Conference Agenda

There are increasing calls to recognise Earth’s large biophysical systems that provide Earth system resilience and stability as “planetary commons”. The planetary commons include globally shared geographic regions currently recognised under the global commons, but more importantly, also all large biophysical systems that secure critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. Examples are large systems such as the atmosphere and oceans; smaller sub-systems that manifest as tipping elements such as the Amazon Rainforest; and down-scaled systems such as wetlands. As a new paradigm for thinking about planetary resilience, the planetary commons must ideally: safeguard critical Earth system functions that regulate planetary resilience; create responsibilities and stewardship obligations to safeguard planetary resilience; avoid crossing tipping points; and ensure a just world for everyone, now and in future. While declaring the planetary commons is a first critical step, governing these commons raises many complex and unsettled issues. For example, planetary commons governance will challenge the barriers of state sovereignty and self-determination, vested corporate and inter-state interests, structurally embedded global power inequalities, and demarcation complexities. Stakeholder involvement and representation of marginalized interests in designating and governing the planetary commons must be increased in ways that are representative of indigenous and other vulnerable groups. Relatedly, the pursuit of global justice and a broader understanding of multi-species and inter- and intra-generational co-existence for living well must be a top priority. Mutually re-enforcing relationships between law, politics, science, art, and other knowledge domains will also be key in shaping planetary commons governance that is steered by processes of dynamic, mutually supportive knowledge creation. This paper critically reflects on these and other key challenges associated with planetary commons governance and aims to trace the first tentative outlines of a broader planetary commons governance framework.

Futures thinking is progressively moving beyond perspectives of probable or possible futures, based on expert knowledge, toward preferred futures, based on anyone´s imagination. Visioning, a component of futures thinking that looks into these desired futures, uses participatory processes to jointly reflect on alternative futures. The literature points to advantages of participatory visioning, such as generating innovative ideas, crafting a shared language, creating mutual trust, and building empathy for diverse perspectives.

Futures thinking scholars, however, often overlook power imbalances and injustices in participatory visioning. For that reason, Lab2050, a collaborative living lab on envisioning a sustainable Portugal in 2050, pays special attention to the interplay between participation, equity and inclusion. The experimental project carried out by PlanAPP- the Competence Centre for Planning, Policy and Foresight in Portugal´s Public Administration, has meaningful participation and inclusion as its core values.

This paper describes the process of co-designing Lab2050. It aims to critically analyze enabling institutional settings and the politics of participation and provides recommendations for improved participatory visioning. Its methodology is two-fold. First, it reviews the literature on participatory visioning. Second, it qualitatively analyses the results of a methodological workshop organized by Lab2050 with 32 experts on citizenship and participation in Portugal.

Based on our results, we propose three distinctive features for more inclusive participatory visioning: 1. More than words: going beyond the use of words and include visions based on drawings, videos, theater, games, etc.; 2. Cherish the edges: instead of consensus-seeking, paying special attention to counter-hegemonic visions and more radical ideas; and 3. The Power of Place: instead of organizing workshops in conventional places conditioning participation toward more formal interventions, using unexpected but meaningful places (e.g. market, farm, factory, etc.).

Only then visioning will be about imagining ´all the people´ and not only those that are used to participating.

The pursuit of sustainability in the face of wicked problems such as the climate change crisis, the sixth mass extinction, and growing social dichotomies, requires a comprehensive and nuanced consideration of the moral and ethical dimensions that inform societal responses. Underlying norms and values are increasingly recognised as integral to promoting transformational change to address sustainability issues. For example, extensive empirical research in environmental psychology and behavioural sciences has demonstrated the pivotal role of values, norms, and morals in shaping pro-environmental behaviour and action for public goods. As such, normative values and ethics form an essential component of the ongoing conversation surrounding sustainability. It has been well established that there are numerous normative frameworks related to sustainability, often referred to as weak, strong and deep sustainability. Between these frameworks exist important differences in terms of normative values and visions for sustainability. Differences in such normative elements among members of groups and teams working towards sustainability transitions have the potential to impede progress on several levels.

At present, there is a need for empirical academic research that provides a deep comprehension of normative visions and values in sustainability actions, as well as how to navigate differences in such visions and values when they arise. Therefore, this paper presents key results from a case study which explored the implicit values related to normative sustainability visions amongst a team actively engaged in sustainability transition within their organisation, a public institution in Switzerland. Data collection methods included document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and a participatory workshop to explore sustainability visions and related values. These methods encourage participant reflexivity on both individual and collective levels through ethical dilemmas and reflexive discussion. This approach encourages participants to reflect on their own values, normative frameworks, and ethical perspectives related to sustainability.

The case study presented in this paper highlights the potential of the Donut Economics framework as a normative framework capable of accommodating visions of both strong and deep sustainability, and the associated value pluralism. Within the context of the group at the centre of the case study, sustainability visions and ethical reasoning revolve around the planetary boundaries and social needs highlighted in the Donut Economics framework. The dialogue that took place in the context of this case study also illustrates the potential for the Donut framework to incorporate alternative visions of the world if some key pitfalls are avoided.