Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D.
Kadak Associates

The National Academy of Public Administration at the request of the Department of Energy explored the question of intergenerational equity in decisions that are facing the department with respect to waste disposal. This study which culminated in a multi day workshop with people of diverse backgrounds, cultures and value systems produced a consensus statement of intergenerational objectives and implementing principles. In addition to developing the objective and implementing principles, the panel also addressed the process for decision making to involve stakeholders which could lead to a fair decision despite different value systems.

The consensus intergenerational obligation requires that "No generation should (needlessly), now or in the future, deprive its successors of the opportunity to enjoy a quality of life equivalent to its own." The objective is supported by 4 fundamental principles which must be taken together to address decisions for generations. These are: Trusteeship - Every generation has an obligation to protect the interests of future generations; Sustainability - No generations should deprive future generations of the opportunity for a quality of life comparable to its own; Chain of Obligation - the primary obligation is to provide for the needs of the living and succeeding generations. Near term concrete hazards have priority over long term hypothetical hazards: Precautionary - Do not pursue actions that pose a realistic threat of irreversible harm or catastrophic consequences unless there is some compelling or countervailing need to benefit either current or future generations.

The process guidance calls for analysis of risks, benefits and consequences; a public discussion of results with those significantly affected; and a continual evaluation of past generation decisions. This "rolling future" approach acknowledges the reality of uncertainty in decision making and changes in values, society and technology that occurs over generations. The process proposed is aimed at producing fair decisions, not just endless costly analysis.

The issue of intergenerational equity has largely been ignored by decision makers except in some abstract context. The issue of what to do with nuclear waste, particularly because of its notoriety and long term activity has focused some people on this issue. Although chemical and other wastes have similar long, and some would argue longer term hazards, it took the nuclear issue to bring intergenerational issues to the forefront. The debate over the clean up of the nuclear weapons complex and its difficulty also raises the issues of how much of our national wealth should be used to address this problem at the expense of other pressing needs such as curing cancer, aids, heart disease, the homeless, our declining educational infrastructure to name just of few of the needs for limited resources.

What is this generation's obligation to future generations? This question was asked of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) which is a non-profit, non-partisan organization chartered by the U. S. Congress to improve the effectiveness and performance of government at all levels. Although non-technical, its function and organizational framework is similar to the National Academy of Sciences. Membership in NAPA consists of fellows from the profession of public service and public administration. In 1994, the Department of Energy, to its credit, sought the advice of the Academy on how to balance risks, benefits and costs in its decision making process for the allocation of federal resources to projects that affect current and future generations including the clean up of hazardous sites and nuclear wastes. Since the money available is not infinite, decisions have to be made on what to do and how to do it. I had the privilege of serving on this panel to review this broad question.

DOE was interested in input to several specific questions which the panel addressed:

1. How can we deal with the uncertainty of the future in ways that permit current decision making?
2. How can present day decision makers establish the balance between present and future generation's needs?
3. How can the issues of limited societal resources be faced so that the most serious issues are addressed, and realistic progress can be made?
4. How can decision makers bring the issue of intergenerational equity broadly to the public? Why is this important and necessary?
5. How can an intergenerational decision process, and the decisions it makes, be made stable and enduring into the future?

The so-called "Deciding for the Future" panel consisted of largely academics in the public administration field but it also included others such as Al Alm, formerly of the EPA and now with DOE in charge of cleaning DOE sites, John Graham of Harvard's Center for Risk Analysis, Anthony Downs of the Brooking's Institution, Michael Toman of Resources for the Future and Mervyn Tano, representing the native Americans, to name a few of the 20 panelists.

In order to provide even more diversity of views and value systems and to focus on answering these questions, NAPA held an intensive three day managed retreat to focus on the fundamental issues to see if some consensus could be achieved relative to these intergenerational questions. Participants in the retreat included environmental activists, representatives from native American Indian tribes, industry and regulatory bodies, artists, faculty members, students, young people, engineers and other scientists. Even though we came from divergent backgrounds and, importantly, value systems, we were able, as a group, to achieve consensus on certain principles.

The final report, entitled, "Deciding for the Future - Balancing Risks, Costs and Benefits Fairly Across Generations" was issued in April of 1997. Sadly, it is not being used by DOE management as they struggle with stakeholders in their decision making process.

This paper will summarize the fundamental conclusions and suggestions of the NAPA panel with the hope that more use will be made of the thoughtful recommendations made and processes proposed.

The NAPA panel's fundamental overarching objective was that:

There were also four implementing principles which should guide the decision makers as to how to proceed in achieving the objective. They must be taken together and not used separately for sound intergenerational decision making. They are:

Using these principles as guidance the Academy Panel then considered how these rather lofty principles should be used in the decision making process. There was a realization that not all stakeholders held the same values and the impacts on some would be greater than upon others. There were significant discussions relating to environmental justice or injustice for the overall societal good. The consensus process proposed required an analysis of risks, benefits and consequences. Once completed, there should be a public discussion of results with those significantly affected. Lastly, the process established a "rolling future" which recognized that no one decision can be made for all time nor should it be since "things" change. Under this rolling future scenario, there is a obligation to continually evaluate past generation decisions for applicability and appropriateness. What this very important element means is that one should not expect the decision to be final for all generations or that it is intended to solve all present problems for future generations.

Every step in the NAPA panel's study attempted to be more specific thereby providing the decision maker not only the philosophical basis for intergenerational equity, but also the key elements of achieving it. These guidelines are aimed at how to bring stakeholders together to reach a decision that is perceived to be fair despite not being totally satisfactory to any particular stakeholder. The purpose of these guidelines is to produce decisions, not just analysis.

In order to avoid stakeholder stalemate or solutions reached out of expediency that simply can not be afforded, the process must be inclusive, open, and transparent. It should seek out public input. It must be honest, realistic, credible, flexible, and capable of change in response to new information. The process must acknowledge and directly deal, instead of avoid, different value systems. In the decision, the values upon which the decision is made must be explicitly stated since, in the future, the values may be different leading to different actions as part of the "rolling future" approach. The decision must be linked to current institutions. It is not acceptable to assume that there will be a better system to solve the problem, nor should it be assumed that current institutions will by definition disappear. Clearly, they will be different, but the rolling futures approach will compensate for those changes.

The process should consider risks as well as benefits to the generations. It should be able to identify and discriminate between tolerable from intolerable consequences. The process should acknowledge that there are means of prevention and mitigation in the event that the present decision may not be correct for intergenerational time. The role of technological advancement should not be ignored or dismissed. Nor should one rely on technology to be able to solve all problems. Last, but certainly not least, the decision process should recognize the limitation in funds and resources to tackle these long term problems. If one does not, the process will not be honest and will likely result in wasted resources and public distrust.

The National Academy of Public Administration has set forth a framework for intergenerational decision making which provides a consistent and fair basis for making the tough decisions that need to be made if we are to move forward in addressing the difficult issue of long term disposal of nuclear wastes. It recognizes that there is an intergenerational obligation that must encompass broader questions than the narrow issue of waste disposal since resources are finite and needs are great. It also recognizes that no decision can be final and that a "rolling future" view is better than trying for an answer for "all time". It attempts to balance the needs of the present with those of the future, in an open and transparent process that is aimed at producing a decision, not just endless analysis. It is hoped that decision makers will take a serious look at this process since it can work to resolve stakeholder stalemate.

ADeciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs and Benefits Fairly "cross Generations", National Academy of Public Administration, April 1997.