We, the undersigned, subscribe to the following as individuals, not as representatives of any organization to which we are affiliated.

​

In order to address the many related global crises, there is a need for an effective procedure to globally decide on systemic changes. For example, the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) on climate change and the ones on biodiversity loss lack a sufficiently effective decision-making procedure and systemic approach. To provide an alternative to the COPs and many other decision-making bodies, a decision-making procedure needs to be designed. Examples of such a procedure are impartial deliberation followed by voting, and decision-making based on knowledge and reason. The procedure needs to be designed by experts in decision-making (such as deliberation techniques, voting mechanisms, and problem analysis) and by laypeople , while auxiliary bodies overview and support the design process (see notes 1-4). The result would be a procedure and a decision-making body that employs this procedure to decide on systemic changes. (Notably, these decision-making experts and auxiliary bodies do not decide on system change but how others decide on it. They `decide how to decide’.) Because of this set-up, the decision-making procedure probably will be well-designed; also, many proposals for systemic change would be available. For these reasons, the decision-making body could be perceived as legitimate (note 5). However, implementation of the resulting measures may be obstructed in many ways (note 6). Yet, decision change should be attempted because there presently is no sufficiently effective global decision-making on fundamental matters. In conclusion, an independent organization should facilitate decision change to more effectively address the global crises.

​

The following notes are only explanatory details not necessarily agreed on by the signatories. The paragraphs, table, and appendices mentioned in the notes refer to the paper in the peer-reviewed journal Sustainability.

​

(1)    Design process: The decision-making experts would determine the design process but Appendix A.1 (The Meta-Decision Method) suggests scoring as a starting point for a discussion. To encourage cooperation in 'dream teams' of experts (i.e. counter the Apollo effect, as it is called), the experts themselves would probably insist that laypeople be added to the decision-change body. Appendix A.2 (Safeguarding the Design Process) suggests that laypeople (assembled in a verification group) also aid in the design. 

​

(2)    Selection of decision-making experts:  Initially, the team would select the experts, then the experts themselves would suggest others. Appendix A.2 (Safeguarding the Design Process) suggests that an overview board guarantees diversity and independency of the decision-making experts.  The overview board in turn would be advised (if not controlled) by an argumentation council. The selection of expertise will be as diverse as possible: see Table 1 for a sample of expertises.  

​

(3)    Selection of design process: The experts would informally "have to decide how to decide how to decide" and informally determine the composition of the auxiliary bodies, as set out in Paragraph 7.2 (Potential Limitations of the Programme). Otherwise, as the quoted phrase suggests, there would be an infinite regress of decisions about decisions.

​

(4)    Corporate, political, and ideological capture: Paragraph 7.1 (Potential Advantages of the Programme) acknowledges that the process cannot be entirely immune to politics, ideology and commerce, even if funded by third parties, but the mix of experts would make the resulting decision-making procedure "as resistant to conflicts of interest as possible".

​

(5)    The programme meets all of Buchanan’s criteria for legitimacy, as expounded in Paragraph 7.1 (Potential Advantages of the Programme).

​

(6)    As explained in Paragraph 7.3  (Implementation Prospects),  vested interest, and perhaps also the public, would create obstacles but “the programme would have to develop strategies to manage them or rather avoid their creation.”