanGreens.

Kauch from the German LiberalDemocrats congratulated the organisersfor the entire Congress, especially itstheme: environmental concerns havegained their position on every party'sagenda. The problem is the way in whicheach party picks up certain themes that fitbest to the rest of their political program.In real (political) life it is common that dif-ferent groups share the same objectives,but then disagree on practical ways ofheading towards their realisation. Thetopic of Intergenerational Justice is agood example for these disputes.

Kauch told us about the work of theGerman Parliamentary Council onSustainable Development, of which he isa member. The Council was founded in2003 but only started functioning in 2004.The founding meant a remarkable changein the parliamentary work concerningSustainable Development, for beforeresponsible persons were only named bythe German Councillor. The new Councilconsists of members from all the mainparties and has brought matters of sus-tainable development closer to the dailywork of the Parliament. The next topicsthat are planned to be treated in theCouncil's work are biodiversity and thegrowing public debt. A new issue is therelationship between public investmentsand demographical change.

The Council had made a study visit toSweden and Finland, where generationalaccounting is already being practiced. InFinland, very different from the Germansituation, experts are calculating how tomaintain the public surplus the next 40years. Germany is still lacking a sustain-able accounting system for future effectsof pensions, social security subsidies andpublic debt. The Council has been prepar-ing action concerning internalisation ofthe external costs of our actions (indirectcosts for instance the negative impacts oftraffic to the public health; impacts whichare not taken into account in fuel prices),but due to the premature German elec-tions, Kauch stated he is wishing the nextCouncil to retake the topic. With respectto this kind of initiatives of wide reper-cussions, the importance of (at least)European wide networks is paramount.

To conclude, Kauch gave two responseson how to tackle the actual exploitation ofFuture Generations' rights: 1) Adjustingthe criteria for public subsidies. 2)Creating an independent organ to alarmof economic crises and safeguard publiceconomic Sustainability.

Anna Lührmann presented to theCongress the work of a group of youngMPs for the Rights of Future Generationsin the German Parliament. The idea andthe initiative was given two years ago byDr. Jörg Tremmel from the FRFG.Lührmann stressed the importance of across-party approach and cooperation inorder to take up the challenge. The twoyears' work has been intensive and markedby good spirit and common effective syn-ergies to struggle for Future Generations.The group of young MPs has been


Photo: Jörg Tremmel, Michael Kauch Anna Lührmann (from left to right)

preparing a law to change the constitu-tion.A new paragraph 20b should be added tothe German Constitution, reading:

“The state must observe the principle ofsustainability and safeguard the interestsof future generations.”

Moreover, the existing paragraph 109 ofthe German Constitution shall be sharp-ened to constrain public debtmaking(changes underlined).

"When making decisions with regard tothe budget, the Federal Republic ofGermany and its states have to pay atten-tion to the economic equilibrium, to theprinciple of sustainability and the interestsof future generations."

Lührmann pointed out how difficult it isto make the party leaders cooperate. Still,the group working for the constitutionalchange in favour of Future Generationshas found 50 supporters from differentparties for the initiative of changing cer-tain parts of the German Constitution inorder to safeguard rights of FutureGenerations. Very efficiently, the idea ofthe constitutional change was first keptsecretly from the public in order to pre-pare it well. At some point, the existenceand the work of the group broke throughto the public and there were alreadyremarkable titles drawn about it.Following a Spiegel report, several pressarticles were written. Even more journal-ists had to be rebuffed because of the pre-mature elections. The premature electionsin 2005 have forced the group to post-pone the release of the campaign.Lührmann feels, though, confident withtheir cause also what becomes to a possi-ble new Parliament; public support is ontheir side.

Lührmann clarified the differences con-cerning the means to fight for the sharedgoals: For the Greens, public debt doesnot necessarily mean a burden for FutureGenerations; it needs to be considered onwhat the money is being spent. There aremany investments waiting for their realis-ers giving their benefits in years to come.Lührmann told us about her surpriseabout the Bundestag's Budget Committee:until 70-80 per cent of each year's budgethas already been bound up by past deci-sions.

During the plenary debate following thesepresentations, Ramil Aliyev (participant)

rose the question of the role of a nation-al constitution with respect to the actionsof national and international enterprises.How could ecological values be promotedon an international level? Kauch, giving ananswer, emphasised the need to avoidpracticing any kind of environmentalimperialism, in the sense of the economi-cally and politically strong countries goingto dictate codes of conduct in weakerones. Tuuli Lehtinen (participant) pointedout that national constitutions can, ofcourse, also refer to the concernednation's acts internationally respect to cer-tain value base. So does, for example, theFinnish Constitution in its first chapter.

In Germany, there was just going on adebate about the agreements on so-called"flexible mechanisms" of the KyotoProtocol in order to mitigate climatechange: Should the foreign project devel-opers apply their national legislation orthe one of the receiving country? Thestrict German legislation concerning thepacking materials of different products isan example of this debate on relationshipsand differences between national and for-eign standards. With regards to otheraspects of climate change, there is anacute need for an international tax onkerosene, at least on EU level. Transportemissions in general, as well as the emis-sions derived from the residential sector,should be included in the existing emis-sion trading systems.

Further in the debate, Nira Lamay (speak-er) raised a question about the importanceof international trade conventions and therole the European Investment Bank withrespect to Sustainable Development pat-terns on the international level. In interna-tional trade relations, the more industri-alised partner usually benefits most fromthe competition. It seemed to be affirmedthat nowadays there is too much competi-tion and too little cooperation and tech-nology transfer in international relations.

Lamay, Deputy Commissioner for theKnesset Commission for FutureGenerations of Israel, was also interestedin the possibilities of working somehowobjectively in a model like the Germanone, where a Council formed by politi-cians, is tackling rights of FutureGenerations. In Israel, by contrast, theCommission is formed by professionalexperts without direct links political theparties. In Germany, as stated by Mr.Kauch, there are actually two commis-sions for Sustainable Development: one

formed by MPs, and a consultative one,formed by scientific professionals.According to Kauch's evaluation, the twoCommissions enjoy good cooperation.

Referring back to the session's title, thedebate concluded with a rhetoric question:Could it not be the right time for ecologi-cal initiatives? The argument concerningprotecting people's jobs does not need tobe adverse to the principles of ecologicalSustainability and vice versa.

Catherine Lippuner (participant) raised animportant question concerning the possi-ble inclusion of rights of FutureGenerations in national constitutions:What would it mean in practice? Whatactions might be taken in order to effi-ciently promote these rights in every dayfunctions of our societies? Would thatmean new directions to curriculum of theschools? Kauch responded that educationis mainly a topic being dealt on a state(Länder) level, but there would be placeand demand for consultations and aware-ness rising campaigns at national level aswell.

The MPs were asked how to build bridgesfor cross-party cooperation. Theiranswers revealed that cooperation forthem is not an objective per se. But theystressed that ability to compromise isessential, as well as personal contactsacross party lines.

(Summary by Tuuli J. Lehtinen, partici-pant from Finland)

2.4 Debate: 13 years after Rio - how farare we in achieving EcologicalGenerational Justice in Europe?Friday, 24th JuneModerator: Markus Knigge, Fellowwith Ecologic, Institute for Internationaland European Environmental Policy,Speakers: Dr. Sach, Federal Ministry ofthe Environment, Deputy DirectorGeneral "International Cooperation" andDr. Manfred Bergmann, Head ofEvaluation of Transport, Environmentand Energy Policies, EuropeanCommission

Dr. Manfred Bergmann and Dr. KarstenSach discussed the actual state of affairsof ecological concerns raised to the pub-lic consciousness at the UN Rio Summitin 1992. The debate was moderated byMarkus Knigge.Dr. Sach stated that the environmental


policy of the EU has been a success story,for example in terms of cleaning pollutedwaters. Lately, this success has, unfortu-nately, turned into an obstacle for furtherimprovements. The EU has dropped offto sleep, and there are many challengeswaiting for a solution: the proper imple-mentation of the Kyoto Protocol, moreregulated use of chemicals (REACH-decree), new water politics, etc. It is alsoimportant to reflect concerning EUactions with regards to the so-called thirdcountries. In the EU, it is also importantto remember the dual system of environ-mental policy at national and communitylevel. Implementing certain EU directivesmean high challenges at the national level.An example is the implementation of theEU directive on integrated pollution pre-vention which demands a change of vari-ous national laws in Germany.Dr. Sach stressed a case-sensitive ponder-ing between different legal manners andvoluntary actions by pointing to differ-ences in business and private sector. It isessential to take the internalisation ofexternal costs seriously. We need strongerenvironmental impetus for future envi-ronmental EU-policies.Dr. Bergmann stressed the need of keep-ing open different but competitive con-duct options for private selection forexample in the transport sector (offeringequal subsidies for different ways of pub-lic transportation, etc.).

There is a need to balance environmentaland social costs. There is also a hugeextend of inappropriate behaviourstowards nature: for example only one percent of all the water treated to be suitablefor drinking is finally really drunk. Itwould be important to better sort out dif-ferent social functions taking into consid-eration respective costs and effects oncompetitiveness.

The question of EU-wide (environmen-tal) taxes is important, though taxes arestill widely considered a strictly nationaltopic. If implemented, they should baseon unanimity, for example CO2-emis-sions, it does not actually matter wherethey are emitted, but how much is pro-duced. Anyhow, Dr. Bergmann estimatedthere would not be any EU tax on energyin the next five to ten years. Regulationneeds clear fields of responsibility, andthere is an equal need for more re- andderegulation in the field. It is also impor-tant to consult different stakeholdergroups before really regulating something.

Dr. Bergmann finished his presentation bydefining the optimal procedure to solveecological problems: Defining of theproblem; analysing of different possibili-ties to solve it; synchronising the chosenmean to other actions and future invest-ments; arousing public awareness for asuccessful implementation in practice.

During the common debate, issues wereraised like managing risk societies andbusiness pressure, ill-proportioned pricesof flight and train tickets even in the EU,and peak-oil. Dr. Sach agreed with theparticipants that there is a "perverse sys-tem of subsidies" for example in aviationsector at the expense of other modes oftransport. The two panellists contradictabout the need of assigning everything amonetary and neglecting ideal and inter-national value. Dr. Bergmann stressed theneed for always considering future lossesof "loser-parts" of each environmentaldispute. Winners ought to compensatelosers.

Finally, Dr. Sach emphasised the impor-tance of a socio-ecological tax reform. Heassigned the Congress participants animportant task: we should turn all these

good intentions into reality...

(Summary by Tuuli J.Lehtinen, participant fromFinland)

2.5 LECTURE: "The Ideaof Generational Justice inan ecological sense.Possibilities of its institu-tionalisation"Friday, 24th JuneSpeaker: Dr. JörgTremmel of theFoundation for the Rightsfor Future Generations(FRFG)

At the beginning of the lecture, JörgTremmel described the foundation FRFGas a Think Tank for Generational Justice.He mentioned its goals, which are toachieve and fight for Generational Justiceand Sustainability. We got to know thatthe foundation does scientific, but gener-ally intelligible research on the interfacebetween social science and politics.Furthermore, Tremmel informed us thatthe Think Tank has already published fivebooks (the next will be the "HandbookIntergenerational Justice") and numerousposition papers. After this introduction,the speaker gave a definition of how thefoundation understands IntergenerationalJustice and it says: "To FRFG,Intergenerational Justice means thattoday's youth and Future Generationsmust have at least the same opportunitiesto meet their own needs as the generationgoverning today.". In addition, Tremmelput the focus on the ecological aspect andpointed out some alarming facts, such asthe daily destruction of 55.000 hectaresTropical Rain Forest or the daily extinc-tion of ca. 100-200 animal species. So heasked the audience, "Why is institutionali-sation necessary?". He gave many reasonsfor it, for example, that all mature democ-racies face a paramount structuraldichotomy, namely the tendency to pre-serve the present at the expense of thefuture. According to Tremmel, it is moreand more important to protect FutureGenerations because presently living gen-erations are capable of effecting thefuture for thousands of years.Furthermore, he told us that in key areas,such as fiscal, environmental or educa-tional policy, as well as in the social secu-rity system, it is likely that today's short-comings will have detrimental effects onFuture Generations and today's youth."The principle of democracy can conflictwith the maxim of IntergenerationalJustice", said the expert, "politicians haveto fulfil the desires of the present citizens- their electorate". Furthermore, Tremmelpointed out, that the neglect of the inter-ests of Future Generations is not a mis-take of the politician, but of the system.So, which ways are there, to implementGenerational Justice? The speaker had theidea of a legal barrier, which is needed toprotect the overexploitation of nature.Generally, Tremmel sees two routes ofimproving the Constitutions worldwideand with the focus on Europe: The firstone is to provide the protection of FutureGenerations through textual changesdirectly in the Constitution (South Africa,Germany, Uruguay). The Constitutional


Photo: Thomas Wiechers (standing), member of the organisation team,Dr. Sach and Mr. Knigge (sitting from left to right)

Court would then become a watch-dogfor the interests of Future Generations.The second one is to set up a new institu-tion like an Ombudsperson, anCommission, a Council or the like (Israel,Switzerland, Hungary) and to create there-by a new watch-dog. In addition, hebecame more detailed and explainedstrategies how to start a campaign or aninitiative in order to achieve his aims.Finally, Jörg Tremmel finished his moti-vating presentation with an impressingquote, which was: "If one person has adream, it is a just a dream. If many peoplehave a dream, it is tomorrow's reality".

2.6 STUDY GROUPSSaturday, 25th June

2.6.1 Workshop "Criteria forIntergenerational JusticeWorkshop leader: Prof. Dr. Wallack,Associate Professor of the MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland

The assumption throughout the work-shop was that the criteria for justicebetween generations can be establishedwithin a liberal democratic set-up.Professor Wallack briefly analysed the keyideas of a number of theorists in the lib-eral tradition, starting with seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke. ForLocke, legitimate and just institutions arethose which a rational, free person wouldaccept. Locke's philosophy calls for a kindof impartiality which requires us to reflecton whether someone else in our positionwould make the same choice.

For Locke, the implicit notion of equalitydoes not run counter to private property,which he favoured believing that onecould acquire private property fromnature through work, provided that thereis "…at least as good and as much…" left.This early formulation of GenerationalJustice failed to consider a number of

important variables, such as changes inpopulation patterns.

John Stuart Mill, the major exponent ofclassical utilitarianism, posits the idea ofthe long term interests of mankind as aprogressive being. According to Mill,mankind's long term interests are safe-guarded if we keep liberal economicsworking, leaving everyone to make hisown choices. One of the dangers of theutilitarian view, however, is that there areinstances in which Future Generations arenot effectively in a position to make theirown choices. Economic liberalism doesnot necessarily allow Future Generationsto make their own choices. The idea thatthe market produces the best situation isreflected in the thought of liberal econo-mists such as Pareto, who believed thatthe market decides what is just betweengenerations through a progressive movetowards the optimum level of utilitythrough time for every generation.

John Rawls' conception of 'justice as fair-ness', first put forward in A Theory ofJustice (1971) is very useful for the formu-lation of a theory of IntergenerationalJustice since it highlights the priority ofequality, basic liberties and fair opportuni-ties for all citizens. He reiterates the needfor impartiality ('the veil of ignorance')and states that economic and socialinequalities should be directed towardsoffering the maximum benefit to the leastadvantaged. Rawls' argument explicatesthe necessity of a fair system of socialcooperation. In his later work, PoliticalLiberalism (1993), Rawls places a furtheremphasis on the conception of justicebased on shared moral ideas and consen-sus.The workshop also briefly considered thecriteria for justice between generations asformulated by Tremmel and Beckerman.For Tremmel, the main criteria forGenerational Justice are the intergenera-

tional equality of life chances, and anintact and varied ecology. ForBeckerman, justice between generationsoccurs when Future Generations areprotected from grievous harm andpoverty while being guaranteed withadequate "primary resources" such asbreathable air and clean drinking water.

Wallack's own position proposes thenotion of the minimum irreversible harm asa constitutional principle within a fairsystem of social cooperation (see Rawls)based on the principles of social justiceand solidarity. The minimum irre-

versible harm is seen as a criterion for fair-ness which requires the balancing out ofan action and the harm it causes. Prof.Wallack emphasises the distinction thatought to be made between reversible andirreversible harm, which he insistedshould not be given the same value. Thequestion of what the 'minimum' irre-versible harm is presents itself as the sub-ject of political discussions.One could perhaps argue that political lib-eralism provides the opportunity for abetter formulation of IntergenerationalJustice than economic liberalism.Following Rawls (especially in PoliticalLiberalism), Wallack acknowledges that thetask is to select criteria that can becomethe basis for an overlapping consensus,since it has to be acknowledged that in thepluralism of liberalism citizens do notalways share a common conception ofwhat is just and what is good. Throughdemocratic institutions, the liberal democ-ratic framework should provide theopportunity for the public to discuss andshare ideas of justice. This further under-lines the initial assumption of the work-shop that criteria for IntergenerationalJustice can be established within a liberaldemocratic set-up. Discussion and sharedideas of justice can lead to consensus,which then acts as a basis for politicalobligation and the legitimisation of policy.This, in turn, leads to concrete action suchas the institutionalisation of the sharedconcept of justice (including GenerationalJustice). It is in this way that the discus-sions about abstract concepts such as jus-tice and fairness in political theory lead tothe formulations of designs in the politi-cal sphere. The criteria, or theory, focusedupon in this workshop ultimately require atransition from theory to practice, or fromcriteria to policy. What emerged veryclearly in Prof. Wallack's workshop is thatthe notions of justice and fairness shouldrelate closely to political practice and thatsuch abstractions have to be concretisedthrough political action. As Aristotlereminds us in his Politics; people go, butconstitutions remain - they transcendtime. The discussions of justice betweengenerations need to move towards theinstitutionalisation of IntergenerationalJustice and its insertion as a constitutionalprinciple.(Summary by Jean-Paul de Lucca, partici-pant from Malta)

2.6.2 Workshop "ConstitutionalChange"Workshop leader: Dr. Jörg Tremmel,Foundation for the Rights of Future


Photo: Prof. Dr. Wallack (right) with participants

Generations (FRFG)At the beginning of the workshop,Tremmel outlined constitutional changeand its difficulties in general. He reflectedabout the role of Constitutions for statesand peoples and their binding power tosucceeding generations. In the long run,written law always follows the change ofethical beliefs of a people. After this shortintroduction, the workshop leader openedthe discussion with the participants abouttheir country´s constitution, its deficien-cies and how to improve it.

We recognized, that the Ukrainian consti-tution contains a consciousness towardspast, present and Future Generations inthe preamble. Moreover, the articles 3, 13,14, 16, 50, 66 deal with environment.Although, there are references towardsenvironment in the constitution, theydon't have any impact on daily life. Bigcompanies rather pay taxes instead of try-ing to avoid damage to the environment."Green tourism" is supported by govern-ment, but not many other projects. For aconstitutional change, one third of parlia-mentary deputies have to agree and, inaddition, the court, too. A change of theConstitution is thus very hard to achieve.

In Switzerland, the federal constitutionpreamble mentions the responsibility ofthe Swiss people towards FutureGenerations and national strategy. Article73 mentions Sustainability with the words"to establish a durable equilibriumbetween nature and its capacity for renew-al and its use by humans." The aspect ofSustainability is also mentioned in Article2. A constitutional change in Switzerlandneeds a double majority, which means 50per cent of the people (Switzerlandorganises at least four referendums per

year) and 50 per cent of the members ofparliament. People can propose an initia-tive if 150.000 people agree.

As a third nation, Finland was analysed.The Finnish constitution was latelychanged in 2000, with the focus on envi-ronmental protection (section 20) and inchapter 2 about basic rights and equalityof people. Here it would be possible toadd the rights of Future Generations.Nevertheless, a change of the constitutionneeds the agreement of 5/6 of the mem-bers of parliament or two sequences of a¾ majority.

Estonia has already an article about envi-ronmental Sustainability (article 5) whichsays, that the one who damages nature hasto pay for it. But it applies more to com-panies than to individuals. In this nation,1/5 of the members of parliament haveto take part in the initiative.

Furthermore, a 2/3 majority is neededand a referendum is facultative for a con-stitutional change.

In Bulgaria, article 18 of the constitutiondeals with environment and article 54defines a healthy environment to be a

human right. TheBulgarian parliamentconsists of 240 mem-bers.

After discussing the dif-ferent situations in sev-eral European countries,the participants talkedtogether with JörgTremmel about differ-ent routes for constitu-tional changes. MPTynkkynen T. Orasfrom Finlandannounced that he willgather young colleaguesfrom all parties to dis-cuss a multi-partisan ini-

tiative of younger MPs. The RomanianMP George Baesu announced an initiativeto lower the voting age to 16. Thisbrought the discussion to the relationshipof adolescents´ rights and the rights offuture generations. Unlike children,Future Generations are not born yet andcan thus never speak for themselves.Older children, however, are able to standup for their rights but they are not allowedto vote. As a tendency, lowering the votingage can help to implementIntergenerational Justice.

A counter argument is, that if a personyounger than 14 years can not be entirelyguilty for committing a crime, he shouldalso be unable to vote. However, in the US11 year old kids can be sentenced toprison. Obviously the courts believe thatthey are very capable to oversee the con-sequences of their actions. People are insome countries able to vote in local elec-tions at the age of 16. First studies of thisexperiment reveal, that there aren't anynegative outcomes. One positive effect isthat pupils learn more about politics inschool because they get prepared for elec-tions. There are 90 million children livingin the EU. Yet children as a group andadolescents up to 18 years are compara-tively invisible as citizens or as subjectsthroughout the EU. They are excludedfrom the political decision-makingprocesses which have an impact on them.A fair chance for participation for adoles-cents could be one step forward in thestruggle for intergenerational justice.

(Summary by Laura Memmert, organisa-tion team)

2.6.3 Workshop "Commission forFuture Generations"Workshop leader: Nira Lamay, DeputyCommissioner for Future Generations,The Knesset

"Straight away", maybe that is the mostdistilled message the participants couldkeep in mind from Nira Lamay's work-shop. The development of the KnessetCommission for Future Generations, inwhich Lamay heads the department ofLaw and Legislation, is a means for ashort-cut towards institutionalising therights for Future Generations. Initiated bya member of the Knesset in 2002 thecommission was put into reality shortlyafterwards and since then gained consid-erable influence on the legislative process.

Although it is a commission of theParliament, it does not consist of mem-bers of Parliament but of experts. TheCommissioner is chosen by an adhoccommittee of professors and members ofthe Knesset. As defined in the Knessetlaw, he or she has the authority to dealwith every topic except for defence andsecurity. The commission acts as an advi-sory body within the legislation and is thusfully embedded in this process. Thismeans, that as soon as a law proposal isissued in Parliament, the Commissionerwill be informed, that members of thecommission are authorised to take part in


Photo: Jörg Tremmel (left) with participants

the respective committee and that itsopinion is attached to the bill when itcomes to voting.According to Lamay the proximity to thedecision-makers in parliament turned outto be the key to success. The access toinformation, the ability to address peopledirectly and the chance to intervene at avery early stage are powerful means toexert influence. The Commissioner plays arather delicate role as she/he has toremain objective and needs to cope withall parties in parliament. That is why theperson taking over this position needs toembody integrity and neutrality. At pre-sent, it is Shlomo Shohan, a former judgewith high prestige across the whole politicspectrum.Nevertheless, some aspects which cameup during the discussions in the workshopremain to be debatable. Especially thequestion of democratic legitimacy andcontrol. It is a matter of fact that peoplewho are not elected influence the issuingof laws. Competence is another aspect asthe seven members of the commissioncannot be experts in every field they dealwith. Lamay explained to us that most ofthe things to be done are known. Still, insome cases the issues are so complex thattrade-offs have to be considered carefullyand well-advised priorities have to be set,especially when it comes to budget.The Knesset Commission for FutureGenerations is a very pragmatic and there-fore effective institution to protect therights of Future Generations. During itsthree years of existing the commissionhas already achieved a lot. But it needs tobe backed by comprehensive approachincluding a governmental strategy, opera-tive execution by a ministry as well as aconstitutional change (Nira: "There can-not be enough protection for sustainabledevelopment").Thus, for the outcome of the conferenceNira Lamay's workshop delivered a clear

message: Tackle the institutionalisation ofthe rights for Future Generations on vari-ous levels. An advisory commissionthereby serves as a watchdog for civil soci-ety within the parliament.At the end of the workshop you could seemany surprised faces expressing "good toknow some shortcuts". The way to imple-ment long-termism in politics will be longenough, though.

(Summary by Alexander Hauk, participantfrom Germany)

2.6.4 Workshop "Ombudsperson forFuture Generations"Workshop leader: Dr. BenedekJávor, Ombudsperson for FutureGenerations

The aim of this workshop was todevelop a suitable concept for abody/an organisation that wouldtake care of the rights of FutureGenerations. We tried to feature itspowers in detail.

The first problem we clarified waswhether a commission or anOmbudsperson would be more suit-able. We made a short pro/contraanalysis. The result favoured anOmbudsperson. Although a Commissionhas the advantage that it is an establishedtool within democracies, we neverthelesshad some doubts about its flexibility andcapacity to really implement long termaims. Moreover, it is rather problematicthat too many commissions exist.An Ombudsperson generally exists inmost democracies as well, being proven asan effective tool. Still, one has to admitthat an additional Ombudsperson, next tothe existing one, for defending the rightsof Future Generations could create diffi-culties for the public: It is difficult forpeople to distinguish his powers from the

general Ombudsperson.

Nevertheless, we agreed that thebest choice would be to create anadditional, specialisedOmbudsperson. His/her positionshould be located externally toexisting parliamentary systems and,furthermore, he/she should not beattached to any existing body.However, the person should beelected by the parliament for alonger period than the parliamentitself. The main reason is to be ableto implement long term policies.His role should be of consultative

nature, mostly examining and monitoringthe implementation of respective bills andpolicies. He should have the right to beinformed by various other bodies and for-eign states.

The concept of protecting the rights ofFuture Generations is rather questionablefrom a legal point of view as FutureGenerations do not exist yet and fromtoday's perspective they are not a legalpersonality. As an ideal legal personalitywe can only assume what FutureGenerations will need. From today's view-point, we agreed that their rights include

the right to participate, the right of freechoice and the fundamental human rights.This helps us to have at least a general ideain whose name an Ombudsperson acts.The right of free choice is very importantbecause we don't know what FutureGenerations really need. Therefore, theyshould be guaranteed the choice to saywhat they need during time when theyreally exist. In other words, current gener-ations may not leave burdens of any kindto Future Generations. The basic humanrights are elementary and articulated incurrent documents. Examples are theright for life, right for health, etc.

Furthermore, we discussed existing inter-national documents and movements fromwhich rights of Future Generation can bederived directly or indirectly. Examples arethe UN Charta of 1945, widespread ecol-ogy movement in the 1970s and 1980s,the Brundtland Commission, the docu-ment "Our common future" of 1987, theUNESCO declaration of responsibility ofpresent generations towards FutureGenerations of 1997, the Internationallaw association, or the "New Delhi decla-ration" of 1999.

Another question which we discussed was


Photo: Benedek Jávor (right) with participants

Photo:Nira Lamay (right) with participants

from which level (international,European, or national) these rights can beimplemented. We had a look at severalsample states (Israel, Finland, and Poland)that implement or try to implement themfrom national level. Taking into accountthe European context, and thus the differ-ent civil societies, we agreed on a bottom-up implemention in more developed civilsocieties and a top-down approach forless developed countries (e.g. the CEE).However, this presumes that the existinglegal frame on international (European)level could be implemented. We just needto start the realisation as soon as possible.

(Summary by Jan Handl, participant fromCzech Republic)

2.6.5 Workshop "The European UnionStrategy for SustainableDevelopment"Workshop leader: Torge Hamkens,Vice Chairman of the Global ContractFoundation

The workshop was divided in two parts:In the first part Torge Hamkens gave abrief summary on the history and contentof the EU Sustainability strategy. In the

second part the group looked for possibleimprovements of that strategy.

The EU Sustainability strategy, said TorgeHamkens, was not one single documentbut rather the result of a multilayerprocess. As parts of that process henamed Cardiff 1998, the Lisbon Agenda2000, and the results of the GotheburgSummit of 2001. He subdivided the focalpoints of the EU Sustainability strategyinto internal aims, such as public health,natural resources and social exclusion, andexternal aims, such as the MilleniumDevelopment Goals. In both areas hedescribed the measures that are currently

taken. In the end, he gave his personalevaluation: On the one hand, many posi-tive results have been achieved already, asfor instance in the field of organic farm-ing. On the other hand, there is much thatstill needs to be done. He made some sug-gestions: The EU Sustainability strategyneeds to be integrated into the LisbonAgenda, the internal aims must be coordi-nated more properly with the externalaims, and global developments such as ter-rorism or further globalisation must betterbe taken into account.In the second part of the workshop thegroup mainly came up with the following"amendments" to the EU Sustainabilitystrategy:Internally, it is important to promote localinitiatives (applying a bottom upapproach) and establish the EU as a fore-runner leading the global environmentalprocess. Furthermore, a friendly legislativebase (i.e. institutions, laws, processes) hasto be created. We should internalise theexternal environmental costs and close thegap between rich and poor. In addition, itis necessary to support the free movementof people worldwide. And, last but notleast, we have to promote the rights ofFuture Generations and justice in worldtrade.

On the other hand, wealso have to regard someexternal facts, such as thepromotion of SustainableDevelopment via educa-tion and public participa-tion.We need to agree on sus-tainable developmentprinciples in the EUConstitution and to fos-ter cross-border environ-mental cooperation. Inthis context, the promo-tion of long-term think-ing and the provision for

the rights of Future Generations is onebasic step forward. After the explanationof internal and external aspects, TorgeHamkens summarised some points whichshould be regarded as general tasks, suchas "How is it possible to connect internalwith external parts?" and "How can weintegrate Sustainable Development strate-gies into the Lisbon Agenda?".Furthermore, we have to ask ourselveshow to integrate recent global develop-ments.With these thought-provoking impulses,our workshop leader confronted us withthe following task: "Imagine, you are amember of an advisory team to José

Barosso, President of EuropeanCommission, and he asks you to developguiding principles for SustainableDevelopment for to renew the EU strate-gy."Some solution proposals were, for exam-ple, the cooperation with local communi-ties, the combination of different govern-mental structures and the integration andpromotion of environmental education.Hopefully, the participants could get someideas and will help that these proposalswill find their way to realisation.

(Summary by Julia Schlüns, participantfrom Germany)

2.7 Panel Discussion: "Bad news aregood news - the image of ecology inthe media?"Saturday, 25th JuneModerator: Dr. Edgar Göll, Institute forFutures Studies and TechnologyAssessment BerlinSpeakers: Jörg Geier, Deputy Secretary-General, Club of Rome; DeputyChairman, Think Tank 30Svenja Koch, Press Officer GreenpeaceMatthias Urbach, Correspondent of theGerman daily newspaper TAZ

All that we know about the contemporaryworld, we know through the mass media.This is the opening claim of German soci-ologist Niklas Luhmann in his book onthe 'Reality of the mass media' from 1996.If he is just partly right, ecologists shouldbetter adapt this news media reality. Manyecologists, however, seem hugely disap-pointed by what they find there. But whatexactly is the problem with the newsmedia when it comes to ecological issues?And what can we do to change this?

Set off by these opening questions fromthe moderator, one representative of Clubof Rome, one media coordinator ofGreenpeace Germany and one journalistof the newspaper TAZ gave us their ver-sion of the drama. Listening to their wide-ly differing viewpoints, one might con-clude that they live in different worlds,with little hope of ever meeting. However,it might be better to acknowledge the verydifferent sets of demands imposed thesepeople from their work contexts.Admittedly, when all is said and done, thejournalist and his colleagues have all thecards on their hands. Ecologists have bet-ter learn that lesson.As a member of a Think Tank, Jörg Geierfrom the Club of Rome probably had lessof a stake in the day-to-day business of


Photo: Torge Hamkens (left) with participants

news media than the other two panelists.Perhaps for this reason, his presentationwas more an overview of some of theproblems in today's 'information overload'society. Information and news are ever-more abundant, but they are increasinglycoming from the same centralised sources,with high dependency on advertising rev-enues etc. In this situation, it is not sur-prising that ecologists find it hard toattract media attention. Picking up fromhere, Svenja Koch from Greenpeace pro-vided some practical examples of theshort-lived media attention cycle: whoremembers nowadays BSE? Of course,Greenpeace is famous for their spectacu-larly media events, such as Brent Spar.

However, as Koch would insist, thesecases only serve to explain more far-reach-ing problems to the public, and besides,they have no connection to fundraising.Worst of all, she complained, good newsare ignored: Greenpeace-sponsoredrefrigerators at McDonalds or HarryPotter printed on recycled paper are sim-ply ignored by journalists. With the criti-cism lined out, it was time for the TAZjournalist Matthias Urbach to defend him-self. Everyone complains about the media,he said, all lobbyists are the same, includ-ing the ecologists. However, environmen-tal issues actually do get reported,German voters still find them important,and Greenpeace is actually good at usingthe media. But how can you expect tohave good news accepted when standardnews criteria dictate that only bad newsenter newspapers? And how can youexpect a small German newspaper toreport upon all small oil spills all over theworld, if they are insignificant and do notinvolve Germans? All journalists learnthese news criteria at school. Bad newsdrive the political agenda, just think aboutthe fear of job loss to China and the East-Asian Tsunami. But ecologists have realtrouble finding an enemy these days, sincewe have all become part of the problem.Picking George Bush as the culprit behind

global warming just will not do.From a personal perspective, Isomehow had the feeling that I hadheard these viewpoints before. Itwould be a strange day, after all, ifone heard a lobby organisationsuch as Greenpeace saying thatthey were satisfied with the level ofattention they get from the media.Their job is to strive for moreattention to ecological issues, afterall. Likewise, you will not expect ajournalist, out of sheer moral com-

mitment to the good ecological cause, togive up on his or her professional stan-dards. These kinds of debates tend to getyou nowhere. Furthermore, there mightbe more sensibility in listening to somesuggestions from the audience. Onemember of the audience made the pointthat, instead of complaining about thenews media, ecologists need to come upwith attractive stories to tell. Backing thispoint, another participant of the Congresstold about an American PR company,which succeeded in raising the level ofenvironmental awareness by working withlocal-level news media. It seems, we haveto work together with the news media andjournalists that we have if we want to pro-mote ecological thinking. After all, envi-ronmental issues have always been badnews, they have always been problems;this is their fundamental image. With sucha 'good' product on their hands, ecologistsreally only have to blame themselves ifthey fail to attract media attention! And bythe way, I still remember both: Brent Sparand BSE.

(Summary by Anders Blok, participantfrom Denmark)

2.8 Presentations of the participantsSunday, 26th June

The participants grouped according totheir home countries in order to devisefeasible models for several countries andfor the EU in order to safeguard the rightsof Future Generations.

The presented solution for the EU leveldoesn't include a change of the draft con-stitution, given the fact that its ratificationis jeopardized. Instead a combination ofan Ombudsperson and a parliamentarycommittee was proposed. The existingOmbudsperson who is engaged withcomplaints about the present will not bereplaced. He has enough work to do andhe has very limited resources. Instead ofcreating an extra Ombudsperson, it is also

possible to elect an "guardian" or "coun-sellor". The new counsellor should act ona European level but should also be con-nected to national ombudesmen/institu-tions in order to be interlinked with thecountries. The general public can eitheraddress the EuropeanOmbudsperson/Counsellor directly orwith the help of national representatives.In addition to the Ombudsperson, aCommittee for Future Generationsshould be created on the European levelas a body within the European Parliamentitself. This Committee should have thepower to freeze the law-making processwith regard to proposals which will havedetrimental effects on FutureGenerations. A possibility to lobby in theEuropean Parliament is the presentationof the English "HandbookIntergenerational Justice" and after this, aparliamentary committee, consisting ofmembers of each party should be formed.Which committees are there right now inthe European Parliament? We have com-mittees for Education, Culture, Sports,Fisheries, Environment and Agriculture,Budget, etc. Probably it is controversial ifwe really need two institutions(Ombudsperson and committee).A alternative solution could be to give thepresent Ombudsperson more rights.

In Finland, a Committee for the futuredoes already exist, but it should adopt amore active role. The realisation of anamendment in the finish constitution isvery complicated. Many Ombudspersonsfor different things do exist, but maybe acheck-list for decision makers is needed ormore researches on long-term effects hasto be done.

In Greece, Intergenerational Justice is notmentioned in the constitution, but theprotection of environment, forests, mon-uments and the historical sights isreferred.Small steps are necessary because theproper implementation of regulations ismore important than a new legislation.From the demographic point of view,more children are needed. If there aren'tany children, we won't have a FutureGeneration. The constitution should referexplicitly to Future Generations.Committees already exist and a new onefor Future Generations has to be created.Furthermore, an Ombudsperson, withcontrolling and auditing competencesshould be created. He should be electedby parliaments and should be a scientistwith experiences in Sustainability. In addi-


Photo: Matthias Urbach, Edgar Göll, Svenja Koch, Jörg Geier(from left to right)

tion, we have to raise awareness for futureproblems.

What can be done to improveGenerational Justice in Malta? There aredifferent ways: for example, references inthe constitution and/or the setting up ofan institution. We won't achieve much ifthere are no specific laws that is whychanges also must affect laws below theconstitution level.The best solution is a new institutionalset-up, but in this case, there is somereluctance by the decision-maker. The sec-ond-best solution is an office in the primeministry to vet all laws to there long-termeffects. A third solution can be an amend-ment of the existing structure, namely toenlarge the responsibilities of the com-missioner for the children. However, thisinstitution has been established onlyrecently so it will not be changed, soon.National Sustainability is already imple-mented in Malta by an Ombudsperson forsustainable development. His tasks are todevise a national strategy together withkey government entities. He is wellrespected, but he could need an assistant.

The constitutions of Poland and theCzech Republic don't need to be changed.Instead, a new Ombudsperson should becreated for Future Generations. ThisOmbudsperson has to be consultedmandatory and every law should passthrough his office. He can delay, not vetobills and add his opinion to it. TheOmbudsperson should cooperate withNGOs and civil society opinions and deci-sion-making concerning FutureGenerations and sustainable develop-ment.Further rights for him could be to claimthe constitutional court if the rights ofFuture Generations are infringed and theright to propose laws.He needs constant financial supportbecause the financial status might be themost important one. An Ombudspersonshould be selected by the Sejm. (InPoland, Sejm and Senate together formthe parliament). Furthermore, anOmbudsperson has to have a PhD andgood competences, should be indepen-dent and should have experience in sus-tainable development. His term should be5 years and it should not be possible todismiss him unless he/she committed acrime. A way of realisation could be influ-enced by associations and lobbying or aninitiative that comes from citizens. Inaddition, it is possible to start a campaignwith advertisement in order to raise public

attention. It is necessary, thatwe have severalOmbudspersons for sustain-able development andIntergenerational Justice. So,we need at least two spe-cialised Ombudspersons andone general.

For Russia, a change of theconstitution is no good idea,because it takes too much timeand it is a bad period for mak-ing change (3rd term ofPutin). In the current constitution, youcan find a lot about health, but not aboutsustainable development andIntergenerational Justice. However, achange in the Federal Constitutional Lawis imaginable. This law would be createdby the Commission. There have to be ini-tiatives in 89 regions, in city parliamentsand local governments. One importantaspect is to raise awareness, e.g. by mediacampaigns.

In the constitution of Slovenia andSwitzerland Future Generations orSustainability are not mentioned, but thereis a strategy for sustainable development.Don't make laws that can be broken, bet-ter invest more in education. The idea is tochange first people's mind and then theconstitution.

Summarising these different solutions, itcan be recognised that the participantswant to make top-down as well as bot-tom-up initiatives. For e.g. the Swiss par-ticipants, it seemed more appropriate tostir up a broad public debate beforeapproaching MPs. In other countries, thepublic debate would kick off when MPspresent a proposal to change theConstitution (like in Germany). It has tobe considered whether or not a society isalready prepared for the new ethical goalof ecological intergenerational justice. Butin all countries, campaigning will be neces-sary to reach the final goal: a better pro-tection of the Future Generations.

(Summary by Jörg Tremmel, YantiEhrentraut and Kristin Tecles, organisa-tion team)

2.9 Presentation: How to start aCampaign in EuropeSunday, 26th JuneSpeaker: Ann Mettler, ExecutiveDirector of the Lisbon Council asbl.

Ann Mettler told the participants of the

Congress about her personal experiencein the world of EU lobbying in Brussels.The Lisbon Council is a small but by farvery vivid Think Tank focusing on publicfinance and Sustainability of the social,and especially the labour sector. The actu-al situation in the EU is at all satisfying:there are 90 million unemployed, and 18.6% of them are young people. There arealso countries like Poland, where this per-centage is above 30. The Lisbon Council'smotto is: "Something needs to be done!".

Mrs. Mettler was listing some success-trig-gering factors of the Council's work: Thework was effectively focused from thevery beginning: the EU needs an econom-ic reform. It is important to outline alobby or campaign theme. "Better envi-ronmental policies" is too broad of anobjective. It is also highly essential toknow the ways of media-functioning.

In the Lisbon Council only two people areworking full-time, nearly each day one ofthe both gives and interview. Mrs. Mettlertold us about an open letter from LisbonCouncil to Councillor Schröder, whenLisbon existed only one month. The letterwas successfully received even by biggernewspapers. Mettler teaches us, that it isimportant to have the courage to talkfrankly and directly instead of being sopolite that the very point of the messagegets lost.It is also important to analyse carefully thepolitical day-to-day gossip, and then stayin phase of news cycle. Press releases areto be done quickly and distributed at theright moment. It is not enough to bring inrational voices. We should take use of theemotional power guiding human behav-iour! We have to prepare ourselves forleading roles of our struggles, becausewhy should always the same old eminentfaces be invited to share their establishedideas at each forum and board? Mrs. Mettler also encouraged women togain ground in different fields of tradi-


Photo: Ann Mettler gave a very enthusiastic speech

tional male power. What we need now isadvocacy and clearly formulated opinionson practical questions.According to Mrs. Mettler's observations,EU-politicians are "afraid" of pensioners.The challenge is to get the young peoplevote! The young should become aware oftheir actual marginal societal position andstart acting in order to change it. The EUneeds watch-dogs for the interests of theyouth.Intellectual freedom would also be impor-tant in EU-lobbying. It is possible to havesuccess with a small team, but on theother hand it would be important to havefull-time workers in order to maintain thepath of the media cycle, inter alia. Mrs.Mettler emphasised the importance ofworking with the business; it should notbe our enemy, and the ideas of sustainabledevelopment need to be widened from theenvironmental sector to other sectors.

(summary by Tuuli J. Lehtinen, participantfrom Finland)

2.10 Panel Discussion:"25 years after Johannesburg - visionsof an ecological Europe in a sustain-able world"Sunday, 26th JuneModerator: Jun. Prof. Dr. BerndSiebenhüner, Carl-von-OssietzkyUniversity OldenburgSpeakers: Timo Mäkelä, DirectorSustainable Development and IntegrationEuropean CommissionDr. Benedek Javor, Hungarian Initiativefor an Ombudsman for FutureGenerationsAnna Lührmann, German Greens andmember of the German ParliamentNira Lamay, Deputy Commissioner forFuture Generations, The Knesset

Timo Mäkelä emphasised one fact whichis dangerously ignored by so many actorsnowadays: There is simply no sustainablegrowth without real acknowledgement ofthe ecological limits of our world. Mr.Mäkelä told us about his discussions withRobert Watson, responsible of the UNMillennium Ecosystem Assessment; theactual situation of our planet does notlook too promising - we need to face it!In the EU, for example, 20 per cent of allthe waste flows are illegal. Even 40 percent of all our energy consumption is dueto the housing sector, which is growingstrongly. It is important to mediate, whichthings go first and on which level. There isonly one way ahead: we need to face prob-lems, realise them and, above all, take

action.

Waste is a good example forthe crucial need to change ourmentality: it needs to beunderstood as a crucialresource. We need mentalswitches also respect to tech-nology and services.Innovation is the only sustain-able way towards job creationand growth. We need to startrethinking the planning of products.

How should we proceed?, asked Mr.Mäkelä. It would be very simple to start:we need to implement all those appropri-ate decisions we have already made, butwhich have rested on theoretical level.Second, we need to search actively for allpossible synergies among economic, envi-ronmental and social development. Weneed clear targets. We also welcome glob-al thinking in European decision-making.We are to heal up our administrative cul-tures. Among the citizen are clear signs,expressed in different opinion polls, con-cerning worries and awareness of the peo-ple towards environmental issues. 64 percent, for example, of the Europeans placethe goal of clean environment beforegaining competitiveness.

Anna Lührmann and Benedek Jávorstressed the importance of checking thesoundness of global relations and rules.Nira Lamay called for genuine watch-dogsfor sustainable development. We havealready heard enough talks and fancyobjectives. Promoting rights of FutureGenerations is a good and fresh angle,from which to approach, again and withnew powers, sustainable development inall of its sectors.

During the final debate of the Congress,importance and weight of our very ownvisions and responsibility was stressed: Weneed to face own sacrifices and compro-mises in order to make a change.Everybody agreed on the need for rightsof Future Generations to be included inEuropean legislation. The new strategyfor sustainable development of theEuropean Commission is a proper toolstrengthen these themes, for examplethrough an extended impact assessmentprocedure.

With in the EU, actions for gender equal-ity are already well advanced. Similarly, it istime to start campaigning for intergenera-tional equality. There are several signs of

hope: Mr. Mäkelä referred to the strongright-wing religious groups in the UnitedStates starting to turn against the devastat-ing environmental politics of thePresident Bush: the Bible states we werecreated in order to cultivate and safeguardthe environment, not to destroy it. Withrespect to the Common AgriculturalPolicy (CAP), the European Commissionis preparing a reform where rural develop-ment is given special emphasis, and thewhole focus of production is turned fromsheer production volumes towards realneeds.

Mr. Mäkelä appealed to us that we need tounderstand economics. Economics is auniverse with partly irrational lines. Weare, for example, spending each year some21 billion euros on oil subsidies. At thesame time we keep on complaining aboutcosts of some 3 billion, which we wouldneed in order to mitigate climate change.The sheer numerical economic indicator,the Gross National Product (GNP) is adangerous development indicator. Weneed to ask ourselves clearly: which andwhat is the growth we want? We mightstart by writing a letter to theEnvironment Commissioner, Mr. StavrosDimas, in order to point out the necessaryfocus on rights of Future Generations.

(summary by Tuuli Lehtinen, participantfrom Finland)

3. Feedback

Above all the evaluation forms show thatthe entire Congress was a great success.Especially the study groups and the paneldiscussion "Bad news are good news - theimage of ecology in the media? were con-sidered very interesting by the partici-pants. The debate "13 years after Rio -how far are we in achieving ecologicalGenerational Justice in Europe?" got theevaluation "fair". The Panel Discussion"25 years after Johannesburg - visions ofan ecological Europe in a sustainableworld" was even more popular and was


Photo: Benedek Jávor, Nira Lamay, Prof. Dr. Bernd Siebenhüner,Anna Lührmann, Timo Mäkelä (from left to right)

described as interesting". 48 per cent likedthe "Simulation Game Fish Banks" and 28per cent liked it even very much. Oneaspect, that was a great compliment forthe organisers, was the result of the ques-tion: "Do you have the feeling you havelearned something more about the possi-bilities to institutionalise IntergenerationalJustice?" which was answered with: "Yes,completely" by half of the participants.The Congress met the expectations of 39per cent of the participants absolutely andof 58 per cent quite well. People decided,that the study groups "Commission forFuture Generations", "European strategy"and "Constitutional change" were mostinteresting of all.

One aspect, that was described as "fair"was the accommodation "AlteFeuerwache" in Berlin, while the"Friedrichstadt Church" got the adjective"good". In addition, the Congress venue"Haus Schwanenwerder" was consideredas "very good" by most of the people.This was also attributed to the entireorganisation before and during theCongress, too. Everybody agreed, that theCongress should be established as a peri-odic event and 68 per cent would partici-pate again. Finally, everybody answered,that they would you like to continue thework for Sustainability at once or proba-bly. The question "Would you like to starta campaign for institutionalisingGenerational Justice?" was answered indifferent ways: 39 per cent said clearly

"yes" but 61 per cent said, that thisdepends on external conditions like time,their personal priorities, the support ofother organisations and the interest ofpolitic parties.

We analyzed 37 evaluation forms of 48participants.

Voices of the Participants:4. Declaration of the Young LeadersCongress "Ecological GenerationalJustice into the Constitution?"

One vision shared by the youth of Europe

is that of Sustainability andIntergenerational Justice throughout theworld. We came together to seek solutionsfor one of the paramount problems ofour time: political short-termism.Democracies face a structural problem,namely the tendency to prefer the presentand to neglect the future. Every party triesto obtain votes, and has therefore to con-centrate itself on the short term perspec-tive, namely the preferences of the pre-sent electorate and the short-term inter-ests of influential groups. In this run forvotes the Future Generation may beneglected. Insofar politicians of all parties,


Debate: "13 years after Rio - how far are we in achieving ecological generational

justice in Europe?"

boring33%

f air40%

int erest ing20%

very int erest ing7% very boring

0%

Panel Discussion „25 years after Johannesburg - visions of an ecological

Europe in a sustainable world“

f air15%

very int erest ing35%

very boring0% boring

10%

int erest ing40%

Panel Discussion: "Bad news are good news - the image of egology in the

media?"

very interesting 50%

boring 0%

very boring 0%

fair 3%

interesting 47%

Study Groups

interesting32%

very interesting

60%

very boring0%

fair4%

boring4%

who want to look more ahead than thenext election, can have a disadvantage inthe competition with their short-termthinking political rivals. Democracy offersthe possibility for discussion. A more sus-tainable intergenerational framework willnot end the political competition, becausethis can also take place in the new frame-work.

Voting periods must not be too long.Otherwise the influence of the votersbecomes so small that it puts at risk thecore of democracy. However, as a conse-quence of the technological progress, theimpact of current action lasts long in thefuture and can have a drastically negativeeffect for many Future Generations.The framework for a fair future orientatedgenerational political system could beimproved by an institutional establish-ment of Generational Justice andSustainability. We agreed to form a net-work to further pursue these goals. Wewant to put Intergenerational Justice andSustainability on the political agenda.Being young people from different coun-tries, we will start initiatives to overcomethe problem of political short-termism.

(Adopted by all 48 participants on Sunday,26th of June 2005)

5. EPILOGUE

Looking back, we can say with a fair hintof pride: the Young Leaders Congress hasreached all its goals! The workshops,which were among the most importantevents, were very popular. Participants didnot only listen but they were motivated todo something on their own. The enor-mous engagement of the Young Leaderswas even a little surprising to us. Wehoped to attract people, who are interest-ed in Sustainability and GenerationalJustice, but we did not expect such a highdegree of enthusiasm. Participants did notjust listen and make notes during thedebates but joined the discussions veryactively. Moreover, the feedback showsthat the Young Leaders Congress wasmore than just interesting: it created acommunication-base for young peoplethroughout Europe. It is important for usto keep a balance between learning some-thing about current problems and havinga good time with people from othernations.

Furthermore, interest did not cease whenthe Congress was over: many peopleagreed to write summaries about debates

or workshop. This was a pre-condition forthis documentation, which consists to 80per cent of the work of participants.We are really happy about our achieve-ments. We hope, that we can arrange fur-ther congresses or similar events in thefuture and that our group of speakers,participants and organisers will be as ded-icated as they were this time.

6. BIOGRAPHIES OF SPEAKERSAND MODERATORS

Dr. Manfred BergmannHead of Unit Evaluation of transport,environment and energy policies,European Commission

- studied Mathematics and Economics atthe University of Münster, there he alsomade his PhD in Economics (Dr.rer.pol)- since 1988: he has been working as aneconomist at the Directorate General forEconomic and Financial Affairs of theEuropean Commission.- since 1998: he is head of a unit dealingwith the economic evaluation of environ-ment, transport and energy policies- in this capacity he was - amongst others- heavily involved in the development ofthe European Union's Strategy forSustainable Development (presentlyunder review) and the European ClimatePolicy, where he has - amongst others -contributed to the development of theEuropean emission trading scheme.

Johanna Brinkmann PhD-Candidate at the Chair forEconomic Ethics, University of Halle-Wittenberg

- studied International Business andCultural Studies in Passau- publications on Corporate Citizenship/Corporate Social Responsibility andPartnerships between the Private and thePublic Sector - worked for different Development AidOrganizations in Southeast Asia and inGermany

Tile von DammDirector of Perspectives on GlobalPolicies (PerGlobal)- studied Political Science in Berlin andMarburg.- participant on the UN-Summits onSustainable Development (WSSD) and onthe Information Society (WSIS)- several publications on the future of theEuropean Union, global sustainable devel-opment and the information society

Joerg GeierDeputy Secretary-General, Club of Rome;Deputy Chairman, think tank 30

- Born in Heidelberg in 1975, Germany- Deputy Secretary-General at the Club ofRome, a global think tank- Deputy Chairman of think tank 30, theyouth link of the Club of Rome- Associate board member of theEuropean Support Centre of the Club ofRome- BA in European Business (EuropeanBusiness Programme: University ofApplied Sciences, Muenster, Germany, inconjunction with University ofPortsmouth, UK)- MBA (Golden Gate University, SanFrancisco, USA)- Fulbright scholarship (2001-2003); vari-ous honours and prizes- Selection committee of the GermanAmerican Fulbright Commission (2003)- Managed project teams, attended and co-organised conferences on various issuesconcerning international affairs

Dr. Edgar GöllInstitute for Futures Studies andTechnology Assessment Berlin

- born 1957- tool-and-dye-maker- studied Sociology, AdministrativeSciences and Social Sciences atUniversities and Postgraduate Colleges inBielefeld, Madison/USA, Speyer, John-F.-Kennedy-Institute of the Free UniversityBerlin, received his PhD at the Universityof Goettingen.- since 1995: works as ScientificResearcher at the IZT within the fields of"Future Studies" and "SustainableDevelopment"- major research topics: SustainableDevelopment, Local Agenda 21, FutureResearch, Political Participation,Technology Assessment, Globalisation- is on the editorial board of the periodi-cal "Zukünfte" (Futures), member of the"Agendaforum for SustainableDevelopment in Berlin und Brandenburg"and was expert in two consecutive InquiryCommissions of the House ofRepresentatives of the State of Berlinfocussing on Sustainability and LocalAgenda 21

Dr. Benedek JávorHungarian Initiative for an Ombudsmanfor Future Generations


- born in Budapest in 1972, MSc in biolo-gy from ELTE University- 1993-1997: he studied cultural anthro-pology and human ecology- assistant professor of EnvironmentalSciences at the Department ofEnvironmental Law, Pazmany PeterCatholic University, Budapest - 2000: he was a founding member of theenvironmental NGO 'Védegylet - Protectthe Future Society'- 2000-2002: he worked as secretary of theSociety's 'Representation of FutureGenerations' (REFUGE) programme- since 2003: he worked as spokesperson- he is author of several articles, including'Environmental crisis and the democraticstate' (2000), 'To dress it and to keep it'(2003), writer of the handbook'Introduction to Environmental Ethics'(all in Hungarian), editor of numerouspublications, e.g. 'Rights of FutureGenerations' (2001)

Michael KauchLiberal Free Democrats party and mem-ber of the German Parliament, certifiedpolitical economist

- born in Dortmund in 1967- 1986-93 successfully passed universitystudies in economics at the University ofDortmund- 1994 Consultant for Public Relations forFDP- parliamentary group of the stateparliament in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern- 1995-1999 Economic Policy Consultantfor Bundesverband Junger Unternehmer(BJU, Federal Association of YoungEntrepreneurs)- 1999-2003: Chief Executive Officer forBJU- since 1989 Member of the German lib-eral party FDP and the Young Liberals- 1990-93 Vice Chairman of the YoungLiberals in Dortmund, Chairman of theLiberal Students in Dortmund andMember of Students Parliament at theUniversity of Dortmund- 1993-95 Vice President of YoungLiberals of Germany- 1995-99 President of Young Liberals ofGermany- 1995-2001 Member of the federal boardof FDP Germany- since 1998 Chairman of FDP inDortmund- since 2001 Chairman of the FDPCommittee on Social Affairs- since 2003 Member of the GermanParliament

-liberal spokesman for Sustainable Development

-Member of the Parliamentary Council on Sustainable Development-Member of the Committee on environment-Member of the Commission "Ethic and Law of Modern Medicine"-Vice Member of the Committee on Health and Social Security

Markus KniggeFellow with Ecologic - Institute forInternational and EuropeanEnvironmental Policy

- studied Urban and Regional Planning atthe Technical University Berlin, Germanyand the Instituto Universitario diArchitettura in Venice, Italy.- fields of concentration were: urban plan-ning in developing countries and theurban environment- 2000: he graduated; his thesis is abouturban identity in multiethnic societies,using Penang, Malaysia, as an example.- As a scholar of the German AcademicExchange Service (DAAD) MarkusKnigge enrolled at the School ofadvanced International Studies, JohnsHopkins University as a graduate student.- during his two years of studies inBologna, Italy and Washington D.C. hefocused on International Economics,Energy and the Environment.- he passed his final examines with distinc-tion.- 2005: he successfully participated at theBucerius Summer School on GlobalGovernance.- Markus Knigge gained work experienceduring several internships in both publicand private institutions:-In Malaysia, he volunteered for a localNGO for which he developed a sustain-able development strategy for a historictown centre.-In 2004, Markus Knigge was JohnJ. McCloy Fellow in EnvironmentalAffairs and in 2005 ResearchFellow at the American Institute forContemporary German Studies,John Hopkins University.- He is a member of theTönissteiner Kreis, an associationdedicated to the promotion ofyoung international leaders.- currently working on EconomicGlobalisation and SustainableDevelopment.

- main interests: international economics,transatlantic relations, developing coun-tries, renewable energies and urban plan-ning

Svenja KochPress Officer, Greenpeace- born in 1964- 1984-1986: classic apprenticeship asjournalist at a daily newspaper inNorthern Germany- 1986-1988: scholarship holder of Henri-Nannen-Schule (7.course)- 1988-1995: she worked as editorial jour-nalist for environment amongst others atthe news magazine "Der Spiegel" and atNDR-radio- since 1995: Press Officer, Greenpeace- since November 2004: provisional"Head of Communications", Greenpeace

Nira (Rachel) LamayDeputy Commissioner for the KnessetCommission for Future Generations

- born in Tel-Aviv in 1972- studied Law at the University ofJerusalem, and is studying for her MA inPolitical Sciences "Politics, Society andLaw" in Tel-Aviv University.- 1998-2000: she worked for the CentralDistrict Attorney as a CriminalProsecutor.- 2000-2001: she was teaching assistant atthe College of Management BusinessSchool.- 2000: she worked as a legal advisor forthe Constitution, Law and Justice commit-tee of the Knesset.- since December 2001: she works for theKnesset Commission for FutureGenerations, a commission she participat-ed in the establishing of and in which sheis deputy commissioner and in charge ofLaw, Legislation and InternationalRelations, and coordinates Science andTechnology Issues.


Photo: Nira Lamay and Benedek Jávor

Anna LührmannMember of the German Parliament;Initiative to institutionalise GenerationalJustice in the German Constitution

- born in 1983 - 1992-1994: she was part of a"Greenteam" (Greenpeace youth group).- 1993-1999: she was member of pupil'scouncil and in 1998 of the executive com-mittee" of the Hessian Land associationof the Young Greens.- 1997-1999 and 2001-2003: she workedas Spokeswoman of the Hessian associa-tion of the Young Greens.- 2000-2003: she was member of Alliance90/The Greens county executive commit-tee.- 2000-2002: she was Delegate of theYoung Greens to the Federation ofYoung European Greens.- 2002: she was member of the federalexecutive committee of the YoungGreens.- since 2002: she was chairwoman of theGerman-Nordic Parliamentary FriendshipGroup and member of the GermanBundestag.- till 2004: she was also member of theGerman Bundestag's Committee on theAffairs of the European Union.- since October 2003: she studies atFernUniversität Hagen politics and organ-isation.- since September 2004: she is member ofthe German Bundestag's BudgetCommittee.

Timo Tapani MäkeläDirector Sustainable Development andIntegration, European Commission

- born in 1950- master of Technological Sciences(civil/water, sanitation and land use) andPost-graduate Diploma in SanitaryEngineering- 1974-1985: he worked for Regional andNational Water and EnvironmentalProtection Agencies, Finland.- 1986-1987: he was Senior Officer ofMinistry of Environment of Finland.- 1988-1989: he worked for Ministry ofMineral Resources and Water Affairs inGaborone, Botswana.- 1990-1993: he worked for Ministry ofEnvironment of Finland in Helsinki,Finland.- 1993-1996: he was employed at theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment in London, UK.

- since 1996: he works for the EuropeanCommission in Brussels, Belgium and inHelsinki, Finland.

Ann Mettler Executive Director of the LisbonCouncil.

- From 2000-2003, Ann Mettler worked atthe World Economic Forum, where shemost recently served as Director forEurope.- Prior to this appointment, she wasresponsible for the World EconomicForum's activities in the United States andCanada. During her tenure, Ann handledrelations at the highest level with govern-ments of over twenty-five countries,including six members of the G7. Shemanaged a team of six persons and was incharge of the conceptualization, organiza-tion and execution of economic summitsin Europe and the United States.- In addition, Ann provided content inputand regional expertise to four WorldEconomic Forum Annual Meetings inDavos.- From 1997-2000, Ann Mettler held posi-tions on the Governmental AffairsCommittee of the United States Senate, astrategic communications firm inWashington, DC and the Foreign PolicyDivision of the European Commission,Brussels.- Ann Mettler has contributed articles toThe Wall Street Journal Europe,Handelsblatt, FT Deutschland, EuropeanVoice, USA and Europe in Business, theannual publication of the EuropeanCouncil of American Chambers ofCommerce, and the Discussion Paperseries of the Center for EuropeanIntegration Studies. She has also appearedon 'Talk in Berlin', one of Germany'smajor live TV talk-shows.- A dual citizen of Germany and Sweden,Ann Mettler holds Masters degrees fromthe University of New Mexico, USA, andthe Center for European IntegrationStudies (ZEI) in Bonn, Germany

Dr. Karsten SachFederal Ministry of the Environment,Deputy Director General "InternationalCooperation"

- born in Gruberhagen in 1959, Germany.- 1984: First Law Degree- 1989: Second Law degree - 1993: Doctorate in Law - 1984-199: Researcher and lecturer at var-ious universities, mainly on environmentallaw

- Since 1991: Ministry for theEnvironment, Nature Conservation andNuclear Safety- 1991-1993: Division " Protection of theMarine Environment, International WaterProtection Law"- 1993-1997: Environment Attaché of thePermanent Representation of Germanyto the European Union- 1998-1999: Deputy Head of Division"International Co-operation, GlobalConventions, Climate Change"- 1999-2004: Head of Division"International Cooperation, GlobalConventions, Climate Change"- partici-pated in UNFCCC COPs 5, 6, 6 bis, 7, 8,9 and 10 as the German chief negotiator.- since 2004: Deputy Director General"International Cooperation"

Jun. Prof. Dr. Bernd Siebenhüner University of Oldenburg

- assistant professor of ecological eco-nomics and head of the GELENA-research group on social learning andSustainability at Carl von OssietzkyUniversity of Oldenburg(www.gelena.net).- deputy leader of the Global GovernanceProject (www.glogov.org).- a Ph.D. in Economics and Master'sdegrees in Economics and PoliticalScience- his research interests cover social learn-ing, Sustainability, corporate environmen-tal management, organisational learning,linking social and natural sciences, andstudies of human behaviour.

Dr. Jörg TremmelFoundation for the Rights of FutureGenerations (FRFG)- born in Frankfurt in 1970- Master's degree in business administra-tion from the European Business Schoolin Oestrich-Winkel,- Master's degree in political sciences fromthe Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universitätin Frankfurt- PhD in Social Sciences from theUniversity of Stuttgart. Dissertation title:'Population Policies in the Context ofEcological Intergenerational Justice'.Teaching assignments on several universi-ties.- since 1997 he is Director of theFoundation for the Rights of FutureGenerations (FRFG), a non-profit andnon-partisan think-tank with the objectiveof lobbying for the benefit of future gen-erations.


About 70 volunteers and interns work inthe foundation every year. FRFG washonored by the Theodor-Heuss-Medal in2000 and the Medal for Good Citizenshipof the town Oberursel in 2001.- Responsible for the organisation of sev-eral symposia and congresses (i.a. thebiggest youth congress at the EXPO2000), the Intergenerational Justice Awardof FRFG and other projects. Invitationsfor talks from German PresidentJohannes Rau, Minister of Justice HertaDäubler-Gmelin (3x), Minister of LabourWalter Riester (2x), Minister of HealthUlla Schmidt, Liberal Party Leader GuidoWesterwelle und Rolf-E. Breuer(Chairman of Deutsche Bank)- his main publications (all in German)are: 'The Generation Fraud' (1996) and'Sustainability as a political and analyticalcategory' (2003). He edited the"Handbook Intergenerational Justice"- many other of his articles were pub-lished in books and journals, including,'You have only borrowed this land fromus' (1997), 'The generation of 1968'(1998)and 'What is left of the past? The youngergeneration discusses the holocaust' (1999).- Member of e-fellows, Futur, tt30 inGermany, Thesis, AEGEE etc.

Matthias Urbachcorrespondent of the German daily news-paper TAZ, with the focus on environ-mental policy

- born in 1967- learned journalism at the renownedHenri-Nannen-School in Hamburg, andhas a university degree in Journalism fromthe Hamburg University, too.- is capital correspondent in the field of"Economy and Environment" of theGerman national daily newspaper TAZ.- as a trained physicist, he has been follow-ing up on environmental policy for eightyears.- reported among others on the interna-tional climate talks in Kyoto (1997) andBonn (2001)- other focal points of his work: financeand consumer policy, as well as sciencenext to his work for the TAZ he isGerman correspondent of "EnvironmentWatch", a newsletter for business and pol-icy professionals- he writes also now and then for scientif-ic magazines.- at the moment his main focus neverthe-less lies on his two little children: he lefthis TAZ-office in February for a one-yearparental leave

Prof. Michael Wallack - studied at the City College of New Yorkand the Syracuse University, USA- since 1970 till now: associate professorof political science at the MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland- published in 2002 an article with the title'Biological Innovation, Justice BetweenGenerations and the MinimumIrreversible Harm Principle' (in English),for the European consortium for PoliticalResearch- published in February 2004 the article'The minimum irreversible harm princi-ple: Green Intergenerational Liberalism'(in English) in 'Liberal Democracy andEnvironmentalism: the end of environ-mentalism?' published in the EuropeanPolitical Science Serie of Routledge

Ernst Ulrich von WeizsäckerChairman of the Bundestag Committeeon Environment, Nature Conservationand Nuclear Safety, Club of Rome

- born in Zuerich, Switzerland, in 1939- studied Chemistry and Physics (1965Diploma, Hamburg University) and Biology (Ph.D. Freiburg University,1969).- 1969-1972: Interdisciplinary Research inHeidelberg- 1972-1975: Professor for Inter-discipli-nary Biology at Essen University- 1975-1980: Founding President of theUniversity of Kassel- 1981-1984: Director at the UnitedNations Centre for Science andTechnology for Development- 1984-1991: Director of the Institute forEuropean Environmental Policy (IEEP)in Bonn, London and Paris - 1991-2000: President of the WuppertalInstitute for Climate, Environment,Energy- since 1991: Member of the Club ofRome- since Oct. 1998: Member of the GermanParliament-2000-2002: Chairman of theParliamentary Commission on Enquiry"Globalisation of the Economy -Challenges and Responses"- 2002-2004: Member of the WorldCommission on the Social Dimension ofGlobalization- since Oct. 2002: Chairman of theBundestag Committee on Environment,Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety - 1989: he received, together with theNorwegian Prime Minister, the ItalianPremio De Natura

- 1996: The Duke of Edinburgh GoldMedal of WWF International- 2000: Honorary Degree from theJapanese Soka University- 2001: he received the Takeda Award"Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievementfor World-Environmental Well-Being"

7. Participants, Organisers, Sponsors

48 Participants:Magdalena Abraham, Ramil Aliyev, AlvaroBarrio, George Baesu, Zlatko Blazevski,Anders Blok, Christina Chronaki, LjiljanaCumura, Jean-Paul De Lucca, YurivDerev'yanko, Rainer Engelken, Piotr J.Golebiewski, Jan Handl, Alexander Hauk,Caren Herbstritt, Till Horstmann,Themistoklis Kossidas, Amit Kossover,Aleksandar Kostadinov, Tuuli J. Lehtinen,Michael Liesner, Catherine Lippuner,Olha Lukash, Ilze Millere, NatalyaNesevrya, Peter Nestorov, KonstantinaPapadimitriou, Jerneja Penca, KairitPohla, Katerina Perraki, Georgi Petrov,Crina Pungulescu, Yves R.Regez, CarstenRiemeier, Isil Sariyuce, Julia Schlüns,Yaroslava Sennikova, Nancy Serrano,Anna Y. Shirokova, Monika Sokolowska,Ivaylo G. Stoimenov, Robert D. Tesh,Noriko Teranishi, Katrin Tomson, T. OrasK. Tynkkynen, Martien Van Gool, StevenWouters, Felix Zurro

23 countries were represented:Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, CzechRepublic, Denmark, England, Estonia,Finland, Germany, Greek, Ireland, Israel,Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, PolandRussia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain,Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine

Organisers:The event was organised by theFoundation for the Rights of FutureGenerations (FRFG) in cooperation withthe Protestant Academy Berlin (EAB), theInstitute for Futures Studies andTechnology Assessment (IZT), Youth forIntergenerational Justice andSustainability Europe (YOIS Europe) andAEGEE Europe.

Foundation for the Rights of FutureGenerationsThe FRFG is a non-profit and non-partyresearch institute linking the academicworld with the world of politics. Throughits practice-oriented research it deepensthe knowledge of IntergenerationalJustice and Sustainability. Young acade-mics and students from different back-grounds work on different interdiscipli-


nary projects within the FRFG, such asthe quarterly journal "GenerationalJustice!", which is published three times ayear in German and once in English. TheFRFG has published several books andorganises seminars and discussions on aregular basis. The FRFG is not a thinktank satisfied with describing the currentsituation, it also wants to change societyactively. Its aim is to create more aware-ness for Future Generations and to spreadthe ideas of Intergenerational Justice andSustainability.(Involved activists: Tobias Kemnitzer,Jörg Tremmel, Caterina Bressa, ThomasWiechers, Yanti Ehrentraut, PaoloZucchini, Kristin Tecles, AndreaHeubach, Laura Memmert)

Protestant Academy BerlinThe Protestant Academy in Berlin is aninstitution of the Protestant Church inGermany that advances dialogues onpolitical, social and cultural problems oftoday and the future. By running anexchange of ideas between lifestyles, opin-ions, sciences, religions, philosophies andgenerations, the Protestant Academygreatly contributes to the political cultureand encourages people to be part of a civilsociety. It also practices a long-term dia-logue on sustainable economy, environ-mental politics and IntergenerationalJustice.(Involved activists: Rosalita Huschke,Marcus Götz-Guerlin, RobertScheunpflug)

Institute forFutures Studiesand TechnologyAssessmentThe Institute forFutures Studiesand TechnologyAssessment isan independentand non-profitresearch insti-tute, founded in1981. The mis-sion of the IZTis to conduct

interdisciplinary futures studies with along-term impact on society. Future devel-opments do not concentrate on single dis-ciplines or issues, but consist of variousinterdependences and overlaps that haveto be considered in research and action.The scientific work at the IZT has alwaysbeen characterised by the combination ofbasic research and practicable results.(Involved activists: Prof. Dr. RolfKreibich, Dr. Edgar Göll)

YOIS EuropeYOIS Europe is a European youth organ-isation for Intergenerational Justice and

Sustainability. A further goal of YOIS ispromoting European integration. Theorganisation was founded in 2000 during aEuropean youth Congress at the EXPO2000 in Hanover. (Involved activist:Carsten Wenzlaff)

AEGEE EuropeAEGEE is one of the biggest interdisci-plinary student associations in Europe; itis represented by 17.000 students, active in260 academic cities, in 42 countries allaround Europe, which presents amazingculture variety. AEGEE is a secular, non-profit organization, not linked to anypolitical party. All projects and activitiesare based on voluntarily work of its mem-bers.Aims:- to promote a unified Europe withoutprejudices - to strive for creating an open and toler-ant society of today and tomorrow - to foster democracy, human rights, toler-ance, cross-boarder co-operation, mobili-ty and European dimension in education.(Involved activists: Kamala Schuetze,Robert Tesh)


Main Sponsor: German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU)

Sponsors:Federal Ministry for Education and Research Protestant Academy BerlinDeutsche TelekomKörber-StiftungFoundation for Rights of Future Generations

Photo: The participants on top of the German Reichstag

Photo: Organisers at work


Due to technological progress it isever more possible to assess eco-nomic, ecological and other

risks for future generations. Thus, we areobliged to face the responsibility and tocare for the realisation of intergenera-tional justice. In the following,Birnbacher approaches the actual proce-dures including ethical appropriateness.Concerning daily decisions, we especiallyhave to overcome our daily minimalismand complacency in order to take moralresponsibility for future generations.

Taking up the responsibility for futuregenerations

Present activities catalysed by moderntechnologies are affecting the lives offuture generations considerably; in a posi-tive as well as in a negative way. More andmore things are entering the sphere ofhuman control, and we have a growingpossibility to detect early enough future

dangers and risks. These factors lead to anextension of our responsibility for futuregenerations. In spite of the difficulties likeopportunity costs, restricted human abilityand foresight, modern collective agents(present governments and leading indus-trial companies) have to take their respon-sibility for future generations. How to ful-fil this task has to be based on fundamen-tal ethics and has to be well defined

regarding different scopes.

How to fulfil this task

To fulfil this task, the entire foreseeablefuture should be included. Moreover, our

parents’ responsibility and neighbour loveought to be broadened to distant love.The objects of responsibility can be dif-fered ideally in anthropocentric, patho-centric and biocentric visions. However,in concrete situations these ideal visionsare, in case of conflict, focused in favourof the human being.

Regarding the content of our responsibil-ity for future generations,we have to care for a sus-tained preservation ofthe resources needed forhuman survival.Nevertheless, it need notbe so extensive that wehave to take care of acultural enrichment forfuture generations.Comparing the responsi-bility for present genera-tions with the one forfuture generations, wecan distinguish a maxi-mal and a minimalapproach. In a maximalapproach, we have to

invest the resources of today, whereverthe welfare of future generations can beincreased.

Realising generational justice in dailylife

In daily life, we follow the minimalist way,whereby we just have to preserve the

stock of resources without making furtherprovisions. However, ethically, this is notsufficient because we neglect the naturalgrowth of populations and refrain fromimproving future generations. In reality,

even the fulfilment of this minimum stan-dard is not always given. In economicmodels future utility is often devaluated infavour of present use by pragmatic con-siderations. This vision can be objectedwhile appealing to the principle of impar-tiality of the moral point of view. Theconflict between pragmatic and moralconsiderations confronts us with theproblem of too little motivation to takeresponsibility for future generations. Westill favour the present and our nearestfriends. We have to cultivate the motiva-tion for a future ethic by developing aconsciousness of one’s own temporalposition in the sequence of generationsand to create a generation-transcendingsense of community. One possible way tofulfil this task is the model of a hypothet-ical future market. According to this, theneeds and interest of future generationshave to be represented on an institutionallevel, by spokesmen, group actions, courtdecisions and commissions. Hopefully,this would be one effective step towardsrealising generational justice.

Dieter Birnbacher isProfessor for philosophy atthe Heinrich HeineUniversity of Düsseldorfin Germany.Contact: PhilosophicalInstitute, Heinrich HeineUniversity; 40225

Düsseldorf, Germany, [email protected]

“The best test for the consciousness of man is probably hisreadiness to make sacrifices for future generations – whose

gratitude he will never receive.”Unknown

Responsibility for Future Generations: Scope and Limitsby Prof. Dr. Dieter Birnbacher

According to Dierksmeier, JohnRawls’ theory on justice forfuture generations fails to

explain the need to guarantee the rights offuture generations. Intergenerational jus-tice cannot exclusively be explained byrational choice theory and sheer humanself-interest. In contrast, a moral-based,metaphysical explanation is essential tojustify generational justice.

Reviewing Rawls’s Theory

The review of the theory of Rawls, devel-oped in the 1960s/1970s, starts off by sit-uating it within a broader philosophicalframe of that time period. In the seven-ties, there was a movement that saw meta-physics as an obscure and irrational sci-ence. Models based on a rational choicetheory had to serve a more reason-basedexplanation of traditional metaphysicaltopics.In his book “A Theory of Justice”, pub-

lished in 1971, Rawls examines whichsocietal structure serves the human inter-est best, based on the fundamentalassumptions of rational choice theories.Following Rawls, society is a cooperativeventure for mutual advantage, where themutual advantage is greater than the indi-vidual gain so that each and every individ-ual finds its interests better served withinrather than without a societal setting. Themain problem of a society, continuesRawls, are conflicting individual claims.This issue has to be solved by principlesof justice. According to Rawls these prin-ciples are not based on metaphysical,moral ideas, but voluntary chosen byrational beings, applying a method of

rationalisation. To explain this method,Rawls uses several new concepts and prin-ciples, namely “the original position”,“ the difference principle” and “the savingprinciple”. According to Rawls, everyonedesires to minimise the risk of losing out,through schemes of a too unequal socialdistribution. Therefore, we make correc-tions on the result of the “natural lottery”,by guaranteeing a social minimum foreveryone. Individual differences areaccepted, insofar as every deviation meansan advantage for the whole community (=difference principle). We have to savemoney to organise certain social institu-tions that arrange this justified distribu-tion (=saving principle).

Detecting the Defaults

The defaults in this theory of Rawls canbe summed up as follows: it justifies onlyquantitative saving rates and not qualita-tive ones, and the contractual approach islimited to our relations with other ‘physi-cally existing’ persons. Rawls was con-

scious of this lack, and tried to enlarge histheory to cover responsibility for futuregenerations. He found a solution by for-mulating an emotional interest of ‘headsof families’ for the immediate descen-dants. This interest results in a continuityfrom one generation to another. Withinthis chain, all generations can virtually berepresented in the original position. Itshould be criticised that “an emotionalinterest in descendants” is not very ratio-nal, and that Rawls makes adaptations onhis concept “original position” withoutclearing out the new conditions.Ultimately, it thus needs to be askedwhether having no offspring would not bethe most rational decision of all?

In his book “Justice of Fairness. ARestatement” (2001) Rawls mainly dealswith the question in how far the presentgeneration is bound to respect the claimsof its successors. Rawls refrains from theconcepts “mutual care” and “intergenera-tional agreement”, but creates a principleto hand over to others what you also wantfor yourself. However, this principlemeans important restrictions for the self-interested rational ‘maximiser’. Whyshould an individual follow this principlethen?

A Need for Metaphysics and Morality

Rawls has divided the rationality concepttherefore in “reasonable” and “rational”.Rational, refers to the maximising logic;reasonable, is related to value judgmentsand moral wisdom. Reasonable personsdesire a social world for their own sake,free and equal, where they can cooperatewith others in terms that everybody canaccept. However, this “reasonable” idea -value judgements, moral wisdoms, and theidea of free and equal - is no longer com-patible with the methods of logic calculusand game theory. Rawls did not manage tojustify responsibility for future genera-tions by mere individual interest.The conclusion follows that responsibilityfor future generations, for instance withregards to the earth and its biodiversity,cannot be explained by the theory ofRawls but is still only justified by a highermoral metaphysical principle.

Claus Dierksmeier isAssociate Professor for phi-losophy at Stonehill-Collegein Easton / Boston, USA.Contact: Martin Institutefor Law and Society,Stonehill College, 320Washington St. Easton.

MA, USA; [email protected]


John Rawls on Rights of Future Generations by Prof. Dr. Claus Dierksmeier

All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel thoseof the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and

hence we often make troublesome changes without amend-ment, and frequently for the worse.

/Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)/

The article postulates a well-con-sidered use of science and tech-nology at the service of all

humankind - guided by the ethical princi-ples of intergenerational solidarity, co-operation, sharing, justice and equity. Inthis light the concept of ‘common heritage’is introduced and the implementations ofthe Rawlsian ‘just savings principle’ ongenerational justice is criticised. Finally, arelational theory of intergenerational jus-tice is proposed.

Common Heritage Concept

Future generations need to be protectedbecause they are in a disadvantaged posi-tion with respect to the present generationwho has the power to affect badly theirquality of life. Natural as well as culturalenvironments need to be saved for thewell being of future generations. Eachgeneration is both a trustee of the planetfor future generations and a beneficiary ofits fruits.This implies obligations to care for theplanet and certain rights to use it. Suchobligations are formulated by the commonheritage concept that was put forward for thefirst time by the government of Malta in

1967. This concept is not a new theory ofproperty, but in fact implies the absenceof property. Its key consideration is accessto the common resources rather thanownership of it.The assignation of a proxy for future gen-erations to alert the international commu-nity of the threats to the well being offuture generations would be the mostappropriate step in the right direction tosafeguard the quality of future life. This“guardian” should, as authorised personor body, represent future generations atvarious international committees, particu-larly at the U.N. level.

Rawls and Intergenerational Justice

In the next section the Rawlsian view onintergenerational justice is sketched andcriticised.Rawls claims that a theory of justice hasto apply to all members of a society,whether they are living intratemporally orintertemporally. However, his core princi-ple for the relationship between genera-tions, the just saving principle, is counteract-ing this aim by limiting the duties to suc-ceeding generations. It is explained thataccording to this principle every genera-tion is expected to hand on to its interme-diate posterity a somewhat better situationthan they have inherited. So the best wayto create a better future is by improvingthe conditions of life now and passing onthe results to its descendants.Rawls alters the motivational assumptionsthat he originally made regarding the con-tractual partners in order to get the justsaving principle out of the original situation.He has introduced this methodologicalchange because he had reasoned that self-interested individuals in the original posi-tion would disregard the rights of futuregenerations and would choose not to saveanything for them unless it is assumedthat they already have affections for theiroffspring in the original position.

Rawls explanation of intergenerationaljustice in terms of the just saving principlehas in a way restricted transgenerationalmoral relationship only to overlappinggenerations. His theory lacks the ability toprovide an ethical framework to underpinthe contemporary moral concern for thefar distant future generations. In somecases the just saving principle might rather bea threat to than a defence of the rights offuture generations.

Whitehead and the Concept of“Common Good”

The weakness of the Rawlsian theoryindicates the need of a different approachto intergenerational justice. The relational

metaphysics of A.N. Whitehead whosevision of the past, present and future real-ity as a unified whole implies a new per-spective on social ethics, can offer an eth-ical base for a theory of intergenerationaljustice. His philosophical system putsemphasis on the fact that the acts of everyindividual are necessarily social and rela-tional. A person is constituted by its rela-tions and has no other existence than as acreative synthesis of these relations.Whitehead’s philosophical understandingof the universe as an interconnected webof relations as well as the ontologicalnature of the relational self offer a newparadigm of human society. This newpoint of view implies that every society isseen as just one sector of a global com-munity. Interdependence does not endwith the nation or even the global com-munity. Relations extend not only overspace but also across time. Every genera-tion is related to all preceding and suc-ceeding generations which collectivelyform the community of mankind as awhole.One of the central notions of social ethicsis that of common good. Compared to thetraditional view the concept of commongood is defined from a much broader per-spective within a ‘Whiteheadian’ system: itis the good of mankind as a whole.

According torecent ecologicalawareness theconcept of com-mon good mustinclude also thenatural resources

of the earth. The atmosphere, the oceans,the outer space and all the naturalresources belong to all generations. Theduty to share not only with the present butalso with future generations has to basedon the concept of social justice, analogousto welfare provisions for handicapped oraged members of the present society.Social justice forbids any generation toexclude other generations from a fairshare in the benefits of the common her-itage of humankind.

Principles of IntergenerationalResponsibilities

To achieve justice between generations, itis important to recognise the following


Intergenerational Justiceby Ass. Prof. Emmanuel Agius

“Future Generations should be inheritors, not survivors.”/George Schaller, (1933-) mammologist, naturalist, conservationist and author/


principles of intergenerational responsi-bilities. The three principles were devel-oped by Prof. Edith Brown Weiss in herbook "In Fairness to Future Generations(1989), Tokyo/New York: United NationsUniversity Press/Transnational Publi-shers".

First, each generation should be requiredto conserve the diversity of the naturaland cultural resource base, so that it doesnot unduly restrict the options available tofuture generations in solving their prob-lems and satisfying their own values.

Second, each generation shouldbe required to maintain the quality of lifeof the planet so that it is passed on in noworse condition than the present genera-tion received it, and should be entitled toa quality of the planet comparable to theone enjoyed by previous generations.

Third, each generation shouldprovide its members with equitable rightsof access to the legacy from past genera-tions and should conserve this access tothe legacy from past generations andshould conserve this access for futuregenerations.

Let us hope that there will be some grati-tude from future generations for the pre-sent one for the efforts taken to hand overto them a better world.

Emmanuel Agius isProfessor of MoralTheology andPhilosophical Ethics atthe University of Malta.Contact: Faculty ofTheology, University of

Malta, Msida MSD 06, Malta,[email protected]

Justice Between Generations: Limits of Procedural Justiceby Prof. Michael Wallack

Michael Wallack investigatesthe difficulties of liberal theo-ries with respect to the field of

justice between generations. He criticisesRawls’ remarks on IntergenerationalJustice and offers as a solution thePrinciple of Minimum IrreversibleHarm (MIH). He then evaluatesBeckerman’s thesis on the impossibility ofa theory of intergenerational justice.

Modifying Rawls: The MinimumIrreversible Harm Principle

Both utilitarian and liberal democraticcontract theorists such as John Rawls havecome to the question of justice betweengenerations with the expectation that itcould be addressed by a simple extensionof the principles used to address distribu-tive justice for contemporaries, but have inthe end required special assumptionsabout the benevolence of present day cit-izens to provide a plausible account howfuture citizens are to be protected fromharm by those living now. Utilitarians suchas J.S. Mill assumed that benevolent citi-zens would value the long run interests ofmankind enough to protect them. Butaltruistic regard for the future may not bea majority preference when more immedi-ate interests take center stage. The "great-est good for the greatest number" may inpractice mean the greatest good for theactive and aware participants in a polity.

Rawls contended that fairness alwaysrequires that the only inequalities that can

be regarded as just, in the present orbetween present and future, are those thatare to the advantage of the least well off.And Rawls proposed that future harms bevalued without reduction for futurity buthe allowed as fair discounting for oppor-tunity costs-at the interest rate applied torisk free investments. Yet this discountingwould reduce all long term harms to zerocost and not protect future citizens. TheRawlsian "difference principle" wasintended to establish a right for the bene-fit of the least well off to see inequalitiesin the distribution of the most importantresources limited to those necessary forthe wellbeing of the entire polity. Butbecause of Rawls' support for opportuni-ty cost discounting his difference principlewould not protect future generations.

Because I support the Rawlsian accountof liberal democratic institutions given inhis book , A Theory of Justice, but believethat his account of justice between gener-ations is flawed, I offer a modification ofhis account which I refer to as theMinimum Irreversible Harm Principle(MIH). According to this principle irre-versible harm is to be minimized andactivities that are undertaken within thisminimum are to be limited to the shortestfeasible time and smallest feasible loci ofapplication. Cost benefit calculationsmust be divided between reversible andnon reversible costs and the irreversiblecosts need to be constrained by the MIHprinciple rather than simply being coun-terbalanced by benefits. I mean the MIHprinciple to be one principle among oth-ers within a liberal democratic state, and Imean it to apply only to polities that are

reasonably well off-the conditions for lib-eral justice assumed by Rawls.

MIH Into the Constitution

In response to Wilfred Beckerman's rejec-tions of any effort to include the futurecitizens in the protections provided by asystem of constitutional rights, I note thatBeckerman himself offers a theory of jus-tice for future citizens implicitly at least inhis contention that we today have a moralobligation to avoid doing severe harm tofuture people. In my view, the minimumharm irreversible harm principle is anexample of such a commitment when andif it becomes part of a constitutionalframework. In this way a constitution willprovide a fair system of social coopera-tion that will protect each generation andnot simply those now living

Michael Wallack isAssociate Professor ofpolitical science at theMemorial University ofNewfoundland. Contact:Department of PoliticalScience, MemorialUniversity of

Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL A1B 3X9,Canada; [email protected]


From a philosophical point ofview, the implementation of gen-erational justice needs to be based

on a moral framework. For this purpose,Christoph Lumer develops in his articlefive principles. The validity of these basicaxioms is then tested with a special focuson the gap between rich and poor coun-tries.

The Five Axioms

Generational Justice is justice within a par-ticular area, namely concerning the rela-tions between different generations.Hence, in the simplest case, maxims ofgenerational justice could be seen as theapplications of norms of general justice.These general norms are themselvesdeduced from moral axioms behind them.Five such axioms should be presented andexplained to show briefly which demands

arise from these principles:Principle 1: Ethical hedonism: Only the wel-fare of human beings and more highlydeveloped animals is intrinsically morallyrelevant.Principle 2: Beneficiary universalism: Allhuman beings - and to a limited degreemore highly developed animals as well -should be equal beneficiaries of themorality of a subject, independent fromspace and time. Thus, beneficiary univer-salism excludes among other things tem-poral discounting, that is, a lower consid-eration of the fate of future generations.Principle 3: Prioritarianism: The moralvalue of an action or a norm is roughlydetermined by the thereby producedchanges in human welfare. More precisely,though, it should be given more weight isgiven to changes in welfare of subjects

worse off.Principle 4: Limited commitment: Moralcommitment should reach at least a bitbeyond socially valid moral duties,which are legally or socially sanctioned.A further increase of commitment isnot a moral duty. The principle demandsthe maximum of what can be demand-ed from rational subjects and helps tomaintain achieved standards. At thesame time, it raises moral commitmentin the historical long term.Principle 5: Efficiency or economy principle:Moral commitment should be efficientand employed where the ratio of costand moral benefit is the mostfavourable.

Generational Justice in Real Life?Applying the Principles

The actual developments seems to lead toa reduction of the intergenerational sav-ings rate (referring to pensions politics,

high youth unemployment, unrestrainedconsumption of non-renewableresources, hardly restrained emissions ofgreenhouse gases). This contradicts theprinciple of limited commitment, as itinfringes the informal duty to maintainthe intergenerational savings rate existingso far. Hence, it is a forbidden moral stepback. Developments seem to lead to aconsiderable lowering of welfare in theThird World countries. Therefore, theusual justification of the consumption ofnon-renewable resources, namely thatfuture generations will profit the mostfrom the thus paid progress, is not valid inthese cases.

Plausible assumptions concerning theactual developments imply that even ifcurrent policies are sticked to further on,

the future generations of the First Worldwill still be better off than the currentlydominant ones - and thus, also a lot betteroff than future Third World generations.Because of this, the ratio of cost to moralbenefit within the Third World countrieswould be the most favourable. Besidesthis, many damages provoked by thegreenhouse effect only become socialproblems because of widespread poverty.Therefore, direct investments in the ThirdWorld’s development would probably bean efficient means to considerably reducedamages caused by the greenhouse effect.If these empirical hypotheses are right, itshould be concluded as follows:According to the expounded principles,the morally most important and morallyobligatory steps towards generational jus-tice are firstly, considerable support forthe development of the poorest countries;secondly, the containment of the anthro-pogenous greenhouse effect; and thirdly,the reduction of youth unemployment.However, it remains unclear how impor-tant the reduction of the consumption ofresources is in proportion to these threemeasures.

Prof. Dr. ChristophLumer is Professor ofMoral Philosophy atthe University of Siena inItaly. Contact: Universita'di Siena,Dipartimento di Filosofia,Via Roma 47, I-53100Siena. [email protected].

Principles of Generational Justiceby Prof. Dr. habil. Christoph Lumer

“If you cannot realise your plans then you should get to knowthe future while considering the past and recognise the latent

through the evident. Planning in this way will lead to understanding.”

/Mo Di (about 480 B.C. until 390 B.C.), Chinese philosopher/

Theories of justice imply ascribing rightsto somebody or to some institution orgroup of people thus, if some class ofindividuals cannot be said to have anyrights their interests cannot be protectedwithin the framework of any coherenttheory of justice. The crucial argumentcan be summarized in the following syllo-gism:1) Future generations – of unborn people– cannot be said to have any rights2) Any coherent theory of justice impliesconferring rights on people, therefore3) the interests of future generations can-not be protected or promoted within theframework ofany theory of justice.The crux of the argument that future gen-

erations cannot have rights to anything isthat properties, such as being green orwealthy or having rights, can be predicat-ed only of some subjects that exist.In connection with the more specific jus-tification given for the goal sustainabledevelopment, namely that future genera-tions have rights to specific assets, such asthe existing environment and all its crea-tures, a second condition has to be satis-fied: this is that even people who do existcannot have rights to anything unless, inprinciple, the rights could be fulfilled.Future generations cannot have any rightsnow, and when future generations comeinto existence their rights cannot includerights to something that no longer exists,such as an extinct species. So attempts to

locate our obligations to future genera-tions in some theory of intergenerationaljustice are doomed to fail. But this wouldnot necessarily mean that future genera-tions have no ‘moral standing’ and that wehave no moral obligations towards them.For rights and justice by no means exhaustthe whole of morality. Since future gener-ations will have interests and since it istrue that our policies may affect theseinterests we do have a moral obligation totake account of the effect of our policieson these interests.

Wilfred Beckerman is an EmeritusFellow of Balliol College, Oxfordand Professor of economics atOxford University.


The Impossibility of Intergenerational Justiceby Prof. Dr. Wilfred Beckerman

Addressing the challengesposed by demographic changein most industralized coun-

tries leads invariably to issues of inter-generational justice: Can we realisticallyexpect future generations to take goodcare of their many elders? Are we impos-ing unacceptable levels of debt on futuregenerations?

In most industrialized countries theincrease in life expectancy and wealthcoincides with a drop of the fertility ratebelow the sustainability level of 2.1 chil-dren per woman. In Germany 1.3 millionchildren were born in 1964. One and ahalf generations later in 2003 this numberhad dwindled to 0.7 million children and afertility rate of 1.4.

Lack of fiscal sustainability of currentsystems

Life expectancy is certain to rise andthe share of older people in society willincrease whatever the progress on inte-grating migrants or increasing fertilityrates in Germany may be in the comingyears. Thus, the ratio of persons benefit-ing from the social system to persons con-tributing to the system is going to changedramatically ceteris paribus. As more andmore baby-boomers move from the con-

tributor side to the recipient side of thesocial security systems, the current sys-tems will be stretched beyond a breakingpoint. That is why any debate on sustain-able financing of retirement benefits andsocial security needs to focus on the qual-ity of public budgets and the principles ofintergenerational justice. It is becomingincreasingly accepted that exploding pub-lic debt violates the basic goal of intergen-erational justice.

A pragmatic approach to intergenera-tional justice

Experiences from other countries revealopportunities to break out of this patternof increasing debt. In Sweden, for exam-ple, a mandatory set of royal commissionssupports the legislative process in the longterm planning process. Long term socio-economic projections form the basis ofimportant laws. Furthermore a reform ofbudget legislation has led to a number ofautomatic control mechanisms to preventoverspending. These reforms have result-ed in a budget surplus after years of majordeficits.

We believe that these experiences shouldbe translated into German fiscal policyand into new control mechanisms: First ofall, a cross-party consensus needs to beestablished that intergenerational justiceinvariably calls for fundamental changes in

fiscal policy. To support the emergence ofsuch a fundamental consensus theBertelsmann foundation has cooperatedwith the ZEW, Mannheim, to build amonitoring tool for public debt at nation-al and federal level. Secondly, automaticcontrol mechanisms to prevent excessivedebt need to be institutionalized.Specifically, the Bertelsmann foundation isproposing a shared commitment to a per-manent combined surplus of 2% GDPfor federal and state budgets. Thirdly, thesanctions for failure to deliver on suchcommitments must be clear and drastic.One example could the automatic increasein taxes when certain debt thresholds arecrossed – a mechanism that has alreadybeen introduced in some Swiss cantons.Last but not least, we call for regular andlong term evaluation of budget structuresat all levels, with special attention todemographic robustness.

Dr. Johannes Meier is member ofthe executive board of theBertelsmann foundation. Contact:Bertelsmann Stiftung, D-33311

Gütersloh, [email protected]

Dr. Ole Wintermann is projectmanager at the Bertelsmann founda-tion. Contact: Bertelsmann Stiftung,Aktion Demographischer Wandel;

D-33311 Gütersloh, [email protected]

Towards a pragmatic Approach to Intergenerational Justice in Germany

by Dr. Johannes Meier and Dr. Ole Wintermann

T o realise and assure generationprotection, a reform of the socialcontract into a ‘generation con-

tract’ and its constitutional anchorage isneeded. The essay examines alreadyexisting forms of explicit as well as moreimplicit generation protection in numer-ous constitutions. Moreover, it sets a the-oretical framework for analysing andevaluating already existing text passagesand is therefore a basis for future consti-tutional changes.

Forms of ConstitutionalisingGenerational Justice

As the topic of sustainability and genera-tional justice becomes ever more relevantin various spheres like environment, pub-lic debt or our demographic future, it istime for an analysis from a very essentialperspective: the constitutional anchorageof generation protection with specialemphasis on the ‘time’ aspect.In the essay, a comparative text stageanalysis is applied in order to systematisethe recent flood of literature on constitu-tional rights for future generations. Apartfrom the explicit use of the formula of“generation protection”, it is also focusedon more indirect clauses inhering ‘culturaland/or natural heritage’. The preservationof both, nature and culture - with natureproviding the basic resources for culture -is essential to sustain human living condi-tions for future generations and is thuspart of ‘generation protection’.Concerning the systematic of the consti-tutional anchorage of generation protec-tion, there is one striking observationregarding different text stages:Innovations towards generational protec-tion often first develop on a regional level,for instance in the German Bundesländer,before they enter the state wide level.Another very topical sign of the intensifi-cation of generation protection is itsexpansion on the European level:Whereas its precursors, the treaties ofMaastricht and Amsterdam, incorporatedgeneration protection only immanently,the Treaty establishing a Constitution forEurope now mentions it explicitly. Alsoon the European level, different textstages can be observed in the form of a

mutual influence between member stateconstitutions and the supranational EU-level. Moreover, sub constitutional legalacts adopted by the European Court ofJustice play a role as well.The special difficulty regarding constitu-tional generation protection is its ambigu-ity. The two opposing key notions areobligation and exemption: On the onehand, generation protection impliesnorms and values that must be eternallyvaluable. On the other hand, these normsmust not constrain the coming genera-tions’ liberty to design their future world.Thus, a compromising middle coursebetween a certain degree of “eternityclauses” and sufficient flexibility is neededfor generation contracts.

‘Generation’ as a Concept - Setting aTheoretical Framework

For the interpretation of existing and theformulation of future law clauses on gen-eration protection, a theoretical frameneeds to be set. Tying up to the abovementioned human dependence on natureas well as culture, the notion “generation”is defined from a universal, anthropologi-cal perspective. Not only citizens of partic-ular countries are dependent of the pro-tection of nature and culture but everyhuman being all over the world. Thus, gen-eration protection needs to be fixed in theconstitution of every state in the world.To illustrate this need for universality, thephilosopher Hans Jonas is of great impor-tance, who modified Kant’s well-knownCategorical Imperative in terms of gener-ation protection: “Act so that the effectsof your action are compatible with thepermanence of genuine human life!”.Taking into account the changing tempo-ral dimension of the notion “generation”,it must be recognised that more and moregenerations of people live at the sametime. Mutual responsibility is thereforeever more topical and needs to be put intopractice – which consequently renders theanchorage of generation protection high-ly essential.In the last paragraph of the theoreticalframework, the importance of ‘culture’ asa tangible constant connecting differentgenerations is once more emphasised.Culture, which unites tradition as well asinnovation, is the basis for a generational

contract fixed in constitutional law.Rendering the more abstract conceptuali-sations more concrete, there are certainspheres that desperately need a connec-tion to generation protection: the out-dated pension system, the demographicchange, nuclear waste, growing statedebts, (un)employment, as well as educa-tion and formation.

Constitutionalising GenerationalJustice – A Tightrope Walk

The conclusion gives an outlook focusingon constitutional politics. Explicit as wellas more indirect forms of generation pro-tection, like the notion of “cultural her-itage”, are a normal expression of today’sgrowing constitutional state. The conclud-ing postulate recommends a balancebetween an anchorage of generation pro-tection in constitutional law which is nei-ther ‘too tight’ nor ‘too loose’. The livingconditions for future generations must beconstitutionally protected but not in a waythat the freedom of today’s generation todesign environment is constrained.Concerning the comparative text stageanalysis, a certain degree of competitionregarding constitutional law should beaccepted. However, the need for all-embracing universality of generation pro-tection - Kant’s ideal of a ‘world citizen’ -may not be ignored.

What remains to be seen in relation to theneeded generation contract is firstly itscontext like patriotism, civil society, orenvironmental protection, and secondlyits forum which could be God, nature, orhistory.

We can thus be curious of how the “gen-eration contract” will eventually beembedded in the state or even in one‘world’ constitution.

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. PeterHäberle is Director of theBayreuth Institute for EuropeanLaw and Law Culture as wellas the Research Institute forEuropean Constitutional Law,University of Bayreuth.

Contact: University of Bayreuth, 95440Bayreuth, [email protected]


A Constitutional Law for Future Generations - The “other”Form of the Social Contract: The Generation Contract

by Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Peter Häberle


The French Constitutional Charter for the Environment: AnEffective Instrument?

by Prof. Dominique Bourg

After briefly situating the FrenchConstitutional EnvironmentCharter in the international

law context, Bourg introduces the institu-tional process used to draw up this textand the connections it has with the gener-al theme of future generations. Then, heanalyses three articles of this Charterand points out some of the reasons lead-ing to believe its effect will be limited.

The Charter’s Origin

France was by far not the first country toinclude environmental protection andSustainable Development in itsConstitution. However, there is a relativeoriginality about the French approach as itmodified the preamble with reference to anew Charter. This Charter affirms theright to a healthy environment andincludes a universal responsibility princi-ple for ecological reparations. Despite thisuniversalistic perspective, the effective-ness of the Charter remains questionable.The institutional process of the Charterreaches back to the 1970s. Nevertheless,the ‘Coppens Commission’ to formulate itwas not set up until 2002. Concerning theformulation, the head of state, JaqcuesChirac, stepped in twice. The first time, herecommended a modification of the pre-amble combining two scenarios: The firstone referred to a Charter having constitu-tional value; in the second one, the right toa healthy environment was stated concise-ly, and an organic law (i.e., a higher level oflaw than ordinary law) was introduced. Inthe further course, the government rec-ommended either an organic law specify-ing the conditions in which the Charterapplied, or an extension of the rule of lawto the environment. Moreover, it wasstruggled whether the word ‘principle’should explicitly be mentioned, or if a ref-erence back to conditions defined by lawwould be more appropriate.The debate about the drafting was rathertense, especially concerning the precau-tionary principle. Thus, there was a timespan of one entire year between the adop-tion by the Council of Ministers and thevote in the Assemblée Nationale. Thisreveals quite a lack of enthusiasm for

environmental issues within the parlia-ment. The Charter was finally passed inFebruary 2005.

Relation to Future Generations:Strengths and Weaknesses of theCharter

With concern to future generations, thepreamble is of particular importance.With its global perspective, its object isclearly the future of humanity. The pre-cautionary principle characterises best thespirit of the preamble as it aims at pre-venting as much as possible the irre-versible deterioration of the environment.Almost all other articles are forward-look-ing. Problematic might be the contrastbetween the right “to live in an environ-ment that is balanced and favourable togood health” and the set of personalduties and government obligations withinthe following articles.Three particular articles, 3,4, and 5, shouldbe examined in more detail to reveal theCharter’s strengths and weaknesses.Concerning article 3, “Everyone has theright to live in an environment that is bal-anced and respectful of health”, a refer-ence to the notion ‘dignity’ was erased bythe government, which reduces the text tothe mere biological dimension. Moreover,‘well-being’ was replaced by ‘health’ whichboils down to ascribing a therapeuticvirtue to the environment. A third pointabout article 3 is the redraft of the refer-ence to individual health into publichealth which can be objectified and con-trolled.With regards to article 4, “Every personmust contribute to repairing the damagehe or she causes to the environment,under conditions defined by law”, the pol-luter-pays principle was broadened to aprinciple establishing ecological responsi-bility. A problematic aspect is the usage ofthe word ‘contribute’ as it sanctions mini-mal participation and makes minimalistlaws constitutional, which is too weak ofan approach.Article 5 gives a detailed definition of theprecautionary principle. It is the only arti-cle that is directly applicable under the“conditions defined by law” and does notdefine a constitutional objective.Moreover, the article identifies two

aspects regarding the assessment of cur-rent state knowledge, and the adoption ofmeasures aimed at reducing the risk.Leaving aside the controversies on formu-lation, for instance about the implementa-tion order, the precautionary principle ismost important for future generations andshould guide public policy. In addition, forIntergenerational Justice to be realised,action must be taken immediately andwithout delay.

A Gloomy Outlook

Concerning the effectiveness of there aremerely two options: Either it is effectiveor not at all. Unfortunately, the remedialrole of Charter is virtually inexistent. Thereason is to be found within the proce-

dures in France for referring a matter tothe Constitutional Council: The signaturesof at least 60 parliamentarians are needed,which makes it a very restrictive proce-dure. This amount of ecologically vigilantparliamentarians is at the moment notgiven. Finally, recent bills that were passedby the Senate reveal that the Charter actu-ally changes nothing. The French effort ofconstitutional anchorage ofIntergenerational Justice seems to stay atheoretical opus that is not put into prac-tice.

Dominique Bourg is aphilosopher and universityprofessor at the head ofthe CREIDD (Centre ofResearch andInterdisciplinary Studieson Sustainable

Development). He also teaches at Sciences Po inParis. Contact: Troyes University of Technology, BP2060, 12, rue Marie Curie, F - 10010TROYES CEDEX; [email protected]

The future is here. It's justnot widely

distributed yet.

/William Gibson (1948 - )/

Today´s generation has the capaci-ty to affect the future more thanever before in the history of

mankind. This article justifies the need toinstitutionalise Intergenerational Justice.Focussing on changes with regard tonational constitutions, it deals withBeckerman´s argument that future gener-ations cannot have rights.

The Structural Problem ofDemocracy: Future Individuals haveno votes

The principle of democracy can, in its tra-ditional and narrow form, conflict withthe maxim of Intergenerational Justice.However, rather than changing the exist-ing principle of short legislative periods,provisions for the rights of future genera-tions must be introduced into existinginstitutional practices.The need to appease the electorate in reg-ular elections in short intervals means thatpoliticians direct their actions towards sat-isfying the needs and desires of the pre-sent citizens — their electorate. The inter-ests of future generations are therefore alltoo often neglected.

However, today’s hi-tech advancementsmean that the consequences of our pre-sent undertakings, for instance nuclearenergy installations, will project into thefar future and can have a deeply negativeinfluence on the quality of life of numer-ous future generations. Until nowGerman nuclear power stations produced7,196 tons of plutonium waste products(PU-239). Plutonium has a half-life periodof 24,110 years meaning that there willstill be a gram of today’s plutoniumremaining in 789,471 years. Yet, even onesingle gram threatens human health. Ifone considers that humans have only writ-ten down their history since 10,000 years,it becomes clear how long the inheritanceof the present generations on the gener-ations to come lasts.In today´s elections, those individuals,who will be born in the future, can notparticipate. They are not taken intoaccount in the calculations of the politi-cian, whilst he is organising his re-elec-

tion. If they could make their interests inthe political decision-making processvalid, majority conditions in importantpolitical decisions would be different.Policy on energy may serve as an examplehere: At present, the form of power pro-duction, based on fossil fuels, as utilisedby today’s generation, facilitates a unique-ly high standard of living, but today’s gen-eration is thereby creating serious disad-vantages for itself and future generationsin the medium-term between the next fiftyto one hundred years. We already knowtoday that this energy policy leads toincreased levels of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere. As a consequence, the natur-al greenhouse effect is strengthened andtemperatures rise world-wide.Inundations, streams of refugees and newconflicts will be the future results of thisshort-sighted policy. Even if only thefuture individuals, who are born in the

next 200 years, could vote on the energypolicy, there would be a huge majoritiesfor a quick shift to renewables. Due to hislimited lifetime a presently acting politi-cian will not have to take responsibility forthe consequences of his actions and canalso no longer be made liable for them.Therefore the framework has to bechanged. Of course, this must happen insuch a way that the core of the democrat-ic principle remains intact.

The Conversion of New Future Ethicsinto Positive Law

Changes to the constitution or the cre-ation of new institutions – what servesthe purpose better? In the written lawsolution, the protection of generations tocome is written directly in theConstitution. The Constitutional Court ofeach country becomes the institutionwhich watches over the rights of genera-tions to come and weighs it against theinterests of present generations respec-tively.

In the second solution a new institution iscreated which, for instance, is designated‘Ombudsman for Future Generations’,‘Committee for Future Generations’,‘Ecological Council,’ ‘Future Council,’ or‘Third Chamber’. These kind of new insti-tutions make sense if they really have thepower to protect future generations. Thismeans, for instance, that these institutionscan veto or at least freeze laws, or thatthey can propose laws themselves.Without this responsibility the advisorysystem is merely extended. The two envi-ronmental councils of the GermanFederal Government and theSustainability Council which was appoint-ed in 2001 do not have the necessaryresponsibilities.The question how such a new institutionwill be staffed through democratic proce-dures also requires special attention.Different countries will be more or less

suited to either of the above proposedsolutions. This suitability is affected by acountry’s traditions and existing institu-tions. For Germany, a change in theConstitution seems more appropriate thana new institution. What is important is thewording.

Do Future Humans “Have Rights”?

According to Beckerman, the generalproposition that future generations can-not have anything, including rights, fol-lows from the meaning of the presenttense of the verb ‘to have’. “Unborn peo-ple simply cannot have anything. Theycannot have two legs or long hair or ataste for Mozart”, Beckerman writes e.g.in the last edition of Intergenerational JusticeReview. The argument of Beckerman iscorrect, but of minor importance. Itreminds us to use the future tense insteadof the present tense, i.e. to say: “FutureGenerations will have rights” instead of“Future Generations have rights.” It isimportant to understand that


Establishing the Rights of Future Generations in NationalConstitutions

by Dr. Jörg Tremmel

“Every democracy is, generally speaking, founded on a structur-al problem, namely glorification of the present and neglect for

the future.”

/Richard von Weizsäcker, former German president/

Beckerman´s argument cannot be used todenounce the term `rights` and to replaceit by `needs`, `interests`, `wishes` and thelike. If future generations cannot have`rights`, they cannot have ‘interests’ etc.either. They will have interests, just as theywill have rights. If we want to favor theterm ‘interests’ over ‘rights’ we must findother arguments. The hint to using thefuture tense instead of the present tensein the wording of Constitutional amend-ments is just a minor aspect. It is moreimportant what nouns, verbs or adjectives

are chosen. The full article analyses differ-ent drafts for implementingIntergenerational Justice intoConstitutions with a special focus on theinitiative of young MPs in Germany. Thegroup working for constitutional changein favour of Future Generations hasfound 50 supporters from different par-ties for the initiative of amending certainparts of the German Constitution inorder to safeguard the rights of FutureGenerations.

Dr. Jörg Tremmel is theScientific Director of theFoundation for the Rightsof Future Generations.He holds teaching assign-ments at different univer-sities. Contact: Foundation for

the Rights of Future Generations, Postfach5115, 61422 Oberursel, Germany;[email protected]


When rules change, some loseand others win. Sometimes,losers and winners are dis-

tributed across generational lines. Thisraises a problem of intergenerational jus-tice. The authors argue that, in somecases, the losing generations should becompensated for such losses. And theyillustrate it with three real-life examples.

Constitutional Rigidity and RuleChange

Specialists of intergenerational justicehave devoted some attention to constitu-tions. In fact, they may be facing a realdilemma in this respect as constitutionalrigidity can be seen both as a guaranteewhen the rights of future generations areconstitutionalized and as a problem sincesuch a rigidity amounts to the impositionof norms by one generation on the fol-lowing ones. In contrast, there has beenless concern with theorizing the problemof rule change as an issue of intergenera-tional justice, rather then of mere coordi-nation. Yet, rule change, whatever itsgoals, raises general problems of justice. Italways produces losers and winners ascompared to the pre-change situation, e.g.when new environmental rules are intro-duced, disadvantaging some while pro-tecting others. In some cases, losers andwinners are distributed along a genera-tional axis, which leads to genuine ques-tions of intergenerational justice. Forexample, if debates about canceling mili-tary service arise, the outrage of the lastdraftees has to do with a sense of injus-

tice. Theories of justice need to addresssuch types of concerns and find outwhether they are justified or not.

Transition Losers, Transition Winners

To begin, the proper scope of the prob-lem of justice at stake needs to be identi-fied. We offer a precise definition of“transition losses”, restricted to two casesin which either rule change leads to lossesin the expected return of investments thatwere effectively made (when the personinvested but would have not done so hadthe new rule applied at the moment ofinvestment), or in which the losses resultfrom the opportunity cost of non-invest-ment (when the person would have madesuch investments had the rule applied ear-lier). Moreover, we circumscribe the issueof justice and rule change to defining

whether and when transition losers shouldbe compensated (typically by transitionwinners).

A Twofold Compensation Test

Having defined the scope of the problem,a twofold test is defended. It is aimed atseparating the cases in which compensa-tion would be owed as a matter of justiceand those in which it would not. Themore the citizen should have expected the

change to take place, the less compensa-tion should be due (predictability compo-nent). And the more the pre-existing situ-ation should have been considered asmorally unjust by a standard agent, theless compensation should be due (legiti-macy component). Each of these compo-nents has an underlying logic and theauthors discuss the respective weight ofeach of them as well.This test is then applied to properly inter-generational cases, which requires twosteps. The first one is descriptive. We needto analyse the way in which some kind ofrule changes generate distinctively genera-tional impacts in terms of transition loss-es, some winning or losing more than oth-ers. Such a generational impact assessmentis applied to three examples: cancellingmandatory retirement, phasing out theright to early retirement and cancelling

mandatory military service. Each of thesecases exhibits a distinctive intergenera-tional distribution of transition losses orgains.

Normative Implications

The second (and last) step consists indrawing normative conclusions from thisimpact analysis, basing ourselves on anexamination of each of the two compo-nents of the twofold test (predictability

Rule Change and Intergenerational Justiceby Dr. Axel Gosseries and Mathias Hungerbühler

The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.

/Malcolm X (1925 - 1965)/


and legitimacy) as they apply to the threeexamples. It is shown that regarding pre-dictability, the military service cancellationcase is especially interesting, as the timelapse between the age allowing to predictsuch change and the intervention of sucha change is comparatively short.Admittedly, predictability also depends onnational circumstances. Yet, the militaryservice cancellation example will requirespecial treatment, whatever the nationalcontext we are concerned with.Predictability should thus not be used asan obstacle to compensation in this case.As to the legitimacy component, none ofthe pre-existing regimes in the threeexamples discussed turns out to be obvi-

ously unacceptable. Hence, applying thissecond part of the test to our three exam-ples does not lead to any serious obstacleto compensating transition losers either.

Of course, even in a clear case such as themilitary service cancellation one, this onlyleads to a ceteris paribus presumption forcompensation. Whether the generationexperiencing the most serious transitionlosses is also extremely privileged in otherrespects should matter as well in consider-ing whether, all things considered, nettransfers should be set up to benefit sucha generation.

Dr. Axel Gosseries is apermanent research fel-low at the FondsNational de laRecherche Scientifique inBelgium and for theChaire Hoover d’éthiqueéconomique et sociale atthe University ofLouvain.

Mathias Hungerbühleris an assistant professorat the University ofNamur. Contact:[email protected]

Institutional Determinants of Public Debt:A Political Economy Perspective

by Prof. Dr. Robert K. von Weizsäcker and Dr. Bernd Süssmuth

Growing public debt is a seriousconstraint of the degrees offreedom future generations have

to set their environment. Von Weizsäckerand Süssmuth outline the fiscal problemof public debt for Germany in an inter-national comparison. The shortsighted-ness of politicians who prefer being re-elected instead of solving this fundamen-tal problem is a main obstacle for possiblesolutions suggested by the authors.

Public Debt – A Growing Threat

There is a well-known antagonismbetween the conservatively budgetingpoliticians' and their opponents' view ofthe accumulation of public debt: An enor-mous amount of debt inheritance to a

society's newborns and an expansionaryalignment of fiscal policy in order to solveproblems in areas like education, science,and research. Using historical and morerecent figures, we sketch the developmentof public debt and interest payments forthe German economy from the 1950s tothe present. In an international compari-son the global dimension of the problemof excessive public debt accumulation ishighlighted. We identify debt reschedulingpractices by the exception of specialassets from the broadly worded constitu-tional constraint and scattered public lia-bilities fostering window dressing prac-tices as German idiosyncrasies.

Winning Elections – At the Expense ofHigher DebtDespite obvious disadvantages of debtaccumulation in the form of a tightened

financial scope, a potential decrease inaggregate capital, and problems of gener-ational equity, there is no reasonable eco-nomic justification to opt for it. We raiseprofound doubt on standard justificationsthat can be found in the literature, likecountercyclical use of deficits in order tocombat recessions, tax smoothing argu-ments, and the temporal displacement oftaxes. Based on recent data and indicatorsfor the EU-15, institutional determinantsof public debt are discussed along twocentral dimensions: First, the commonresource problem denoting the externalitywhich results from the fact that govern-ment spending is commonly targeted atspecific groups in society while beingfinanced from a general tax fund to whichall taxpayers, possibly including futureones, contribute. This problem of mod-ern democracies is aggravated by thenumber and ideological range of rulingparties, institutional characteristics of theelectoral system, and the fragmentation ofthe budget process. Second, it is most rea-sonable to proceed from myopic foresightof incumbents, seeking to protect claimsand power by instrumentally misusingpublic expenditures financed by issuingdebt to maximize re-election probability.It is shown that the more frequently coali-tions or ruling parties in a Europeandemocracy changed during the last twodecades, the more the respective govern-

“The politician considers the next elections; the statesman considers the next generation.”

/William Gladstone (1809 - 1898), English politician,from 1867 onwards leader of the Liberals

in the House of Commons/


ment tended to accumulate debt. In addi-tion to this and other evidence, it is sug-gested that this relationship is nonlinear,i.e. convex, in nature: Both, too few andtoo frequent changes generate a negativeperformance. A further aggravation ofthe implied shortsighted calculus ofpoliticians is foreseeable by the ongoingdemographic change in industrial soci-eties.

Ways out off the Debt Dilemma

In sum, the quantitative study of institu-tional determinants reveals a fundamentaldilemma of self-interests of economicand political agents on the one hand and

social welfare on the other. Recent pro-posals of institutional reform, includingconstitutional limits, balanced budget andintertemporal rules, a debt tax, childrenvoting rights, and the delegation of thebudget process to an independent nation-al or supranational entity are outlined.They are discussed and assessed withregard to maturity, effectiveness, theoreti-cal underpinning, and tractability. Due toan established theoretical foundation andexperience in the field of monetary policy,we suggest delegation being the mostpromising alternative to alleviate this para-mount fiscal policy problem of contem-porary democracies.

Robert K. von Weizsäcker isProfessor for Economics in theDepartment of Business andEconomics at MunichUniversity of Technology.

Bernd Süssmuth is AssistantProfessor for Economics in theDepartment of Business andEconomics at Munich Universityof Technology.Contact: Chair for Economics,

Munich University of Technology, Arcisstrasse21, 80333 Munich, Germany; [email protected]

The Economic Sustainability Indicatorby Dr. Peer Ederer, Dr. Philipp Schuller, and Stephan Willms

Ederer, Schuller and Willmspresent the ‘EconomicSustainability Indicator’ devel-

oped by the German think tankDeutschland Denken! The authors criti-cize that welfare institutions, i.e. publicpension systems, disability insurance,poverty alimentation and health care, areproducts of the 19th and 20th centurywhich have not been adapted to today’sreality.

Measuring Sustainability

The fiscal patterns in most advancedeconomies are far from being sustainable.The political system is blind for long-range developments that impact the wellfunctioning of an economy.Austerity measures that intervene in pub-lic investment rather than in public con-sumption increase future difficultiesbecause of the loss of future returns oncurrent investments.For the fundamental change to berealised, a majority of the voters mustrecognise the need for a change. This issupposed to happen with the help ofexpert knowledge in the policy process aswell as in the political process.The Economic Sustainability Indicator issupposed to provide the needed connec-tion of expert knowledge and politicalcommunication. It should make long-

term interests transparent for the citizens.Moreover, it describes the impact of anygiven policy on economic sustainability.Moreover, the indicator measures howmuch net capital is being passed on fromcurrent generations to future generationsas a percentage of how much net capitalthese current generations have inherited.If the indicator’s value is above 100%,then the current generations haveincreased the stock of capital for futuregenerations and if it is below 100%, thenthey pass on less than they have inherited.From a historical perspective, theEconomic Sustainability Indicator hasregistered more than 100% in Germanyalready from the time of the IndustrialRevolution. For Germany today, however,it only ranks at about 70%.

Components of the Indicator

The indicator contains five sets of capital:real capital, human capital, natural capital,structural capital, and intergenerationaldebt. In the following, it is explained howthe Indicator and its components, evaluat-ed from an entirely economic point ofview, are measured.The formula for calculating the EconomicSustainability Indicator is:

Net Capital inherited:(Real C + Human C + Natural +Structural C – Debt C) per year alive

Net Capital handed down:( Real C + Human C + Natural +Structural C – Debt C) per year alive

Net Capital created or destroyed per generation:Net Capital handed down/ Net capi-tal inherited = economic sustainabilityindex in %

It is claimed that economic sustainabilityis most appropriately measured on a percapita basis. As a basic assumption of themethodology, total economic output isseen as a linear function of the input (thefour types of capital specified). This leadsto the conclusion that the more of thesetypes of capital are being used, the moreeconomic output can and will be created.It remains to be seen whether this indica-tor will become accepted enough to influ-ence the public’s consciousness for futuregenerations.

Dr. Peer Ederer, Dr. Philipp Schuller, andStephan Willms founded together the think tank‘Deutschland Denken!’

+

_


Institutional Protection of Succeeding Generations –Ombudsman for Future Generations in Hungary

by Dr. Benedek Jávor

Benedek Jàvor describes one possi-ble way to institutionalise genera-tional justice, namely by estab-

lishing an ombudsperson for future gener-ations. In Hungary, this idea was initiat-ed by the NGO ‘Protect the Future!’ ofwhich Jàvor is a founding member.

Taking responsibility for FutureGenerations

The existence of our moral obligationstowards future generations may beapproached in several ways. The moralresponsibility to provide coming genera-tions with the conditions for life can bejustified through the broadening interpre-tation of general human rights, throughthe general comprehension of democraticprinciples, by the concept of the commonheritage of human kind or by relying onRawls’s theory of justice. This responsibil-ity, however, will only become reality if weare able to convert it into real actions.

How to Institutionalise GenerationalJustice?

One inevitable step for achieving this is tobuild the protection of the interests ofthe future generations into our currentdecision making mechanisms institution-ally. The coming generations do notpresently exist, therefore their interestscannot be represented by today’s models

of interest vindication that are based onthe active participation (realized throughsome kind of mechanisms) of the con-cerned groups. However, there are speciallegal institutions which can ensure therepresentation of the interests of those

groups with no or very low capability tovindicate their interests. One of these isthe institution of the ombudsman which,owing to its peculiarities, can surmountthe legitimacy problems relating to therepresentation of the future generations.

The Answer: An Ombudsman ofFuture Generations

In Spring 2000 the Hungarian association,Protect the Future!, initiated the establish-ment of such an institution, the office ofthe ‘Ombudsman of Future Generations’in Hungary. The proposal that was pre-sented by Protect the Future! in the formof a draft law has been roaming in thecobwebs of political decision makingsince then, and there is hardly any chanceof its realization in the short run.

The idea is, however, still on the agendaand may provide an example for establish-

ing other similar institutions. Until thepolitical will to set up the ombudsman’soffice is gathered, Protect the Future! hasfounded and is operating ‘REFUGE’(Representation of Future Generations) ,a civil initiative representing the coming

generations in the spirit of the bill.REFUGE has been working for nearlyfive years and releases its results in annualreports similar to those of the existingOmbudsmen in Hungary (1). Finally,Protect the Future! makes a proposal tostudy and analyse the possibilities of set-ting up an EU-level office of theEuropean Ombudsman of FutureGenerations.

Benedek Javor isAssistant Professor ofEnvironmental Sciencesat the Department ofEnvironmental Law,Pazmany Peter CatholicUniversity, Budapest.Moreover, he is founding

member and spokesperson of the environmentalNGO ‘Védegylet-Protect the Future Society’.Contact: [email protected]

“The world desperately needs appetite for the future.”

/Clyde Collins Snow (*1928), US-American physician/

The Role of CPB in Dutch Economic Policy Makingby Rocus van Opstal and Jacqueline Timmerhuis

The article discusses the role of theNetherlands Bureau forEconomic Policy Analysis

(CPB) in economic policy making in theNetherlands. Having outlined the historyof the CPB and the formal status it haswithin the government, its independentposition is highlighted, which is ratherunique in international comparison.Moreover, the work of CPB is described,

focusing on studies that also affect futuregenerations.

Preventing Short-sightedness forFuture Generations

In a democracy, politicians decide on eco-nomic policy and quite rightly so. In thepolitical debate, however, it is difficult todistinguish objective arguments from nor-mative or political arguments or some-

times even arguments designed primarilyto reach a preconceived goal. Moreover,politicians are often short-sighted, givingpriority to the short-term effects of theirdecisions, for example with a view to thenext elections. This can be detrimental forlong-term developments and the positionof future generations.

Influence through Information – howthe CPB works


In the Netherlands, politicians, unions,employers’ organisations and the generalpublic see the benefits of separating polit-ical arguments from economic ones. Thisis why the CPB, the Netherlands Bureaufor Economic Policy Analysis, plays animportant role in Dutch economic policymaking. Founded immediately after theSecond World War, it was originallydesigned as a planning agency to facilitatethe post-war reconstruction of the Dutcheconomy, CPB soon evolved into a centreof economic information inside the gov-ernment and, at the same time, an inde-pendent institute for economic forecast-ing and analysis. CPB provides politiciansand policy-makers in- and outside thegovernment with information that is rele-

vant for decision making.In most cases this amounts to sketchingthe relevant trade-offs that politiciansface, as it is often very hard to find policymeasures that are Pareto-improvements.In other words, most policies having apositive effect in one field, will have somenegative effect in another field.In presenting the effects of policyoptions, along with the effects on theshort term, CPB only provides informationfor policy makers. CPB does not providedirect policy recommendations. Rather, ittends to take an academic approach, stat-ing facts and pointing out the expectedeffects of different courses of action, butrefraining from normative judgments.The analysis of election platforms in the

months preceding general elections in theNetherlands is, in international compari-son, a rather unique event. CPB studies onthe sustainability of government financesin the long run and on cost-benefit analy-ses of government investment programsplay an important role in Dutch econom-ic policy making. In this way, the CPBcontributes to more long-term thinkingwithin the Dutch government. This is onepossible and effective step to guranteesustainability for future generations.

Rocus van Opstal is Headof the Domestic economyand public finance sector ofthe Netherlands Bureau forEconomic Policy Analysis(CPB).

Jacqueline Timmerhuis isExecutive secretary andspokesperson of the CPB.Contact: P.O. Box 80510,2508 GM The Hague;[email protected]

Commission for Future Generations in the Knesset – Lessons Learnt

by Prof. Shlomo Shoham and Nira Lamay

In their article, Shlomo Shoham andNira Lamay relate to the realisationand the respective circumstances of

the Commission for Future Generationsin the Israeli Parliament.It is explained that the Commission forFuture Generations of the Knesset is aworldwide unique establishment, whichis, by definition, designed to protect therights of future generations at the par-liamentary and governmental level.

An Institution for the Rights ofFuture Generations

The establishment of the Commission ischaracterised as the result of a top-downprocess. Thus, the Commission was notborn out of a public campaign or discus-sion but emerged from a parliamentaryinitiative, attempting to consider long-term implications of legislation. The initi-ation of the parliamentary institutionitself probably made it possible to estab-lish the institution and introduce the con-

cept of the rights of future generations. Itis funded by the Knesset’s own budgetand leaded by a Commissioner.The Commission has important authori-ties regarding the parliamentary legislativeprocess in almost every area except mat-ters of defence and foreign affairs. Thisincludes the initiation and drafting of bills,later to be submitted by individual parlia-mentarians. It also enjoys the right todemand information from every inspect-ed government-related institution underthe law of the State’s Controller. Alongwith the general authority to advise theparliament regarding any matter that is ofspecial interest for future generations andits physical location within the parliament,this created a whole new dimension in theparliamentary, executive and public levelsin Israel.

Struggling to Get Accepted

The Commission struggled its way topublic awareness with considerableefforts. Stepping out of the survivaldimension was not easily accepted by

politicians in Israel. Among the civil soci-ety, however, it was more popular, espe-cially among non-governmental organiza-tions as their agents. Parliamentariansstarted to appreciate the Commission asan establishment that influences publicinterest and establishes the concept offuture generations that had not beenintroduced before to the public. Indeed,the concept found its way into politicalcommunication and the media. Thus, itsoon became an important tool in posi-tioning the Commission and the conceptof future generations.Nevertheless, a conceptual framework towork with was not enough. Thus, theCommission had to define the identity offuture generations which included “spe-cial interests” for them. For this purpose itadopted the concept of “SustainableDevelopment” as a platform and receivedvast research support from the academicsector and NGOs. SustainableDevelopment is promoted by theCommission within the parliament, butalso vis-à-vis the government and thepublic and business sector. However, the

“The future is the time when the burning issue is no longertoday’s problems but rather their solution.”

/Wolfgang Mocker (*1954), German journalist and author/

concept was not sufficient since it doesnot refer to specific issues that have adirect effect on the future. As an example,the implications of technological develop-ment on society and ethics are mentionedwhich includes among other things theissue of human reproductive cloning. Oneof the guiding principles of theCommission’s work is creating legislativemechanisms within the decision-makingprocess relating to different subjects ofSustainable Development. A main rule ofthat principle is achieving a financiallyindependent decision-making process ofa specific government ministry. TheCommission also seized the advantage ofits unique location to become a facilitator,channelling information and ideas into theparliament and to the parliamentarians inperson.

The Main Function

One of the Commission’s main goals is toincorporate the right to SustainableDevelopment (rather than ‘only’ environ-mental protection, for instance) in theconstitution as well as in a future constitu-tion that is now drafted. Although itsauthorities vis-à-vis the government andwith regards to executive actions is notspecifically defined in law, the holistic andethical conduct of the Commissionbrought it to cooperate with the govern-ment. This cooperation takes place beforethe government introduces a draft legisla-tion to the parliament. Thus, it can influ-ence the executive actions in real time.The Commission’s power to change ispartly founded on the fact that it is agovernmental and not a non-governmen-

tal organisation. Its most important taskin creating functioning frameworks forlong term national planning and decision-making regarding issues of SustainableDevelopment. This is linked to the goal ofpassing on values and knowledge as wellas a different dimension of thinking futu-re to all governmental and, above all,public levels.

Shlomo Shoham is Judge(ret.) and Commissionerfor Future Generations ofthe Knesset. Contact:Knesset, Commission forFuture Generations,Jerusalem Israel;[email protected];

Nira Lamay is Head ofLaw and Legislation &International Relations inthe Commission forFuture Generations.Contact: Knesset,Commission for Future

Generations, Jerusalem Israel;[email protected]


“The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

/Alan Kay (*1940), US-American computer scientist/

The Committee for the Future - Future policyby Dr. Paula Tiihonen

Tiihonen discusses origins, historyand main tasks of Finland’sCommittee for the Future. She

gives account of concrete policy schemesand issues that the Committee has dealtwith, presents an excerpt from the back-ground paper of the latest future dialogueand, finally, tries to evaluate the work ofthe Committee.

Origins, History and Main Tasks

The urge to create a parliamentary bodythat promotes sustainability stems fromthe fact that politics try to preserve thestatus quo as voters are supposedly againstnew things and change. However, this isnot the case and therefore active involve-ment of Members of Parliament isrequired, who speak out against tradition-bound governments. Thus, the parliamentcan serve as a forerunner and an activeplayer for a new society. For this reasonthe Committee for the Future was estab-

lished at the beginning of the 1990s, fouryears after a citizens’ initiative proposingthe creation of a futures research unit hadfailed. Nevertheless, the struggle foracceptance continued and culminated inthe granting of permanent status to theCommittee in 1999. Over the years, theCommittee for the Future has become anestablished forum at the core of the par-liamentary system that enjoys the powerof initiative. It consists of 17 parliamen-tarians and has great freedom in setting itsown agenda after every election, with theonly requirement that the agenda containssomething new and important to the peo-ple. The overall aim is to make policy,rather than to do research. Its main task inthis connexion is to hold a dialogue withthe Prime Minister’s Office and theGovernment on future related issues,which has significantly broadened theGovernment’s view of the future.Furthermore, the Committee was success-ful in establishing technology assessmentof future technologies in the Parliamentwith the aim to make use of the latest

methods that future research has provid-ed.

Concrete Policy Schemes and Issues

The different projects of technologyassessment can be categorised into threegenerations, which include, among others,the projects Plant gene technology in food pro-duction, Energy 2010, and Regional innovationactivities. In the course of the differentprojects, active involvement of the parlia-mentarians has increased considerably, e.g.parliamentarians visited some of theUSA’s most important universities andresearch centres, formed arguing panels ina Delfi study and arranged meetings withcompanies and discussions with otherMembers of Parliament.The Committe has discussed differentissues, e.g. the major changes of Finnisheconomy, and different success factors forEurope and for Finland, in particular, inthe information society. Globalisation,Information and technology, the humanaspect in innovation, and governance, are

all-permeating factors with an influenceon future success- in an all-encompassingsense. These factors are in turn influencedby powerful actors, so that it is importantto bear moral responsibilities for theeffects of ones choices. In the full article,some examples of issues that theCommittee has handled are illustrated inmore detail, for example, major globalenvironmental, and structural problems,demographic trends, and the future ofFinnish knowledge society. I discuss thelatter and thus firstly analyse the “big pic-ture” of the rival economic systems ofthe past fifty years using a US Americanstudy (Brooks, 2005). It is stated that theAmerican model is going to be chal-lenged, whereas the European model isunsustainable. Secondly, every committeehas discussed unemployment, but one cancriticise that the signals that the projectsprovided were not taken seriously by thedecision-making system of Finland.Thirdly, the Committee gave the plenaryfive basic hypotheses of problems of theFinnish welfare system to discuss, e.g. thatmorbidity follows social dividing lines. Iconclude that the Finnish welfare modeldoes not meet all the goals set for it andthat “the important task of politics in thisnew e-world is to provide old and newsolutions and options from all these e-things”.

Latest Future Dialogue

The topic of the latest future dialogue wasdemographic challenges. In order to illus-trate the controversial discussion amongthe committee, Tiihonen lists the titles ofthe background paper and cites some ofits openings. In the first part, Startingpoints, it is warned that population policy isgenerally a very sensitive issue. It touchesthe values of the population and the mostpermanent institutions of society, such asfamily, and therefore has to be consideredcarefully before it is implemented.Furthermore, it bears controversial ques-tions right from the start, such as the

question whether population policy is aprivate or a public issue, or else, if theproblems of population development areprimarily economic. Despite the relativehomogeneity of the Finnish society, pop-ulation policy has nevertheless been aneasy issue to address. This, however, willchange in a globalised world.Furthermore, according to populationforecasts, the population in poor countrieswill increase significantly, with the effectthat the world markets will shift from richto poor countries. If the problems of anageing and shrinking society are supposedto be solved by increased immigration, aproper discussion of values has to be ini-tiated, and possible alterations of Finnishidentity must be analysed. In the secondpart, Global responsibility, it is argued thatthe developed industrial countries shouldpursue long-term global interests ratherthan short-term national advantages andfight the battle against disintegrated coun-tries and construct good national adminis-trations as a requirement for a more justworld. The paper gives several examples

of taking global responsibility and theconflicts involved, e.g. world poverty anddistribution of work, youth unemploy-ment, world tax, the participation inpeacekeeping and peace-building, andglobal administration. The paper drawsthe conclusion that in order to guaranteepeace and stable population development,as well as human welfare, it is most impor-tant to ensure a favourable developmentin an open global economy.

Has it been a Success?

Firstly, the Committee has taken its placein the Finnish parliamentary system as aninnovative political body, a forum that hasshown that initiatives within democracycan be taken with parliamentary measures.Secondly, the Committee for the Futureserves as an excellent forum where parlia-mentarians can expand their knowledgebeyond everyday politics and beyondproblems that are confined to Finland.

Dr. Paula Tiihonen isCommittee Counsellor tothe Committee for theFuture in the FinnishParliament.Contact: CommitteeCounsel to theCommittee for the

Future, FI-00102 Parliament of Finland,Finland; [email protected]


We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It isnot unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there aretens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility isto do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions,

and pass them on.

/Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)/

In recent years the concept of “sus-tainable development” has promoteda great expansion of bureaucratic

activity at the regional, national and inter-national level. The sustainable-develop-ment movement claims to support envi-ronmental and human well-being, but APoverty of Reason: Sustainable Development andEconomic Growth by Wilfred Beckermanargues, that this would not be the case.According to Beckerman, support for sus-tainable development is challenged by theconfusion about its ethical implicationand a flagrant disregard of the relevantfactual evidence.Throughout seven chapters on 76 pagesBeckerman argues in a fervent, but oftenexaggerating way against the concept ofsustainable development (SD). He pointsout for example that “sustainable develop-ment has become an all-embracing con-cept to the extent that it has no clear ana-lytical bite at all.” (p. 4).Firstly, Beckerman argues that sustainabledevelopment is not measurable at allbecause there is no clear conceptual basisto begin with (cp. p. 7). Without doubtthere are many competing definitions forSD. But it is also true that the UNCommission for SustainableDevelopment as well as many nationalscouncils for SD have established clearcutindicator systems to define if a state issustainable or not.Beckerman secondly mentions finiteresources and the predictions of scientistsabout the lasting of finite resources. Heargues that such prognoses have usuallybeen false or exaggerated. Every timewhen a scientist predicted that the worldwould run out of a certain finite resourcewithin the following decades, it finallyturned out to be humbug because after

one or two decades even more resourceswere available because new resources havebeen found. He also mentions the extinc-tion of animals as a process we cannotchange anymore, because “98 percent ofall the species that have ever existed arebelieved to have become extinct already,but most people do not suffer any senseof loss as a result. How many people losesleep because it is no longer possible tosee a live dinosaur?” (p. 2).This argument neglects that it is not thesame if a thunderstorm causes a destruc-tion in a forest or if man does the samedeliberately. Just because there have beenfive “waves” of species extinction in evo-lution, man has not the right to add a sixthone.Furthermore, Beckerman talks about cli-mate change. On the one hand, he agreesthat there is a climate change. But on theother hand, he argues that “up to a pointa warmer climate is likely to reduce mor-tality and disease in developed countries.”(p. 35). He also mentions that today morehouses are destroyed by hurricanes onlybecause there are more houses today thandecades earlier (cp. p. 34).Beckerman often speaks about the devel-oped countries. For instance, he explainsthat developed countries should notreduce their carbon emission because thatwould cause their GNP to decline. Butdeveloped countries need a rapid growthof incomes (cp. p. 38-39).As another important topic Beckermanmentions the “precautionary principle”.He argues against the precautionary prin-ciple by stating that there would be muchmore poverty in the world, if we followedthe precautionary principle. “The harmfuleffects of applying the precautionary prin-ciple in the past would have included, forexample, severe restrictions on thousandsof innovations such as vaccines andantibiotics that have saved millions oflives.” (p. 44). As an alternative to the pre-cautionary principle Beckerman suggeststhe following, “The alternative to the pre-cautionary principle is not non-action butinformed action. Drastic action to reduceclimate change today, for example, is

probably undesirable given today’s state ofknowledge (accentuation in the original). Ifwe wait, however, new knowledge willarrive, and it will become much clearerwhat action are best.” (p. 47). Beckermanasserts it would be absurd to change any-thing right now, for instance, reducing car-bon emission because it would cause moreharm than benefit.Altogether, Beckerman wants to give rea-sons for not supporting the idea of sus-tainable development. He thinks there aremuch more important problems in theworld that have to be solved first. With hisopinions, he is an outsider – and rightful-ly so. In 1993, 600 of the most eminentscientists of the world, among them themajority of nobel prize winners still alive,issued a dramatic Warning to Mankind. Itstates: “The earth is limited. Its capacity tosustain a growing number of us is limit-ed.” The new paradigm of finiteness putsclassical economists like Beckerman orJulian Simon in a dilemma. Some of thefoundations of their discipline – e.g. thatthere are no limits to growth – must berethought. But that is a problem for thoseeconomists, not for science.

Beckerman, Wilfred: A Poverty of Reason:Sustainable Development and EconomicGrowth. The Independent Institute, Oakland,California: 2003.


Book Recommendations and ReviewsIndex of Contents

A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and EconomicGrowthby Wilfred Beckerman 38

The Environmental Ethics & Policy Bookby Donald VanDeVeer & Christine Pierce 39

Presentation of Handbook Intergenerational Justice inEuropean Parliament 39

Justice and Environmentby Andrew Dobson 39

The World in 2020. Power, Culture and Prosperityby Hamish McRae 39

Wilfred Beckerman:A Poverty of Reason:Sustainable Development andEconomic Growth

Reviewer: Julia Scheide

Hamish McRae is a journalist, award-ed with important prices, and associ-ate editor of the London

‘Independent’. To get an idea how the worldmay possibly look like in economic, cultural aswell as power distributive terms, the FRFG rec-ommends this book – also to raise the reader’sawareness whether this picture presents futuregenerations as being endangered.

“As the foundations of world economic

order continue to shift, some countrieswill flourish and some will falter.Determining which nations will experi-ence economic growth and property inthe next century – and understandingwhy this is of vital interest to econo-mists, investors and business leaders. InThe World in 2020, acclaimed commenta-tor and best-selling author HamishMcRae paints a vivid competitive land-scape in which culture and values will bethe new sources of advantage for theindustrialized nations.Grounded in the experience of a twen-ty-five-year career interpreting the inter-national financial and economic scene,McRae’s argument for the future beginswith a thorough examination of the pre-sent. Identifying the forces for change –

among them demography, the environ-ment, the role of government, technolo-gy and natural resources – and analyzingtheir effect on the world in the nextquarter century, he makes a powerfuland original economic case for goodbehavior.In the year 2020, all having embracedmarket capitalism, the North American,European and East Asian countries willbe engaged in fierce economic competi-tion. With each nation increasingly ableto imitate the others, innovations willcross borders within mere days andweeks, removing technological prowessas a source of sustained advantage.McRae sees the “old motors for growth”– land, capital and natural resources –being replaced by more qualitative assets


For further elaboration on the conceptuali-sation of environmental protection andsocial justice, the FRFG recommens this

work by Andrew Dobson, who is Professor ofPolitics at Keele University, UK. Especially inter-esting is to explore whether these two concepts areat all reconcilable or rather contradictory.

“Environmental sustainability and social,or distributive, justice are both widelyregarded as desirable social objectives. Butcan we assume that they are compatiblewith each other? In this path-breakingstudy, Professor Dobson, a leading experton environmental politics, analyses thecomplex relationship between these twopressing objectives.Environmental sustainability is taken to bea contested idea, and three distinct con-ceptions of it are described and explored.These conceptions of it are then exam-ined in the context of fundamental dis-tributive questions such as: Among whomor what should distribution take place?What should be distributed? What shouldthe principle of distribution be? The

author critically examines the claims ofthe ‘environmental justice’ and ‘sustain-able development’ movements that socialjustice and environmental sustainabilityare points on the same virtuous circle, andconcludes that radical environmentaldemands are only incompletely served by

couching them in termsof justice.”-from the back cover-

Andrew Dobson: „Justiceand the Environment.Conceptions ofEnvironmental

Sustainability and Dimensions of SocialJustice”, Oxford University Press 1998, 262pages, ISBN 0-19829482-4

To offer some guideline how policies for theprotection of future generations can orshould be implemented, the FRFG rec-

ommends this interdisciplinary work of refer-ence.

“At the leading edge of refreshing andilluminating environmental debate…

VanDeVeer and Pierce’s environmentalethics source book is a wake-up call thathelps each of us explore questions aboutresponsible treatment of the planet andthe nonhumans that share it with us.

Beginning with a readable introduction toethical theories and how they relate toenvironmental concerns, The EnvironmentalEthics and Policy Book, Second Edition castsa revealing light on the relevant empiricaland normative presuppositions thatunderlie policy recommendations. Andwhether these recommendations are madeby economists, biologists, ecologists,philosophers, engineers, or politicians,VanDeVeer and Pierce do not hesitate tocross disciplinary boundaries to spotlightand clarify issues.A valuable interdisciplinary source for stu-dents of philosophy, environmental stud-ies, and policy studies, this second editionalso includes:- Twenty-nine new essays – many chosenfor their path-breaking content, others torepresent diverse views, and all for theiraccessibility to readers of varying back-grounds- Greater emphasis on relevant sciences to

help foster empirically informed, state-of-the-art proposals- Internet Environmental Resourcesoffering guidance in how to use the Webto investigate issues and write effectivepapers- A glossary defining philosophical andscientific terms needed to understandthis cross-disciplinary field- A time Chart providing a broad geolog-ical perspective on evolution and changeNew Previews introducing 18 subsec-tions and Sidelights that examine impor-tant, related issues”- from the back cover -

Donald VanDeVeer andChristine Pierce: “TheEnvironmental Ethics &Policy Book“, 1998Wadsworth PublishingCompany: Belmont, 650 pages, ISBN 0-534-52524-5

Book Recommendation

Donald VanDeVeer and ChristinePierce“The Environmental Ethics &Policy Book“

Book Recommendation

Andrew Dobson:“Justice and the Environment.Conceptions of EnvironmentalSustainability and Dimensionsof Social Justice”

Book Recommendation

Hamish McRae:“The World in 2020. Power,Culture and Property”


Index of ContentsNew Staff Members 40 European Volunteers 41 Award for Intergenerational Justice 2005/2006 41

Frauke Austermann

I am 20 years old, comingfrom Ahrweiler, a smalltown in the west ofGermany. After my A-lev-els in March 2004, I

worked for a French hotel chain. Back inGermany, I enrolled in European Studies(ES) at the University of Maastricht/TheNetherlands. I have just finished my sec-ond semester by the end of June. Apart

from studying, I am involved in the stu-dent association of ES. Having worked asa board member, I joined two, the CulturalCommittee and Student Forum Maastricht.The latter is an annual student conferencewith participants from all over the world.My home town is not such an internation-al environment. However, precisely here, Iregularly get in touch with the universalproblems that can occur between differ-ent generations. Being one of the placeswith the highest age average in entire

Germany, much more is done for old peo-ple than for the youth. Both generationsoften struggle instead of collaboratingand benefiting from each other. Not onlythis experience aroused my interest for aninternship for the FRFG. Tying up to mystudy program, I am interested how torealise generational justice on theEuropean level. Among others, my maintask concerns the third English issue ofthe journal “Intergenerational Justice!”.

Raphael Bernhardt

I am 20 years old and I livein Struth, a small village inThuringia. In 2004, Ireceived my University-

level graduation. Furthermore, I had train-ing as an assistant for computer science.

At the moment, I study computer scienceat Friedrich Schiller University in Jena.However, I will change programs andcontinue my studies in sociology. As apreparation I am now doing an internshipat the FRFG. It is to show me essentialinsight in scientific labour and the work ofa young, international think tank. It is

important that there are people engagedfor the rights of future generations – andwho would suit better to do so than thecurrent young generation? I am glad tomake my contribution to GenerationalJustice. Concerning my future study pro-gram, I hope that I will gain meaningfulexperiences.

Andrea Heubach I am 26 years old and Istudied Political Sciences,Philosophy, Public Law,and Philosophy at theJohannes GutenbergUniversity in Mainz.

Having recovered from the stress aboutmy thesis, I decided to work on the topicof justice between today’s and future gen-erations. The topic is not only interesting

but most notably of practical meaning.Current generations design their lives atthe expense of future generations.Political decisions that are made today canhave implications on lots of coming gen-erations. We can only influence towardsthe future. Future generations will have toface the consequences of irreversibledecisions that are made today. It is timefor the discipline of Philosophy to dealextensively with the topic. Moreover,

boundaries towards other disciplines haveto be transgressed; particularly the borderbetween theory and practice. During myliterature research to the topic ofIntergenerational Justice, I came acrossthe FRFG. In doing an internship, I wantto make my contribution together withJörg, Tobias, and the other volunteers onthe way to realise Sustainability andIntergenerational Justice.

– quality, organization, motivation andself-discipline of the people. Everywhere,governments will take a less active role inthe social and economic life of the nation.In such a world, the best predictor of suc-cess will be how a nation strikes a properbalance between creativity and intellect onthe one hand, and social responsibility on

the other. Thus the leading world eco-nomic powers of the next generation arejust as likely to include China andAustralia as the United States and Japan.Provocative, realistic and accessible to thereader, The World in 2020 shows us notonly where we will be in the next twenty-five years, but how we will get there.”

- from the back cover -Hamish McRae: “TheWorld in 2020. Power,Culture and Properity”,Harvard Business SchoolPress, 1995, 281 pages,ISBN 0-87584-604-1

Carsten Kipper

I am 24 years old and avolunteer at theFoundation for the Rightsof Future Generations

(FRFG) from Mid- August until Mid –October 2005. I used to live in Niddatalnear the small town of Friedberg /Hessen. Since October 2003 I have beenstudying Political Sciences at the FreieUniversität Berlin, now entering my fifth

semester. Before starting my studies, Iaccomplished a two - year traineeship in abank in Frankfurt am Main.My goal here at the FRFG is to increasethe attention necessary for a topic as therights of future generations. In this point,

The FRFG is going to present its upcom-ing publication, the “HandbookIntergenerational Justice”, to theEuropean Parliament (EP). With this pre-sentation, the FRFG seeks to gain supportof young parliamentarians from all politi-cal groupings within the EP for the initia-

tive to institutionalise IntergenerationalJustice, also on the European level.The presentation will presumably takeplace in November 2005. For registration,please contact the FRFG by e-mail [email protected].

Presentation of HandbookIntergenerational Justice inEuropean Parliament


Lisa Marschall

I am 22 years old, andoriginally from Tübingen.Soon after I had finishedmy a-levels, I decided toleave this idyllic university

town and moved to my favourite city,London, where I worked as receptionist ina Health Centre and later in a restaurantfor about six months. In 2003, I enrolled

in the course ‘Languages, Business Studiesand Cultural Studies’ in Passau, with themain focus on Spanish & English, WorldPolitics and Business Studies. However, Ispent the last academic year in Limerick,Ireland, and will continue my studies atthe University of Granada in October. Inthe future, I would like to work in the fieldof development politics. This idea mainlydeveloped when I was spending severalmonths in Guatemala, working for an

NGO that provides basic education forchildren, who - mostly for financial rea-sons - cannot attend any ordinary school.With this internship I hope to gain valu-able experience in a related area and I amlooking forward to ten enriching weeks. Inmy free time, I like playing the violin andthe piano, as well as playing tennis, cycling,and walking our family dog.

Kristin Tecles

After I finished school inMarch 2005 I was lookingfor an interesting occupa-tion till I start studying in

October. Accidentally, I got to know

about the Foundation for the Rights ofFuture Generations and I liked the top-ics “Generational Justice” and“Sustainability” immediately. In my opin-ion it is very commendable to be sociallyengaged and I liked to support the ideaof a juster world, especially for our chil-dren. Furthermore, I was very impressed

by the idea of an European network,fighting together for one idea. In school, Iwas interested in the subjects German,English and Social Studies, which showmy preference for languages and politics.Now, I am looking forward to an intern-ship in the Foundation for two months.

From Februaryuntil July thisyear, the two

first European vol-unteers enriched the staff of ourInternational Volunteers Office (IVO).Yanti Ehrentraut from Belgium andCaterina Bressa from Italy have workedsix months for the FRFG’s various pro-jects, among them the journalIntergenerational Justice Review, the Young

Leaders Congress„Ecological GenerationalJustice into theConstitution“, which isdocumented in the issue athand, or the our latest bookrelease, the “HandbookGenerational Justice”.Moreover, the two youngEuropeans attended a lan-guage course to enhancetheir skills in German.

Already in September, the FRFG will wel-come two new young European volun-teers. Coming from Italy and the new EUmember state Poland, Novella Benedetti

and Jakub Kochowitz aremotivated to make theircontribution in realisingIntergenerational Justiceand Sustainability. Theproject ‘EuropeanVolunteers Service’ isfinanced with support ofthe European Union.

If you are also interestedto work as an intern with-

in the international atmosphere of theIVO, you can send your application(including letter of motivation, curricu-lum vitae with photo, references) every-time to the FRFG.

European Volunteers in theFRFG’s InternationalVolunteers Office

I firmly disagree with the non – ratifica-tion of the Kyoto Protocol by some ofthe strongest economies (most of themwith a significant share of CO2 emissions

worldwide) and the increasing state debtsin Germany.After my studies I see a variety of job pos-sibilities for myself. The working for a

foundation like FRFG is one of my fieldsof interest and so are Public Relations orConsulting. I have also done a shorttraineeship in this area before.

The Foundation for the Rights ofFuture Generations (FRFG) offersan award for Intergenerational

Justice, endowed with 10.000 Euro. Bycalling this prize, the FRFG aims atencouraging research on IntergenerationalJustice.

The topic for the award in 2005/2006 is Intergenerational Justice and “VotingRight from Birth”

To deal with this topic, the following

research questions should be answered:

1.) Does the democratic principle demanda “Voting Right from Birth”? Which mod-els and procedures are conceivable?

2.) Does a “Voting Right from Birth”encourage the realisation of generationaljustice?

3.) Which societal obstacles and provisosagainst a “Voting Right from Birth” are tobe expected? How can they be overcomepractically?

The following explanations should offerhelp to answer the questions.

Definitions

“Voting Right from Birth”The FRFG defines a “Voting Rightfrom Birth” as a right that every citi-zen must be entitled to. According tothe principle ‘One Person – OneVote’, the deputy suffrage as well asdirect suffrage for persons below 18years without the possibility of adeputy belong to the definition.

Intergenerational JusticeThe FRFG perceivesIntergenerational Justice according tothe definition of the ‘HandbookIntergenerational Justice’ as a state, inwhich the chances for future genera-tions to satisfy their own needs are atleast as high as these chances were forthe precedent generations.

The FRFG invites tendersfor the Award forIntergenerational Justice2005/2006


The campaign can’t stop hereKarsten Wenzlaff, President of YOISEurope, explains why YOIS supportsthe implementation of ecologicalintergenerational justice in the consti-tution. He cautions not to stop afterthe conference, but take concrete stepsvery soon.

About YOIS

YOIS is short for Youth forIntergenerational Justice andSustainability. It is network unlike mostother networks: We are not affiliated withany political party; our members areschool students, students from all disci-plines and young professionals. We workinternational and have a global perspec-tive. We believe that future generationsshould have the same possibilities as pre-vious generations.

But what does that mean? Sometimes, weare asked: If future generations are notborn yet, how do you know what theywant in the future? What right do you

have to speak on behalf of future genera-tions?

The simple answer is: we don’t. We don’tclaim to know the truth about what lifefuture generations want to live. But weagree that the current economical andpolitical operating system of our planet isrestricting future generations in decidinghow they want their life to live. Resourcesare being wasted, natural habitats polluted,social security systems cannot sufficientlydeal with the ageing of our population.Our global operating system can create alot of wealth, but the distribution ofwealth is very unequal. At YOIS webelieve that our generation needs to makean effort to solve these problems, so thatfuture generations don’t have to pay forthe mistakes we made today.

Intergenerational justice is easy to define:all generations receive the benefits andbear the costs from the changes of societyand from technological innovations. But itis difficult to implement. To ensure theprinciple of intergenerational justice, allgenerations need to have an influence onpolitical decisions. Most political decisionsare short-sighted. Yet young people oftenhave remarkable long-term views con-cerning the environment, global peace,

education issues.

If you can’t vote, you are not con-cerned?

We offer two solutions: first of all, weneed to decrease the voting age rapidly. Ifyoung people can’t vote, they are notheard. Some people fear that young peo-ple can be influenced easily and lack thematurity to make well-judged decisions.But this is not true: in countries likeRwanda where half of the population isless than 18 years old, it is no surprise tosee two children delegates at the nationalparliament, elected by the children andyoung people under 18. They show nosign of immaturity; actually these dele-gates ensure that the country promotessustainable development.

The problem of children and young peo-ple voting is not immaturity, but thatadults often treat young people as somesort of underdeveloped human who haveno political opinion. In most cases this isnot true either. In 2002, a campaign called“Ich-will-wählen” (I want to vote) wasstarted. It asked young people under 18 togive reasons why they would like to vote.Some of the most thoughtful and sophis-ticated justifications came from 12 and 13

These definitions should help to avoidfundamental misunderstandings. They arenot binding for the participants of thecompetition; alternative definitionsshould, however, be well reasoned andought to take into account relevant litera-ture.

General Remarks

Up to now, about one fifth of the popula-tion of most industrialised countries isexcluded from suffrage. The discussion ofthe different models and proceduresshould constitute an essential part of thework. The workings ought to treat thetopic from in an interdisciplinary way, thatis, from perspectives of Political Sciences,Law, History, and Sociology. Moreover,the international context needs to beadhered to. Therefore, team works areparticularly welcome.

To question 1)

The workings should comment onwhether the democratic principledemands a “Voting Right from Birth”. Itneeds to be differentiated between activeand passive suffrage. In this context vari-

ous models that are thinkable to introducea “Voting Right from Birth” should beanalysed in a comparative way. Within thisexamination, also aspects of the electionprocedure can be taken into considera-tion, for instance postal vote or suffragefor foreign nationals.

To question 2)

The workings should depict the implica-tions of a “Voting Right from Birth” aswell as the realisation of IntergenerationalJustice. Aspects of the analysis can be- taking into account the demographicchange, to what extent a “Voting Rightfrom Birth” would influence the decisionsand actions of politicians and politicalparties in the sense of more sustainabilityand long-term thinking;- to what extent a “Voting Right fromBirth” would lead to the establishment ofnew parties that align their program aimedat the interests of new groups within theelectorate;- to what extent a “Voting Right fromBirth” would have implications on the dis-cussion of politics within the family;- to what extent a “Voting Right fromBirth” would have implications on social

studies and politics lessons in schools- to what extent a “Voting Right fromBirth” would encourage democracy as away of life.

To question 3)

Here, it is to present which argumentsagainst a “Voting Right from Birth” exist.For the draft strategy to impose a “VotingRight from Birth” historical experiencescan be taken into consideration, for exam-ple the introduction of voting rights forwomen or for coloured people in theUSA.Finally, it could be outlined which con-crete constitutional changes would be nec-essary to realise the “Voting Right fromBirth” and how a necessary majority couldbe won over.

To participate in the competition, youneed the respective forms which can berequested by sending an e-mail [email protected].

years old – they felt that a democracy cannot arbitrarily exclude a portion of thepopulation from active citizenship.

Be Aware: Future Generations!

Voting is one thing, but democracy has itsdeficiencies. Like Churchill said“Democracy is the worst form of govern-ment except for all those others that havebeen tried.” The problem of democracy isthat unborn generations have no votes atall. This is a problem we cannot solve withsimply reforming the voting proceduresor the access to voting rights. We need tocreate awareness for intergenerational jus-tice. Some countries have introducedOmbudspersons or advisory councils,some have parliamentary committeesdealing with intergenerational justice, andsome have included intergenerational jus-tice in their constitutions.

YOIS supports the campaign of theFoundation for Rights of FutureGeneration to introduce intergenerationaljustice in constitutions across Europe andin future treaties of the European Union.The first step was the congress in Berlin inJune. But the next step has to create moreawareness and needs to take the dialogueto the young people in Europe. It’s notenough if three dozen young leaders talkabout the implementation of ecologicalgeneration justice at a conference. Thecampaign has to fill the abstract meaning

of intergenerational justice with life.

Intergenerational Justice and theMDGs

The method of YOIS is talk about eco-logical intergenerational justice in theframework of global development. In myopinion, the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) of the United Nations areone step to realise intergenerational jus-tice: provide education, decrease maternaldeath, and promote sustainable develop-ment. YOIS coordinates the efforts ofyouth NGOs working the MDGs.

This is part of our overall contribution toan initiative called the Global MarshallPlan. The Global Marshall Plan aims atcreating a world-wide Eco-Social MarketEconomy, creating the funds for theimplementation of the MillenniumDevelopment Goal and distributingwealth through an introduction of a TerraTax on resource consumption, a marginalTobin tax on international capital transferand other very practical solutions.

The next step

I give these two examples to show thatYOIS is an organisation that addresses alot of different issues. But we don’t wantto address a big ‘’anything whatever’’. Wewould like to co-operate with NGOs whobelieve like us in intergenerational justice

and want to try new approaches to achievethat aim.I suggest that Youth NGOs in Europe,among them YOIS, start the next step inraising awareness for ecological genera-tional justice. Remember: good newsdon’t have to be bad news, most localnewspapers are happy to have their pagesfilled during the summer gap. Why notwrite short articles about ecological gener-ational justice?Also, most members of European parlia-ments are happy if they can convey a pos-itive image of Europe at the local andregional level. Why not invite them tospeak at universities about Europe’s effortto save resources and discuss with themthe implementation of ecological genera-tional justice in the framework of theEuropean Union.One last method that YOIS would like topropose to the participants: let’s create alibrary of concrete examples of intergen-erational justice in the European context.Examples from Finland or Greece,Switzerland or Russia, easily available onthe Internet could serve as a starting pointfor a future discussion on these issues.

We offer a network of active people fromvery diverse backgrounds and skills. Weconnect old-aged academics and motivat-ed young people, professionals and volun-teers. In short: we try to live intergenera-tional justice in our daily work. Join us.www.yois.de


Dear RReader,

Your opinion matters!We want to improve the IntergenerationalJustice Review with your input. Send usyour comments to:

IJR-Editors, Postfach 5115, 61422Oberursel, GERMANY, Fax 06171-952566, Phone 06171-982367, [email protected] tell us of any friends to whom wecan send one trial issue free of cost. Ifyou would like to avail of this offer your-

self, then please understand that we can-not send you any further trial issues. Wewould be delighted should you choose tosubscribe to our magazine for just € 20 ayear. (see last page)

Support uus!

Become a member of FRFG today andsupport us in working towards intergener-ational justice. As a member you are invit-ed to all open meetings of the Board of

Directors and the Board of Trustees. Theminimum annual contribution is 50 €, andonly 25 € for those under thirty years. Youwill receive our magazineGenerationengerechtigkeit! Intergenerational Justice Review fourtimes a year. Complete and send us the

membership form on the last page of thismagazine today! Your children and grand-children might be grateful.

SRzG, Account no. 8039555800, GLSBank eG (BLZ 43060967),IBAN: DE64430609678039555800

FRFG ggranted ""SpecialConsultative SStatus" bbythe EECOSOC oof ttheUnited NNations

In July 2005, the Economic and SocialCouncil decided to grant SpecialConsultative Status to the Foundation forthe Rights of Future Generations. Theorganisation may now designate officialrepresentatives to the United Nations - tothe UN Headquarters in New York andthe offices in Geneva and Vienna. The

FRFG is very proud of this distinctionand looks forward to a productive cooper-ation with the UN's Economic and SocialCouncil. The relationship to the UnitedNations will certainly be helpful on theway to institutionalise IntergenerationalJustice on the global level.

TThhiiss ppuubblliiccaattiioonn hhaass bbeeeenn mmaaddee ppoossssiibbllee tthhaannkkss ttoo tthhee ssuuppppoorrtt ooff EEUU

PPhhaarree AAcccceessss PPrrooggrraammmmee..

Documents

(3rd EEnglish EEdition) ISSN 11617 - Generationengerechtigkeit · Unit pprice 110 EEuro Issue 33/2005 (3rd EEnglish EEdition) ISSN 11617 - 11799 Foundation for the Rights of Future