Intergenerational Foresight 2026

Extractive production models and the systematic marginalization of rural and Indigenous communities have shaped Latin America’s development trajectory40. Colonial patterns that centred export- oriented hubs near natural resources established deep urban-rural asymmetries.41 These patterns persist in the form of rural poverty, infrastructure deficits and continuous outmigration that depletes human capital as younger generations leave in search of education and employment.42 In the twenty-first century, the so-called “commodities consensus” reinforced these dynamics.43 Governments across the political spectrum relied on raw-material-based growth strategies that privileged short-term fiscal revenues.44 Rural territories absorbed the social and environmental costs of extraction, while their expectations for participation, stability and long-term well-being remained secondary.45 Continued dependence on primary exports left governance vulnerable to international price cycles and external investment pressures, often at the expense of rural legitimacy.46 Limited regulation of extractive activities and uneven governance capacity in rural areas have compounded this trust deficit.47 Historical underinvestment in education, infrastructure and basic services constrains local economic diversification.48 Rural vocational training has expanded, yet evidence shows that training alone does not retain human capital without decent work, market access and territorial investment.49 Gaps in transport, digital connectivity and finance further restrict rural capacity to generate livelihoods that are viable across generations.50 At the same time, countervailing signals are emerging. Environmental-economic accounting frameworks and natural capital initiatives are beginning to integrate ecosystem assets into fiscal and development planning.51 Payments for ecosystem services in countries such as Costa Rica and Mexico have protected four million hectares of forest in two decades of implementation.52 Water funds supported by development banks and local partners are advancing ecosystem-based adaptation in more than thirty watersheds.53 These initiatives show that institutions can recognize ecosystems as productive assets that sustain livelihoods and strengthen national resilience. Yet these advances remain fragmented. They often operate as programmes at the margins, rather than as foundations of rural governance and legitimacy. The central challenge is how to move from isolated instruments to a structural shift where prosperity is defined, measured and governed through ecosystem health and intergenerational responsibility.REGIONAL CONTEXT Extractive growth and rural marginalization SYSTEM DYNAMICS When development undermines trust Three reinforcing feedback loops may explain why extractive development patterns persist in Latin America and how shifts in measurement, representation and transparency could yield more durable, nature-positive outcomes. Together, these loops shape how legitimacy is earned or eroded over time. 1. GDP-first metrics and the extraction trap When governments define economic success primarily through gross domestic product growth and short-term fiscal indicators, they repeatedly reward commodity expansion. Near-term revenues are prioritized, whereas rural well-being and ecosystem condition remain underrepresented in decision-making. Communities bear the costs of extraction in the form of degraded land, water stress and social disruption, without realizing stable, long-term benefits. Trust in institutions declines and political pressure mounts to further expand extraction in pursuit of growth. The declining trust and escalating extraction pressure reinforce dependency on extractive models even as their ecological and social foundations weaken.2. Ecosystem indicators, investability and renewed legitimacy When ecosystem indicators such as water quality, soil health, forest cover and biodiversity become decision-relevant, definitions of prosperity broaden. Regenerative practices become visible, measurable and financeable. Investment flows can support payments for ecosystem services, watershed protection and ecosystem-based adaptation. As ecosystem conditions improve and benefits become tangible, trust in ecological governance strengthens. Growing confidence in ecological governance reinforces the use of ecosystem indicators and attracts further investment in regeneration, thereby creating a positive feedback loop among stewardship, legitimacy and long-term resilience. 3. Political underrepresentation and declining legitimacy Historically marginalized groups, including Indigenous, Afro-descendant and rural communities, often lack meaningful representation in governance. Policies reflect incomplete territorial realities and overlook Intergenerational Foresight: An Approach for Long-Term Responsibility in Governance 27