UNESCO

Chair on Heritage Futures

World Futures Day 2025 at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris

2025-12-04


Compiled by Helena Rydén, Assistant to the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University.

On 2 December, UNESCO hosted World Futures Day at UNESCO HQ in Paris under the theme “Anticipation in an Era of Volatility.” The event showcased UNESCO’s approach to addressing global challenges through futures thinking and foresight. It also highlighted the role of UNESCO’s network of over 1,100 University Chairs, including 35 focused on Futures Studies, in identifying emerging issues worldwide.

The event gathered around 700 registered participants—mainly from Europe, including many Paris-based attendees—from diverse backgrounds: academia, UNESCO Chairs, students, UNESCO staff, policymakers, and industry representatives. The venue itself, rich in history and adorned with works by among others Picasso and Giacometti, provided a cultural backdrop. Sessions alternated between French and English with simultaneous interpretation.

Helena Rydén, Assistant to the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University waiting for the World Futures Day to start!

A keynote lecture by French philosopher Éric Sadin “The Future of Humanity in an Era of Omniscient Artificial Intelligence,” argued that generative AI marks a turning point in human history. He warned of its social consequences, particularly in education, and urged critical reflection on what remains for humanity when learning and creativity are delegated to machines.

A panel followed, exploring how complex systems perspectives and education systems can help societies navigate AI-driven futures while safeguarding humanity and planetary well-being. Speakers included Rosa Vásquez Espinoza, Tanja Hichert, Michael Shamiyeh, and François Taddei, moderated by Gustavo Merino, Director, Social Policies, UNESCO.

Other sessions addressed systemic change, resilience, and international cooperation, with contributions from global thought leaders and UNESCO senior officials. Closing remarks by UNESCO’s Gustav Merino reinforced UNESCO’s mandate to strengthen shared humanity through education, science, culture, and communication.

A digital exhibition, “Good Ancestors: Art & Culture for Future Generations,” ran in the Ségur Hall, linking art and culture across time. The original exhibit was organised by the two missions to the UN (the co-facilitators of the negotiations) in support of the UN Declaration on Future Generations.

At the reception in the evening Cornelius Holtorf, holder of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University and UNESCO Director-General, Mr Khaled El-Enany had the opportunity to shake hands. Photo Claudio Pescatore

Some UNESCO Chairs on Futures Studies gathered at the reception in the evening.

Creative workshop by UNESCO Chairs at World Futures Day in Paris 2025

Compiled by Helena Rydén, Assistant to the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University.

World Futures Day (WFD) on 2 December 2025 explored the theme “Anticipation in an Era of Volatility” at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. One of the highlights was the afternoon session, “Crisis Preparedness and Beyond: Future-Making Through Heritage,” where Vicky Karaiskou and Cornelius Holtorf—both UNESCO Chairs—engaged a large and enthusiastic audience.

Vicky Karaiskou and Cornelius Holtorf at UNESCO HQ in Paris 2 December 2025 preparing for the afternoon session.

We were divided into four groups. After introductions by several UNESCO officials, Vicky and Cornelius took the lead and guided us through the workshop. Both are deeply interested in the culture and values that shape us as human beings—Vicky focusing on the visual dimension.

Vicky Karaiskou explains: “I explore the profound implications of cultural visual narratives, shedding light on how they shape our individual and collective memory, as well as societal perceptions. Visuality examines the origins of our perceptions and assumptions because they deeply influence how we perceive the present, how we engage with the past, and how we envision the future.”

Cornelius Holtorf describes: Heritage Futures are concerned with the roles of heritage in managing the relations between present and future societies, e.g. through anticipation, planning, and prefiguration.

The workshop was truly engaging. We began by discussing what forms a collective identity—language, food, family and education were among the ideas raised. Next, we reflected on the skills needed to cope with a crisis. We agreed that emotions and care—both as human traits and as something that must be learned—were essential. Finally, we were asked to imagine future scenarios where the collective identity and the skills would matter.

The goal was to help us focus on the origins of our perspectives and assumptions, which deeply impact how we envision the future. Our group envisioned a natural disaster scenario where our collective identity, empathy, emotions, and local context were crucial for decision-making.

If the aim was to foster empathy, inspire positive change, and promote inclusiveness and social resilience for an equitable future, the workshop certainly succeeded. By envisioning the future beyond the uncertainty of the unknown, we learned how to mobilize and stimulate inspiring thinking, feeling, and acting—unlocking new ideas for creative solutions.

Several participants said this workshop was the highlight of the day, and some even asked to exchange contact details with us, expressing interest in visiting the Chairs for a period.

Want to learn more about the UNESCO Chairs?

Framtidskanon

2025-11-28

Cornelius Holtorf was invited to the Cultural Heritage Forum 2025 of the Cultural Heritage Academy to attend an afternoon at the University of Gothenburg dedicated to a discussion of the cultural canon for Sweden. He presented a talk entitled “Future canon – from historical to future-oriented frames of reference” and participated in a panel with, among others, Lars Trägårdh who had led the government’s Commission to suggest the content of such a cultural canon for Sweden (27 November 2025).

The other members of the panel were

  • Lars Trägårdh, professor i historia och ordförande i den kommitté som regeringen tillsatt som tagit fram en svensk kulturkanon.
  • Åsa Arping, professor i litteraturvetenskap vid Göteborgs universitet.
  • Karin Nilsson, Verksamhetschef och tf överintendent ArkDes.
  • Moderator: Lena Ulrika Rudeke, verksamhets- och programansvarig för Göteborgs universitets programverksamhet vid Jonsereds herrgård och koordinator, Unesco Litteraturstaden Göteborg, medlem i CCHS advisory board.

Abstract for my contribution:

Framtidskanon: från historiska till framtidsinriktade referensramar

Det svenska samhället är en del av en värld där mänskligheten står inför avgörande utmaningar: klimatkrisen, krig, ojämlikhet, pandemier, den globala ekonomin med mera. Kultur och kulturarv, som rör hur människor förstår världen, varandra och sig själva, är centrala för att kunna möta dessa frågor. De skapar gemensamma referensramar som formar medborgarnas självbilder, värderingar, uttryckssätt och handlingsmönster. I mitt bidrag vill jag förskjuta perspektivet från en historiskt inriktad referensram till en framtidsinriktad. Jag utgår från att framtiden är större än Sverige, men belyser med exempel hur en framtidskanon kan bidra till att människor i Sverige: tänker långsiktigt och hoppfullt, blir bättre rustade att hantera förändringar, utvecklas till sådana de vill bli framöver, samt stärker sammanhållning, solidaritet och tillit både inom och mellan samhällen. En framtidskanon kan dessutom sprida den kunskap som bedöms vara mest angelägen för framtiden i Sverige och i världen.

A Global Framework for Research and Action

The UK National Commission for UNESCO has introduced a new Climate Action and Sustainability Framework alongside a Research Agenda, designed to leverage UNESCO sites as living laboratories for climate resilience and sustainable futures.

The publications align closely with the ARCHE (Alliance for Research on Cultural Heritage in Europe) Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, the emerging Horizon Europe Resilient Cultural Heritage Partnership, and UNESCO’s global priorities on climate, culture, and sustainable development. They provide a ready-made platform for UK and international partners to collaborate on transdisciplinary research, Living Labs, open data infrastructures, and evidence-based policy.

Sarah May

Sarah May, affiliated with the Chair, serves as Co-Director at ButCH and is an active member of the UKNC Research & Innovation Group.

ButCH stands for Bureau for the Contemporary and Historic.

It is an organization involved in UNESCO-related climate and heritage research, and in this context, ButCH helps convene and manage the activities of the UKNC Research & Innovation Group, focusing on developing and delivering strategic research agendas around climate resilience and cultural heritage.

UKNC stands for UK National Commission for UNESCO

The publications are available here:

https://unesco.org.uk/news/unesco-uk-launches-framework-for-place-based-climate-research-and-action-through-unesco-sites

Claudio Pescatore: Uranium and Nuclear: Humanity’s Web of Liabilities

2025-11-06

Claudio Pescatore explains why uranium’s chemical hazard is not a distant issue but a present debt — and why it will remain forever.

Not tomorrow, but today

When most people think of nuclear waste, they imagine glowing canisters buried in rock, hazards for a far-off future. The truth is different, and more unsettling. The greatest uranium problem is already with us now.

From the deserts of the American Southwest to abandoned mines in Central Asia, uranium residues contaminate soil, rivers, and aquifers. Communities live with the consequences today — kidney disease, unusable water.

Present-day scars

The Navajo Nation (U.S.) bears the legacy of Cold War uranium mining. Hundreds of abandoned mines and one out of four contaminated water-wells leave residents facing disproportionate health risks, needing endless cleanup.

Wismut (Germany), once the largest uranium mine outside the Soviet Union, has been under remediation since reunification. Billions of euros have been spent, yet groundwater plumes persist and treatment must continue indefinitely.

Mailuu-Suu (Kyrgyzstan), a former Soviet mining town, is home to dozens of unstable tailings piles above a river valley. Landslides and floods threaten to spread contamination widely.

UMTRA sites (U.S.), meant to stabilize mill tailings from past uranium production, continue to show uranium plumes exceeding drinking-water standards decades after closure.

These are not failures of engineering so much as reflections of uranium’s nature: a hazard that does not diminish on human timescales. Covers break, dams erode, pumps wear out. Each “remedy” is temporary, and each handoff pushes costs into the future.

We hardly use what we extract

Of all uranium mined for the nuclear fuel cycle, less than 0.4% has been used in reactors. The other 99.6% remains as residues — mill tailings, depleted uranium, and reprocessed uranium (see Figure 1). Its inventory by stock type is shown in Figure 1.   For each ton of Uranium is spent fuel, there will also exist an additional 9 tons as Depleted Uranium or Mill-tailings uranium.

Figure 1. Distribution of humanity’s uranium by stock type. Depleted uranium (≈69.5%) and uranium mill tailings (≈19.5%) dominate the global inventory, while spent fuel (≈8.1%) and reprocessed uranium (≈2.9%) make up the remainder.

Figure 2 shows that the largest uranium stocks — DU and mill tailings — are exactly those left near the surface. In other words, the smaller share is given the world’s most advanced containment, while the larger share remains exposed.   Put differently: a single metric ton of uranium represents hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of water needed for dilution, and millions of lifetime toxic doses. Multiplied by thousands of tons, the numbers are staggering.

Figure 2.  A measure of the liability from managing uranium is the Total Lifetime Doses (TLD) indicator. Values associated with each stock represent the number of lifetime-equivalent chemo-toxic exposures, expressed in billions of people. As the largest stocks of uranium reside in Depleted Uranium and in Mill Tailings, there lies most of the uranium liability to the future. Yet they receive far less stringent containment. 

A web of liabilities

Uranium’s hazard is not just technical. It is woven into a web of liabilities:

Geographical liabilities: Uranium may be mined in one country, enriched in another, and its waste left in a third. Communities that never benefited from the electricity pay the price. The Navajo did not choose the bombs their ore fueled; Mailuu-Suu’s residents did not choose Soviet reactors.

Temporal liabilities: Every cover or dam has a lifespan measured in decades or centuries. Uranium’s hazard lasts for billions of years. Each cycle of repair and neglect transfers liability to the next generation.

Institutional liabilities: Regulators often focus on radium or radon, ignoring uranium itself. Mining laws may require closure plans but not perpetual stewardship. Health agencies emphasize chemical toxicity, while nuclear agencies emphasize radiation. No one body takes full responsibility.

The result is a system that allows uranium to slip through the cracks, its hazard passed along invisibly until it reemerges as a plume, a lawsuit, or an abandoned site. 

Externalization of uranium costs

Uranium’s spread dismantles the idea of nuclear energy as “clean.” Yes, reactors emit little carbon dioxide. But the residue they generate — and the residues left by mining and enrichment — are anything but clean. Calling nuclear clean externalizes uranium’s costs onto:

future generations, who will inherit broken dams and leaking piles;
local communities, often Indigenous or marginalized, who live with toxic water and unsafe lands;
other geographies, as uranium mined elsewhere, in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and North America leaves residues that outlast states and borders.

Nuclear power may be low-carbon, but when uranium’s chemical liability is ignored, it is not low-cost, low-risk, or clean.

As an example, countries like Finland or Sweden that only have spent fuel still carry an indirect liability ten times as large in terms of Total Lifetime Doses and Dilution Liability. This stems from the additional uranium mill tailings and depleted uranium left to others to manage. Unlike spent fuel, these vast residues remain in shallow sites, piles, or surface storage — often in jurisdictions with lower environmental standards and certainly facing the endless remediation that surface storage entails.

Toward accountability: a Uranium Liability Convention

How do we begin to govern such a debt? One step is recognition: uranium is the parent hazard. It should not be masked by proxies like radium or radon.

But recognition is not enough. Uranium is traded globally, yet its liabilities are stranded locally. This calls for a Uranium Liability Convention (ULC) — a framework to:

Map liabilities: track where uranium has been mined, processed, stored, and abandoned.
Assign responsibility: link benefits and burdens so costs cannot be endlessly shifted.
Set binding obligations: require durable containment, including deep disposal for depleted uranium.
Integrate health and environment: recognize both chemical and radiological hazards.

Such a convention would not be a technical fix. It would be a moral and political acknowledgment that uranium’s hazard cannot be wished away, and that accountability must match the timescales of the debt.

What this means in human terms

For communities now: remediation cannot be partial. The Navajo, Mailuu-Suu, Wismut, and countless others need more than fences and promises. They need durable remedies that reduce exposure and stop passing costs to their children.

For nuclear debates: sustainability claims must account for uranium’s unresolved debt. Low-carbon is not clean when its waste contaminates forever.

For future generations: memory and containment must last longer than institutions usually plan for. Passing the burden on is not stewardship; it is abandonment.

Takeaway

The uranium hazard is not a future scenario. It is present contamination, future inevitability, and permanent liability.

It is a web that links countries, generations, and institutions. And unless we confront it honestly — by recognizing uranium itself, containing it durably, and sharing responsibility globally — that web will only tighten.

Uranium is not just fuel or waste. It is an environmental debt. The question is whether we will keep externalizing it, or whether we will finally take responsibility for paying it down.

Further reading

– Claudio Pescatore (2025). Humanity’s Uranium Inventory: A Persistent Chemical and Ecotoxicological Liability. Energy Research & Social Science 127 (2025) 104298  in open access

Claudio Pescatore

Claudio Pescatore is a member of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University

Anticipating Change: Exploring Long-term Futures for Heritage

2025-10-23

On the 16th of October 2025 ICCROM organized a workshop on Strategic Foresight in Heritage taking place in Rome, titled Anticipating Change: Exploring Long-term Futures for Heritage. The purpose of the workshop was to found a community for practice surrounding Strategic Foresight in heritage, to build resilience, relevance and agency among heritage organisations in the face of uncertainty and change.

Gustav Wollentz from the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures assisted in the organisation and facilitation of the workshop, contributing with a presentation on the value of Strategic Foresight in heritage and moderating parts of the agenda, which included both a hands-on Foresight exercise, the Futures Wheel, as well as a discussion on how to move forward together.

The goals of the newly established group are to:

  • Connect and amplify foresight and innovation efforts across the heritage sector. 
  • Co-developing and testing foresight methods in real-world heritage contexts. 
  • Building an open repository of trends, tools, and insights tailored to the sector’s needs. 

Together vid ICCROM, the workshop gathered representatives from the International Council on Archives, ICOM (International Council of Museums), IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), NEMO (Network of European Museum Organizations), UNESCO, the French Ministry of Culture, the Swedish National Heritage Board, the Heritage Alliance, UK, the Fondation des Sciences du Patrimoine, France, the Getty Foundation, USA, and University College London, UK. 

More information on the workshop is available here: https://www.iccrom.org/news/anticipating-change-exploring-long-term-futures-heritage

Future-Making at Riksantikvaren (Norway)

On Wednesday, 22 October, Anders Högberg was invited by the Norwegian National Heritage Board (Riksantikvaren) to give a presentation on Heritage Practices as Futures-Making Practices. The presentation was well received, and the subsequent discussion centred largely on the novelty of the future-oriented perspective that was introduced, as well as on how one might think in order to translate future-oriented ideas into more concrete heritage practices.

Anders Högberg, professor of Archaeology and member of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University.

Constructing heritage for future-making

2025-10-16

On 11 March 2011, Eastern Japan was hit by a triple disaster caused by the combination of the impacts of an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown. Many people lost their lives, their homes, or their livelihoods, and are still affected by the aftermath now.

Figure 1: Central area of the Disaster Memorial Park under construction in Futaba, Fukushima

Over fourteen years later, the region most affected is now covered by a plethora of topical museums, exhibitions, memorial stones, and even some largescale memorial parks that either opened over the last few years or are still under construction. They all do not only aim at recalling what happened but also intend to create a better future.

Figure 2: 3.11 Densho Road connecting disaster memorial facilities in Eastern Japan

I first explored the topic on an exploratory trip to Fukushima Prefecture (with Tomas Nilsson and Tom Holtorf) in spring 2023. Now I was able to return for some days in connection with a NEA (OECD) conference on Nuclear Waste Management I participated in in Yokohama. I could even spend two days in Miyagi Prefecture this time. I am more than ever convinced that Eastern Japan provides a good case for studying the role of cultural heritage in negotiating the relations between present and future societies, i.e. what we call heritage futures.

Figure 3: Display in the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum in Futaba, Fukushima


I found evidence that remembering the 3.11-Disaster related present and future societies in at least the following interrelating but different ways:

1. Restoring and continuing after hiatus

  • Restoring shrines and other cultural heritage to reconnect with the past for the future
  • Passing down memories and lessons of the disaster to protect lives around the world in the future, e.g. building higher seawalls and promoting tsunami alert response (e.g. memorial facilities along 3.11 Densho Road)
  • Expressing personal memories of the disaster to continue life
  • Revitalizing the region by promoting and rebuilding economic development, e.g. through high-tech and tourism (e.g. Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum in Futaba)

2. Making up for past failure

  • Accepting apologies and accountability that come with the responsibility to make up for the damage (Tepco)
  • Honouring the victims forever (memorial stones)

3. Finding a better way forward

  • Increasing resilience by improving the human ability to embrace loss, change, transformation, adaptation and renewal in the future (e.g. inspired by Sakura, the reoccurring cherry blossoming)
  • Learning from the mistakes of modernity and capitalism to create a more sustainable society for the future.

4. Restarting and regenerating life

  • Partial forgetting of the disaster in order to move on with new life (e.g. resprouting of burned trees, see Figure 4)
  • International support and joint remembering as an opportunity for connecting people around the world (Ishinomaki City Kadonowaki Elementary School exhibit)
  • Recovering from the disaster to regenerate our lives for the future refocusing human priorities (e.g. some eye-witness storytelling).

Figure 4: a tree outside Ishinomaki City Kadonowaki Elementary School burned by the disaster in 2011 but now resprouting with new life

In sum, preliminary outcomes of my fieldwork reveal how past, present, and future can be strongly interconnected: the way we tell the past in the present strongly correlates with our assumptions and anticipations of the future. This becomes particularly pertinent in the case of the 3.11.-Disaster which brought about extensive losses of lives and livelihoods, including entire town areas and much essential infrastructure.

The future we are building today in the aftermath of the disaster depends on how we describe and remember what actually happened, e.g. by constructing cultural heritage sites, as currently happens in the area affected by the 3.11 disaster along the Japanese East Coast. There are different ways of recalling the disaster and different futures following on from that. That is why cultural heritage is of great importance in future-making, and why heritage futures matter in the present.

Heritage Futures for Nuclear Waste

2025-10-09

Cornelius Holtorf presented a talk entitled for cirka 100 participants at the Symposium on Information, Data, and Knowledge Management for Radioactive Waste: Challenges Across All Timescales, organised by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD and hosted by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) in Yokohama, Japan (7-10 October 2025).

Heritage Futures: Archaeological Insights for the Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste

Cornelius Holtorf, UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures, Linnaeus University

Managing radioactive waste is a challenge that extends across many generations, requiring long-term safety measures. Archaeologists, like myself, are familiar with time scales of thousands of years as we seek to understand the distant past. A key part of our work involves questioning assumptions rooted in the present and learning to imagine past worlds that were vastly different from today. This is very difficult, but only after doing so can we draw meaningful insights from the past to inform the present. The same principles should apply when communicating information, knowledge, and guidance about radioactive waste repositories to societies of distant futures. This calls for a strengthened capacity in ‘futures literacy,’ a concept developed and promoted by UNESCO.

Futures literacy consists of three core dimensions: 1. Becoming aware of the assumptions we hold about the future, 2. Learning to imagine multiple alternative futures, and 3. Reframing the original issue and developing new strategies to address it.

In this paper, I explore this argument and discuss its implications for a long-term, safe and responsible management of radioactive waste. The paper is based on extensive research conducted by the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University in Kalmar, Sweden. The research has been carried out in collaboration with the radioactive waste sector in Sweden and internationally, including through participation in several expert groups of the NEA.

All timescales on the agenda

2025-10-08

I attended and contributed to a global Symposium on Information, Data, and Knowledge Management for Radioactive Waste, organised by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) for the OECD in Yokohama, Japan (7-10 October 2025). Over 100 participants attended from Japan and around the world.

From the conference blurb (shortened): radioactive waste is produced in all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle and from the use of radioactive materials in industrial, medical, defence and research applications. After creation and use, many countries have a policy of interim storage, followed by permanent disposal underground in engineered repositories located in suitable geological formations. Significant quantities of data and information are generated throughout this lifecycle with many countries now exploring the concept of a digital safety case. The operational period of nuclear generation facilities often covers several decades, while disposal facilities are designed to operate for even longer. This raises significant challenges as these timeframes span multiple generations of workers and are likely to see many changes in policy and technology. Moreover, even after disposal, there is now a consensus on the importance of adopting strategies to preserve awareness of waste and disposal facility for long periods of time. The NEA Working Party on Information, Data and Knowledge Management (WP-IDKM) [to which Anders Högberg and Cornelius Holtorf belong] aims to co-ordinate these activities in a more holistic way, considering cross-disciplinary approaches and cognizant of all timescales of the information cycle. 

The conference addressed “Challenges Across All Timescales”, from imminent expert retirement to one million years and more in the future. This is about Heritage Futures for real!

I presented the following paper:

Heritage Futures: Archaeological Insights for the Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste

Managing radioactive waste is a challenge that extends across many generations, requiring long-term safety measures. Archaeologists, like myself, are familiar with time scales of thousands of years as we seek to understand the distant past. A key part of our work involves questioning assumptions rooted in the present and learning to imagine past worlds that were vastly different from today. This is very difficult, but only after doing so can we draw meaningful insights from the past to inform the present. The same principles should apply when communicating information, knowledge, and guidance about radioactive waste repositories to societies of distant futures. This calls for a strengthened capacity in futures literacy,’ a concept developed and promoted by UNESCO. Futures literacy consists of three core dimensions: 1. Becoming aware of the assumptions we hold about the future, 2. Learning to imagine multiple alternative futures, and 3. Reframing the original issue and developing new strategies to address it. In this paper, I explore this argument and discuss its implications for a long-term, safe and responsible management of radioactive waste. The paper is based on extensive research conducted by the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University in Kalmar, Sweden. The research has been carried out in collaboration with the radioactive waste sector in Sweden and internationally, including through participation in several expert groups of the NEA.