The EU's Intergenerational Fairness Strategy: Reflections on language and action

In March 2026, the European Commission adopted its first Strategy on Intergenerational Fairness (IGF Strategy). The IGF Strategy aims to prevent today's policies from disadvantaging younger and future generations, to balance the needs and responsibilities of current and future generations, and to ensure 'young people have a stronger voice in shaping policies'. This Strategy was the outcome of a year-long process - building on the work of the UN and civil society organisations on the UN Declaration on Future Generations and informed by research evidence from the Joint Research Centre's (JRC) EU Policy Lab. The process also took into consideration the 24 recommendations on intergenerational fairness produced by a European Citizens' Panel composed of 150 randomly selected citizens aged 18+ from all 27 EU Member States.

In 2025, the JRC organised and hosted a series of workshops gathering EU officials and stakeholders to exchange views and provide inputs. CRIN took part in these meetings, where we shared our expertise and thoughts on the scope, concepts and policy areas which should be addressed under the upcoming Strategy.

While we commend the consultative efforts undertaken by the JRC - and welcome the creation of this first of its kind strategy at the EU-level - the IGF has stark limitations. The text does include some timely statements and relevantly acknowledges some of the greatest challenges the EU must overcome - including inaction on environmental crises - however, as it exists, the Strategy is falling short of its apparent goals. For one, as a process, a 'strategy' is non-legally binding. It also falls short in proposing concrete deliverables or implementation tools across decision-making processes.

Still, the most pressing concerns are the Strategy's shortcomings in defining what is actually meant by 'intergenerational fairness'. Where do children fit into this definition? Significantly, too, the Strategy's ambitions are already at risk… jeopardised by several waves of EU proposals aimed at dismantling key environmental, health and social legislation.

How can 'intergenerational fairness' be realised when the promises the EU is making don't align with the institution's larger actions?

Failures in providing clear definitions lead to failures in upholding children's rights

In recent years, the term 'intergenerational' has gained prominence across policy, law and practice. There is growing recognition that the crises we face - and the decisions we make today - not only affect the planet and people currently living here but future generations, as well. The need for current generations to come together, and to respect and learn from one another, has never been more important in times of increased democratic backsliding, polarisation, social divisions and worsening inequality.

Yet, there is a persistent lack of clarity over what is meant by the term 'intergenerational'. Whilst signalling connection, relationships and dialogue across age groups, the term is most often used to refer to the coming together of different adult generations - from young adults to mid-life to elders - overlooking children altogether.

This is not, we assume, intentional. But it is also not, ironically, fair. Using an umbrella term, but failing to clarify who is, and is not, protected underneath this umbrella, leaves much open to interpretation. It gives the false impression that children are included and represented, which is often far from reality.

It is also not, sadly, surprising, given children are also frequently sidelined by the terms 'youth' and 'young people'. In the English language, there is often a conflation between 'children' 'young people' and 'youth', with the former often being subsumed and glossed over by the latter. There are many examples of youth policies, strategies, programmes, organisations and participatory processes (such as youth councils and parliaments), each with radically different definitions of what age group 'youth' or 'young people' applies. This can range anywhere from 12-24, 16-25, 12-17, 16-30, 18-24, 18-30, and 18-35-years-old. To add to the confusion, many do not define 'youth' or 'young people' at all, leaving it entirely to guess work.

Children have also become subsumed and overshadowed in conversations about the rights of future generations. In our work on deliberative democracy, we are aware of participatory processes which have given much attention to ensure the rights and 'voice' of future (unborn) generations are part of its design and outcomes, whilst completely overlooking the representation and participation of children altogether.

It is entirely understandable why the terms 'young people' and 'youth' are used. Such terms are more empowering, and less patronising and paternalistic. They also provide a definition for the blurry, transitional phase from childhood into adulthood and the unique, varied experiences individuals navigate during this period of life. At CRIN, we recognise that some older children do not refer to themselves as such, so we also include the phrase 'and young people' in our communications to ensure it speaks to those we work with. We do, of course, also recognise and stand in solidarity with the chronic challenges youth (which we take to mean, in lieu of a consistent global definition, those aged 18+) face regarding their democratic representation and participation. Indeed, many of these challenges are experienced by children. We actively collaborate with partners who work with youth, recognising the strengths of a joint-advocacy approach.

Yet, such conceptual ambiguities weaken rights protections for children. This is why CRIN stresses the importance of using the terms 'child' and 'children', given how often they are missed in policy and practice discourse. If children disappear in language, they can disappear - even more than they already are - in governance. Children's experiences are distinct and should not be overshadowed. Children, defined legally as those under the age of 18, are rights-holders with unique, evolving capacities and entitlements under international human rights law.

There is no intergenerational fairness in a deregulated world

The IGF Strategy is also being jeopardised by the very institution that created it. For the past few months, the European Commission has proposed several measures to dismantle existing legislative frameworks that protect children's health and the environment - in effect undermining the proper implementation of the IGF Strategy.

The triple planetary crisis (climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution) cannot be considered in isolation: they always intersect, and each poses an existential threat to the achievement of intergenerational fairness and children's rights. EU legislation can strongly help to limit pollution, to protect biodiversity and to fight climate change across Member States and beyond. Its laws can contribute to better upholding children's rights and help future generations avoid carrying the burden of today's industrial activities. Yet, for the past few months, EU institutions are negotiating several 'Omnibus' proposals that will, in effect, undermine the proper implementation of the IGF Strategy.

Here are just a few examples, among the regrettably long list of damaging Commission proposals:

• Chemicals Omnibus (VI) sets out several measures, including the extension of deadlines for removing known carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances. As such, people - including children - could remain exposed longer to harmful substances found in cosmetics and personal care products, with irreversible consequences on today's and future generations.

• Environmental Omnibus (VIII) proposes a massive roll back on the rules governing industrial and livestock rearing emissions, wastes, batteries and environmental assessments.

• Food and Feed Safety Omnibus (X) would shatter key protection standards governing the approval of pesticides in the EU by relaxing the rules for pesticides already identified as hazardous, opening the door to granting unlimited approvals for certain pesticides, as well as reducing transparency and public access to scientific information.

The IGF Strategy acknowledges that 'acting decisively on climate and environmental protection avoids far greater costs for younger and future generations and is an investment in the health, security, and living conditions of younger and future generations'. Deregulation does the opposite, as it tends to shift environmental costs in the future while keeping questionable and very short-term benefits in the present. Costs include increased pollution, related diseases, resource depletion, biodiversity loss and the collapse of ecosystems that current and future generations rely on. This is inherently incompatible with the EU IGF's commitment to ensuring current policies do not harm future generations.

The Omnibuses contradict the IGF's commitment to include younger generations in policymaking. The Omnibuses are negotiated through rushed, fast-tracked and opaque procedures with no impact assessment and no room for citizens, including children and young people, to express their voices. Decisions made in such undemocratic settings can lead to violations of the precautionary and prevention principles, which state that in cases of proven or suspected risk, a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking should always be prioritised. Neglecting those guiding principles negatively impacts current and future generations of children.

What needs to change

From the Omnibuses on the table today, children will only inherit poorer health conditions, as well as a deprived and degraded environment. This creates an unfair transfer of burdens across generations. Dismantling EU legislation will cause irreversible harms, such as species extinction, soil degradation and water pollution. These permanently reduce the opportunities and quality of life available to 'children', 'young people' and 'future generations' - whatever the language the EU decides to use.

The EU is supposed to apply the precautionary and prevention principles to avoid adopting decisions harming citizens, their health and the environment. To comply with these principles, decision-makers should adopt preventive and precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is either tangible or uncertain, and the stakes are high. Current and future generations of children will bear the consequences of today's decisions made in undemocratic settings. The 'Omnibuses' are completely neglecting the precautionary and prevention principles the EU is meant to abide by.

Deregulation does not stop at dismantling environmental health safeguards: it also puts other legislation at risk, including on digital and social rights, profoundly weakening the tenants of democracy. Adopting a short-term vision of competitiveness leads to opaque and fast-track adoptions of deregulating provisions, prioritising a short-sighted vision of profits over foresighted fair decision-making required in healthy democratic systems.

Intergenerational fairness hinges upon the protection of the EU and national democracies. Democracy requires deliberative discussions and informed decision-making, offering time and space for interested stakeholders to express their views and share their expertise. The Omnibus processes have been doing the opposite.

In sum, the EU's publication of the IGF Strategy is a welcome step - but without deliberate effort to fine tune it and deliver on its implementation, it could remain an empty shell. The Strategy lacks clarity about who it does, and does not, apply to. Children are at risk of being overlooked, while their rights are being threatened by the EU's ongoing rollbacks agenda: dismantling the very legislation that's safeguarding them.

Whatever the language we use in policy, it means little if the actions decision-makers take contradict their promises. To fully respect and implement its own Intergenerational Fairness Strategy, EU institutions must urgently stop the deregulation process. Decision-making must be transparent, inclusive, participatory and fully assess the lasting impacts of policy changes for the long haul.

Truly, there can be no intergenerational fairness in a deregulated world.