Intergenerational Foresight 2026

1 The perpetual intervention loop External actors defer the transfer of authority by citing gaps in local capacity. This justifies continued control, postpones handover and prevents capacity from ever being fully built. Dependency becomes structural rather than temporary. 2 The power–performance loop Those with control over funding and formal authority define success metrics. Locally defined priorities are marginalized, weakening legitimacy and reducing community commitment to outcomes once external oversight ends. 3 The trust deficit loop Repeated exclusion from decision-making erodes confidence in local institutions. As trust declines, external actors perceive greater risk, reinforcing centralized control and further weakening local governance.At the same time, countervailing signals point to alternative pathways. Bangladesh’s Cyclone Preparedness Programme and India’s Odisha Resilience Mission demonstrate that when institutions embed women and youth as managers of local systems, recovery accelerates and public confidence rises.116 In Bhutan and Nepal, cooperatives are experimenting with community-run microgrids and schools that blend ancestral knowledge with digital tools. These models share a common feature: responsibility is transferred rather than deferred.117 The deeper tension lies in institutional incentives. Across South Asia, governance systems reward visibility over continuity. Decision-makers prioritize projects designed to deliver results within three to five- year funding cycles over those structured to last 30-50 years. Institutions treat sustainability as a downstream aspiration rather than a design constraint.118 This bias stands in contrast to the region’s long- standing traditions of stewardship. Customary governance institutions such as panchayats, jirgas, shuras, cooperatives and faith-based councils have historically governed collective resources, mediated conflict and upheld moral accountability across generations. While imperfect and at times limited to who they include, these systems reflect a principle modern governance often overlooks: leadership is held in trust, not extracted for short-term gain. As climate shocks intensify and external financing becomes more constrained, South Asia faces a choice. It can continue to manage crises through recurring interventions, or it can redesign governance to ensure that every initiative strengthens local authority and intergenerational continuity.119REGIONAL CONTEXT Continuity and authority in crisis governance SYSTEM DYNAMICS Governance design and capacity transfer The regional group identified three reinforcing feedback loops that explain why well-intentioned interventions frequently fail to produce lasting outcomes. Together, these loops lock systems into a pattern where projects must be replaced rather than inherited. Assets, data and infrastructure are frequently transferred not to communities but to intermediaries or local elites better positioned to absorb resources than to steward them for collective benefit. The result is a quiet extraction of value that leaves communities structurally weaker once programmes conclude. Intergenerational Foresight: An Approach for Long-Term Responsibility in Governance 44