Negrutiu Et Al Resource Planetary Health Toolbox 12 05 2021.Odt

The Resource - Planetary Health Toolbox – taking the long view and a science-policy agenda for the next decade

Ioan Negrutiu1*, Gérard Escher2, Jason D Whittington3, Ole P Ottersen4, Philippe Gil- let2, Nils C Stenseth3

1 Institut Michel Serres, RDP-IXXI, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France 2 Office of the president and Earth and Planetary Science Laboratory, EPFL - École Polytech- nique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland 3Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Uni- versity of Oslo, Norway 4 Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

* Correspondence : Ioan Negrutiu [email protected]

Keywords: Adjusting needs and resources; Accounting and accountability; Convergence; Cultural shift; Demography; Ecological degrowth; Evidence-informed decision; Human rights and duties; Planetary health; Resource justice; State shift; Time boundary; Universal social protection floor.

Abstract (218) Nature’s goods and services are the foundation of life and health. Humans are strongly health-minded, and are individually and collectively resource-driven. However, humans do not frame resources properly and the environmental crisis reflects the unsustainable management of resources, the signature landmark of the Great Acceleration in the Anthropocene. Current governance systems are not equipped to handle challenges such as the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, as resource governance across sectors and institutions does not exist. To bring our governance systems more in line with sustainable use of and fair access to resources, the main question is: How to allocate accessible resources in ways that reconcile the basic needs of populations with the maintenance of the life-support functions of ecosystems? Here we describe a novel resource systems approach that integrates three principles (resource stewardship, human rights, and human duties) with the concept of planetary health (health for individuals, societies, and ecosystems). To facilitate their opera- tionalization and societal acceptance, resource-centered science is integrated within the model as a Resource Planetary Health Toolbox. The aim is to translate and incorporate this approach with knowledge-led and scientific evidence-based decision-making, and to experimentally define new objects of law and new forms of institutions in the public interest: reach social goals within ecological limits. Ongoing programs, practices, experimentations or initiatives indicate that this resource approach is timely and feasible.

Main message

Two conditions are necessary and sufficient for a peaceful future if we act NOW: resource justice and shared health. Resources all combined and the health of the biosphere, societies, and people. Neither one in isolation. So long as these conditions have not been enacted collectively, it will be difficult to resolve other grand challenges: poverty, equity and democracy, food security and sovereignty, global pollution and biodiversity erosion, climate change. It is very likely that the forthcoming great narrative will strongly rely on the planetary health concept and methodology, and have the resource justice and stewardship challenge at its core. 1 Table of contents

1. State-of-the-art - failing governance of resources and public health Three interdependent problems

2. Creating convergence and synergy between social and ecological issues through the resource-health paradigm (the Resource Planetary Health Toolbox)

2.1 Building a resource-centered systems science to impulse a transformative process of So- cial Justice, Ecological Responsibility and Cultural Acceptance

Three inclusive principles Integrating the principles with planetary health The emergence of a Resource-centered science Measuring what counts

2.2 The Resources Planetary Health toolbox or RPHT - Integrating principles, planetary health, resource-centered science and real life experiments

2.3 The Resource Planetary Health Toolbox: The science-informed political instrument in the adjustment of resources and needs

2.3.1 Defining a science – policy guiding frame and prioritizing research at national to local levels

2.3.2 Defining a science – policy guiding frame and prioritizing research at global to regional levels

2.3.3 Scale interdependences with RPH – the challenge ahead, a multi-scalar RPHT

3. Conclusions

2 1. State-of-the-art - Failing governance of resources and public health The current social and environmental crisis is systemic and has multiple and intertwined causes. The underlying cause is the failure of appropriate valuation and governance of resources and public health, two driving global challenges of our time (Dobs et al, 2011; Ehrlich et al, 2012; Barnosky et al, 2012; Mottesharrei et al, 2014; Ottersen et al, 2014; De Schutter, 2014a; Whitmee et al, 2015; Acunzo et al, 2018; Laurent, 2020).

Resources have always played a central role in human history and geopolitics (Meadows et al, 1972; Klare, 2002; Medina and Petit, 2012; Sverdrup and Ragnasdottir, 2014; Daviron, 2019). Updating the definition to reflect the challenges of the Anthropocene, we take a socioecological view to broadly define resources as inclusive physical, human, economic, institutional, normative, financial, technological, digital, etc. capacities through which collective and individual agency operates within societies (other resource definitions in Panel). Re- sources are both the substance and driver of economic models and institutions, of investment and fiscal and monetary strategies, of political capture and privilege and power systems, and of world order strategies (Ostrom, 2002; Srinivasan et al, 2008; Gylfason, 2011; Kissinger, 2014; Bergstrom and Randall, 2016; Jarrige and Vrignon, 2020). This system leads devel- oped States to take economic and technological advantage in terms of resource exploitation and appropriation, consigning an ecological burden on poor-income countries (Srinivasan et al, 2008). The intricate financial, human, and natural resource basis of the 2008 crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic are good examples.

Health gains depth and momentum through the lens of the “planetary health” concept (see Panel of definitions), i.e.,“health for individuals, societies, and ecosystems”. The strength of this concept stems from its breadth. It encompasses the societal symbolic meaning of health together with the actionable, factual, and scientific evidence-based policy dimension of public health of individuals and societies, and the state of ecosystems. Ecosystems are in a healthy state when their capacity to provide services and other resources, the ultimate foundations of life and health (Corvalan et al, 2005), is maintained over time.

We posit that the (mis-)governance and (mis-)allocation of resources are early warning signals of socioecosystemic vulnerability or resilience, i.e., of planetary health, and best inform and connect the broad spectrum of global change research targets (Biermann, 2007; Bier- mann et al, 2012). Indeed, planetary health and the issue of resources converge when sustainability is considered in terms of an inclusive social and ecological system. This socioecological system analysis explains how human activities require resources and affect the ecological system over time through energy and material demand and emissions (Binder et al, 2013; Fis- cher-Kowalski and Steiberger, 2017).

The inclusive resource-health view is not properly addressed by current political and diplomatic agendas. Current agendas ignore the long view and underestimate slow systemic risks. Many reports have analyzed the major drivers influencing public health and/or natural resources (Costanza et al, 2007; Vitali et al, 2011; Ehrlich et al, 2012; Ottersen et al, 2013; Barnosky et al, 2013; UNEP, 2014; Bradshaw and Brook, 2014; De Schutter, 2014b; Mote- sharrei et al, 2014; Stockstad, 2015; Nuesiri, 2016; De Schutter, 2017; Horton, 2017; Enge- bretsen et al, 2017; Sterner et al, 2019).

A common feature of these studies is the deterioration of socioecological systems resulting from inadequate social norms and power asymmetries between actors with conflicting interests at all governance levels. The determinants of socioecosystemic vulnerability are mutually 3 reinforcing and influence several other global challenges such as food and labor security, access to water and land, energy, and education (Raskin et al, 2002; UN human rights, 2011; De Schutter, 2017). Ultimately, resource depletion and strong economic stratification end up in societal collapse, as documented throughout history (Butzer, 2012; Motesharrei et al, 2014; Sverdrup and Ragnasdottir, 2014). Today, critical state shifts are expected around 2030 (Meadows et al, 2005; Barnosky et al, 2012).

Taken together, socioecological vulnerability reflects ill-adapted institutions and ineffective decision-making processes, which fail to solve or even aggravate issues (Figure 1A; Ace- moglu and Robinson, 2012; Horton and Lo, 2014; Engebretsen et al, 2017; Pecl et al, 2017; Wyborn et al, 2020; Dasgupta, 2021). This means that business as usual is maintaining a situation at odds with the public interest (or common purpose) in fields as diverse as the environment, social cohesion and health security, trade and investment, financial and economic regu- lation, intellectual property, and international security (Raskin et al, 2002; Ottersen et al, 2014). This not only depletes human and planetary resources, but maintains a system that drives the increasing concentration of power and resources in the hands of the few without meeting the vital needs of populations (Freibauer et al, 2011; Negrutiu, 2011; Motesharrei et al, 2014). Denying fair access to vital resources violates fundamental human rights and raises concerns about resource stewardship governance, with impacts on both public health and ecosystem health. This situation hinders the articulation of major global challenges with the coherent implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; Engebretsen et al, 2017; Herrero et al, 2020).

In summary, we are facing a quadruple problem. (1) A lack of convergence between social and ecological (health) issues (see also Supple- mental File 1). We argue that such convergence is handicapped by the fact that resource governance across sectors and inclusive resource-centered science and education programs do not exist. The result is a dysfunctional use of resources in the context of an increasingly frag- mented research landscape and policy agendas (Schoon and Van der Leeuw, 2015; Borne- mann et al, 2017; Sidgel et al, 2018; Wyborn et al, 2020; Negrutiu et al, 2020). This calls for a systemic approach across the entire resource field. (2) A lack of adjustment of resources and needs in public policies. The acceleration of world demand for limited resources is incompatible with the SDG’s imperatives (UNEP Interna- tional Resource Panel, 2015; Eisenmerger et al, 2020). Supplemental File 1 discusses the impact of this lack of convergence on the SDGs and their reliance on resource governance. There is compelling evidence that making green growth the building block of SDGs is mis- leading: a range of scenarios, including carbon budgeting, resource efficiency, incentives, and technological innovations, indicates that decoupling GDP from resource use under current growth expectations (2-3 per cent year increase) is not possible (Dittrich et al, 2012; UNEP, 2016).

(3) A lack of valuation of the benefits that ecosystem capital delivers to human well-being and society at large (Dasgupta, 2010 and 2021; see also Lindner, 2011; Guerry et al., 2015; Schultz et al., 2015). Instead, economic growth is being built on the depreciation of the planetary ecosystem capital, i.e., on unhealthy ecosystems. That neglected process of “ecosystem degrowth” (see Panel of Deﬁnions) is building on slow drivers and cumulave pping points, i.e., compound risks. Over time, this depreciation has become societally harmful.

(4) The social foundations of equity, equality, and justice have not been built on normative questions of of resource and opportunity distribution (Downing et al, 2020).

4 Altogether, our analysis indicates that acting on existing obstacles radical changes in resource governance and allocation must be considered. Most of the resource science and governance elements are available but insufficiently or improperly employed. Supplemental File 2 sketches the landscape of current resource expertise and corresponding regulatory instruments. They have not been integrated into an inclusive and coherent frame to ensure effective human rights, fair resource allocation, and the preservation of life-supporting capacities of natural systems.

2. Creating convergence and synergy between social and ecological issues through the resource-health paradigm (the Resource Planetary Health Toolbox)

The convergence design we develop below consists of assembling a set of inclusive principles for resource justice (Panel) and planetary health instruments with the goal to translate and incorporate them into a resource-centered systems science, and to experimentally define new objects of law and new forms of institutions for resource governance. The model in Fig- ure 1B shows how these components are articulated.

2.1 Building a resource-centered systems science to impulse a transformative process of Social Justice, Ecological Responsibility, and Cultural Acceptance To enable such developments, the natural sciences and legal and political studies must build a permanent alliance (see also Serres, 1992) with the aim of designing instruments for a commons and resource-centered social management. Importantly, law conveys the values that a society sets for itself to act according to policy options that borrow the language of law (Collart Dutilleul, 2021). The question of what forms of legal powers should be held over natural resources becomes crucial in a context of conflicting legal regimes and national capacities in a resource-constrained world (Ostrom, 2002; Medina and Petit, 2012; Malwe and Fernandez, 2013; Bergstrom and Randall, 2016; Gylfason, 2018; Supplemental File 2).

With these issues in mind, the alliance is focusing on the following aspects: Define an ethical frame based on a set of structuring principles; Integrate the principles with planetary health; and Work out the emergence of a resource-centered science.

Three inclusive principles that enjoy global institutional recognition and bear signiﬁcant local meaning have been assembled (Figure 1B, Table 1):

1) Integrate responsible resource stewardship and fair allocation;

2) Ensure fundamental human rights and basic needs; and

3) Preserve the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems.

The principles underpin the socioecological frame on universal and indivisible human rights and duties, with emphasis on resource stewardship and resource justice. Social justice starts with resource justice on which ecological responsibility can now be connected through knowledge and values. The three principles ensure both the full realization of human rights and the balance and articulation between instruments and devices in local-global, north-south, and cultural contexts. Integrating the principles with planetary health. The planetary health approach is creating synergy between the principles, both from a policy and science perspective (Table 1). Thus, in a society that emphasizes social justice and environmental responsibility, health becomes “a precondition, outcome, and indicator of a sustainable society, and should be 5 adopted as a universal value and shared social and political objective for all” (Ottersen et al, 2014). The concept of health allows reframing the long debated instrumentalization of nature (Ordway, 1956; Folke et al, 2016) into a system of “technological and environmental sobriety and literacy” (Martin et al, 2016; i.e., a narrative, as deﬁned in Panel). Through the narrative, the inclusive health approach is likely to be understood, accepted, and shared locally and globally, and thus ﬁll a gap in current practice of socioecological convergence. As methodology, the planetary health makes the three categories of health indivisible, interdependent, and reciprocal by providing science-informed and technology-enhanced actionable capacity (e.g., diagnostic protocols, standards, and norms, and monitoring, traceability, and reporting tools) in local-to-global contexts. For example, building the knowledge infrastructure for natural capital and economic data with increased geographic resolution and ro- bust resource footprints (Moran et al, 2020) requires satellite, sensor, tracker, and hyper- and multi-spectral imaging technologies, combined with AI and machine learning. This can In- form spatially explicit scenarios of disruption (environmental impacts of economic activities) needed in economic models and investment strategies.

Planetary Health calls for the emergence of a Resource-centered science (RCS) across disci- plines and user groups building on the data sphere in general, and the networking of individuals, communities, and organizations in particular. It is imperative to mobilize the best available science supported by rigorous statistics and modeling, and facilitate the adoption of results among decision-makers and society (Lomborg, 2001; Rosling et al, 2001; Cash et al, 2006). This is expected to

(1) facilitate synergy between science and policy-making (DeFries et al, 2012; Barnosky et al, 2014; Rockstrom, 2016; Folke et al, 2016) while opening strategic policy to the scrutiny of science (Boyd, 2016; Negrutiu et al, 2020) and

(2) improve the management of resource use (technological innovations) and maximize the resilience levels of given socioecological systems (social innovations) embracing cultural and geographic histories and specifics.

Measuring what counts. Experimental sciences contribute already socioecosystemic tools to monitor, value, manage, and report on the state and dynamics of socioecological systems (Binder et al, 2013). For example, the state of physical resources at national scale, e.g., ecosystem health, has been reported (AEEA 2013 and 2019). Also, modeling and monitoring carrying capacity (Panel) has recently been revisited in deﬁning the interface between social and ecological health (Mote et al, 2020), and Downing et al (2020) proposed new consumer- resource models that integrate environmental limits, minimum requirements for populations, and relationships between resource-versus waste-limited environments. Such instruments enable the translation of environmental limits into targets and deadlines, thus guiding decision- making to avoid, or at least to compensate for, social and ecological deficits. Ecosystem capital accounting tools are currently drawing a lot of interest because they exploit (near) real- time environmental and socio-economic data streams and serve as metrics, monitoring, and accounting instruments for policy (Ehrlich et al, 2012; Barnosky et al, 2012; Weber et al, 2014; Guerry et al, 2015; Steffen et al, 2015; Sterner et al, 2019; Ellis, 2019). These accounting tools could already have been implemented to help target no net ecosystem degradation; however, their incorporation into GDP-centered national accounting systems remains chal- lenging (Vanoli, 2005; Hanley, 2015; Weber, 2018; Acunzo et al, 2018).

In summary, the proposed model (Figure 1B; Table 1) is a transformative process that en- ables adjusting the balance between management through numbers (a dominant trend today) and governance through law. The current imbalance has resulted from institutional degener- 6 acy facilitated by an inflation of technical rules and norms inspired by statistics, benchmark- ing, big data, etc. (that collide with the unpredictability of reality), and the retrogression of the republican ideal of a society governed by general principles and rules (Supiot, 2015; see also Folke et al, 2005). That adjustment at all government / governance levels implies the en- actment of binding legal instruments that (1) provide fair access to resources for all (resource justice), (2) impose accountability for resource over-use and degradation, and (3) help to achieve sustainable levels of resource use.

The first application of the Resource-centered science is the Resource Planetary Health Tool- box (RPHT). This is presented in the following sections.

2.2 The Resources Planetary Health Toolbox or RPHT - Integrating principles, planetary health, resource-centered science, and real life experiments The preceding has allowed us to design a resource stewardship approach based on the two- component resource-planetary health model. The resulting RPHT, consisting of resource and governance systems, is illustrated in Figure 1B and detailed in Table 2. Ostrom’s structuring work on the sustainable management of resources as a socioecological process, the Common Pool Resources framework (CPR; Ostrom, 2009) has been instrumental in developing the toolbox.

We consider that CPR and RPHT approaches are complementary, while both target long-term sustainability supported by rules matching the attributes of the resource-to-governance systems.

The role of the Resource centered science is to develop and deploy the toolbox. For example, SUSTAIN, a national initiative in Norway (Figure 2), is a precursor of the RPH approach for integrated harvested animal resource management through biomass stewardship. SUSTAIN was founded to address the general question of how exploitation and climate changes affect different harvested ecosystems in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial settings. The program explores multilevel feedback loop, learning, and negotiation processes in the social system in response to changes in the ecological system. This includes information sharing, deliberation and self-organization activities and rules, monitoring, and sanction mechanisms in policy development. The framework was structured following a Strategic Foresight Protocol based on inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge and good practice. The scientific work is performed in collaboration with a panel of end users, made up of managers, decision-makers, and institutions involved in the management of harvested ecosystems in an iterative process. This structure was designed to generate changes in the chains of responsibility for product-process- practice quality and monitoring for the benefit of improved auditing and transparency. Pre- liminary results show that incorporating stakeholders’ engagement not only widened scientists’ research perspectives and allowed their research to provide outcomes more timely and relevant to society, it also provided an opening to further build social capital. Based on suc- cesses and setbacks within SUSTAIN, the success was highly dependent on building social capital among all participants to have the trust needed to ensure an effective functioning among social groups with different interests and values. This was easiest to implement by involving all relevant groups from the start.

These insights and tools (Table 3) should stimulate the emergence of a science-informed, fully accountable, and collective governance of resources. It can be anticipated that the costs of implementing good practice capacities will be commensurate with the potential cost saving effects on the planetary health system and the economy (see also Laurent, 2020).

7 2.3. The Resource Planetary Health Toolbox: The science-informed political instrument in the adjustment of resources and needs

The adjustment of resources and social and economic needs is at the heart of business and family or community structures. This is not the case with most public policies. Therefore, the Resource Planetary Health Toolbox (RPHT) is designed as a science-to-policy instrument aiming at adjusting accessible resources and vital needs in the ﬁrst place (Table 3). In the consideration of a major societal transformation of resource governance regimes (see also Herrfahrdt-Pähle et al, 2020),

(1) legal studies must consider the triptych "fundamental goods" (land, water, and wealth produced by natural resources, all of which are limited), "basic needs" (physiological-health, economic, social, cultural), and "fundamental rights" (the normative obligations of human rights)and create enabling conditions for effectiveness;

(2) experimental sciences must supply know-how that provides accounting for true value and true costs of production and activities, and sustainability-proof technologies with standards and certification.

On those grounds, two priorities need to be addressed:

(1) Developing and testing novel normative and reporting procedures, new objects of law and new forms of institutions for the stewardship of the common resource base and fair resource allocation (Desprès and Bouget, 2019; Collart Dutilleul, 2021);

(2) Coherently articulating the existing panoply of knowledge and legal instruments with suit- able metrics and accountability tools to meet the goal (adjusting resources and social and economic needs) and provide evidence for associated social and ecological costs / beneﬁts (see Measuring what counts).

With resources standing at its core, RPHT is an enabling non-prescriptive, non-normative process that can serve as a “one-size-ﬁt-all” instrument (global to regional) translating con- textually in a wide range of pathways according to place-based cultures, resources, and governance (for example, through differential institutional logics of allocation, redistribution, and stabilization functions). The baseline is large-scale collection of data and monitoring of trends for basic / minimum requirements for populations and sustainable environmental dynamics (cf. Downing et al, 2020).

2.3.1 Defining science – policy guidelines and prioritizing research at national to local levels

There is an additional interest to consider the national and local scales jointly. Under the as- sumptions of the RPH approach, the prerogatives of the State and top-down political and normative decisions can foster initiatives at the level of the territory (the living place, Panel; see also Supplemental File 2). Such initiatives and experimentations mainly consist of projects that concentrate the essence of living together.

The State has a constituent role in establishing private and public markets through a whole set of standards, which in turn structure public policies. That role is essential when RPH approach is designed, because it helps clarify how the State operates both as an investor (health, 8 education, and infrastructure) and as an insurer against risks (the commons, job loss, competition / cooperation, macroeconomic shocks, etc.). Arbitrage in conﬂict resolution is also important (e.g., land grabbing or the national autonomy in strategic sectors; Laurent, 2020; Col- lart Dutilleul, 2021).

At the local level, RPHT aims at facilitating the rationalization and scaling of social, economic, environmental, etc. projects (Figure 3). Each project reflects the potential and the specifics of the corresponding resource-space and defines a type and scale of territory (water- shed, district, protected areas, etc.). That inclusive governance operates through iterative ex- perimentation and contractualisation of economic, social, political, research and training actors. Charters and protocols leave stakeholders the task of making appropriate decisions to meet project targets, while helping integrate initiatives and foster empowerment and partner- ships.

Four examples illustrate typical research priorities with the goal of adjusting accessible resources and basic needs. The objective is knowing one's territory (its RPH status) while maintaining connection to the rest of the world:

(1) Evaluate the ecological costs / benefits at the national level of enacting a universal social protection floor – a major component of social health. That can be explored with indicators that reflect planetary health dependencies (such as economic gains derived from ecosystem and public health improvements; see also Laurent, 2020; Hirvilammi and Koch, 2020), and promote social innovation;

(2) Develop tools allowing (near) real-time and systematic diagnosis of the state of ecological capital (for both stock and flux variables) by accurately measuring externalities so as to define caps on resource use (local-to-global ecosystem health; GOPHER, 2011; Weber, 2018). Such tools can channel societally meaningful technological innovations (such as reducing raw material inputs and waste/pollution; Downing et al, 2020) that bring human activities within the limits of the biosphere by scoping the market and investment toward nature-based solutions;

(3) At the same time, provide legal instruments to implement ecosystem health (e.g., no net ecosystem degradation) in administrative, institutional, financial, investment, and economic decision-making while evaluating the corresponding social costs / benefits and aligning nature-related (non-linear) risks with current risk categories (WEF, 2020); and

(4) In the case of SUSTAIN, test how to minimize and subsequently eliminate social and ecological dumping, and perform a comparative evaluation of the program based on Ostrom’s CPR and RPH instruments (cf. Table 2).

2.3.2 Defining science – policy guidelines and prioritizing research at global to regional scales

RPHT is an aid-to-decision and governance instrument aiming at adjusting resources and needs. That mission collides with the dominant role of the market. This is so because RPH makes an essential distinction between the formal (market) economy and the substantial economy (Polanyi, 1944), with pre-eminence to the commons and basic needs. The essence of RPH is the reversal of the current logic of economic, trade, and institutional systems, because economic freedom would not be balanced without public action to provide democratic guidance and protection for all.

9 This is a challenge for the specialized institutions of the UN system to begin with. A simple example illustrates this “silo” effect: agricultural trade, the rights to food, and food security, respectively WTO, UN, and FAO prerogatives, are not linked between them in political agendas and decision-making (Collart Dutilleul, 2021). This is a handicap when shifting food systems onto sustainable paths (De Schutter, 2017; Delabre et al, 2021)

More specifically, the following research objectives, in addition to research proposed in Sec- tion 2.3.1, are targeted:

(1) Design processes and instruments able to change priorities at a time when the resource dependency of social systems is accelerating; analyze the social tension of adjusting resources and the basic needs of human populations within the limits of the biosphere, and question the hypothetical resource optimization through the autoregulatory supply - demand mechanisms of the market (Table 3);

(2) Study how to build networks of alternative institutions and organizations with socioecological holistic foundations and broad stakeholder involvement (Table 4); these networks will be legitimate to evaluate, report, and account for the state of global resources, their allocation, and conflict resolution; and

(3) Identify blockages within international law (in particular WTO law, international investment law, bilateral free trade treaties) which, either in the content of the rules or in their inter- pretation, have the effect of limiting, slowing down, or even preventing States and their local authorities from developing public policies to adjust resources allocation to the socio-economic needs of their populations (Collart Dutilleul, 2021; Supplemental File 2).

These issues challenge the mainstream political, financial, economic, or diplomatic agendas from the UN SDG system to G20 summits. RPH offers an alternative route. The concepts, instruments, and organizations that contribute to knowledge, research, and policy in the field are summarized in Table 4 and Supplemental Table 1. They show that the underlying science of priorities is built by (1) setting the frame and core guidelines, and (2) benefiting from an expanded body of laboratories, centers, institutions, and organizations engaged with research and knowledge production on resources, planetary health, and ecological transitions.

2.3.3 Scale interdependences – the challenge ahead, a multi-scalar RPHT

Once the baseline on which research assets at local and global scales has been set, the next step should consist of making RPHT operate simultaneously at all scales. The challenge is to work out the corresponding interactions and interdependencies to understand what we depend upon in the era of state shifts. While conscious that we are confronted with the challenge of commensurability between multiple scales, that implies: - Simulating the adequacy of the actual capacity to preserve and even enhance life-supporting functions and services of the ecosystems, while providing sufficient and fair access to resources to populations in different territorial contexts and socio-political settings. This requires identifying and characterizing feedbacks and drivers that differentially operate in multi-scalar processes (Eriksson et al, 2021); - Evaluating and quantifying human demand (needs) and ecological supply (stocks, regenera- tion rates of resources) and providing protocols to bring them in balance; - Examining the trade-offs between the sustainable supply and the societal demand across geographical and administrative scales.

10 The research is expected to impulse institutional development and coordination allowing relevant decision-grade information to flow across scales.

3. Conclusions

Resources are both tangibles of immediate and permanent concern for human societies, and a complex issue of institutional and common property regimes, and they have great geopolitical sensitivity. Resources are a problem and solution at the same time, a pressing dilemma. The proposed RPH approach addresses the dilemma by facilitating switching from overexploitation to responsible stewardship of the commons. In other words, the resource issue is not a wicked problem, rather it is the raison d’être of forthcoming transformations. The resource- health approach has performative power through its structuring effect on near future options and is intrinsic to the democratic process. It is therefore the most parsimonious and effective instrument for both the short and long term. The short term boundary is set on the next decade (cf. Figure 3).

More precisely, RPHT

(1) enforces the authority of the law for the stewardship of territorial resources and for providing populations with fair access to vital resources, and

(2) provides instruments for strengthened monitoring, assessment, planning, implementation, reporting, and review capacity.

Both ingredients are required, for example, for explicitly elaborating the actionable interdependencies of the goals within the SDGs. Also, with RPHT deployed at all scales at the same time, placing accountability for resource-intensive activities and lifestyles at the centre of public policies and consciousness is becoming possible. That outcome might help soften the radicalization of challenges and conflicts worldwide.

Reframing resource governance will not be easy in a context of strong counteracting political and socio-economic determinants: few if any of the post-1970 governance bodies were designed to act systemically and work toward aligning equity in wealth within the limits of the biosphere. That has to change: the current missions of governance bodies would concentrate on setting the arbitrage baseline of political divergences between countries, cultures, or international institutions to integrate and account for the full ecological and social cost of human activities (Table 4). In short, GDP-driven policies can now integrate the corresponding socioecological externalities as a GDP+RPH sustainability metrics. For example, the Swiss Re Institute report (2020) estimated that 20 p.c. of the countries are at risk of ecosystem collapse and about half of the global GDP depends on high-functioning ecosystems (see also Das- gupta, 2021; WEF, 2020).

The legal frame under consideration does not exclude the role of the market (Foucault, 2004; Ostrom, 2010). But the latter, which after all is a judicial and political construct, enforces speculation, distortion of competition, commodification of nature, and creates scarcity traps and rebound effects (Panel; Sarkis, 2019; Collart Dutilleul, 2021). This leaves very little room for maneuvering to States and territories willing to regulate the circulation and distribution of wealth produced to the benefit of their populations (more in Supplemental File 2). This is why the rule of resource adjustment must prevail.

11 Finally, the challenge with RPH is to foster the socioecological convergence so that the health-resource paradigm enters public consciousness and moves into mainstream politics. Once that recognition is achieved, the economy itself is bound to converge with health, resources, and equity, i.e., to automatically take into account socioecological sustainability. The actual degree of societal acceptance of the RPH approach will inform the range of political and economic options for the future. The proposed co-construction work mobilizing all stakeholders (Table 4) has been designed to test the RPHT and bridge the resource-health gap globally and locally.

12 Acknowledgements

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz for discussion of the concepts of framing and critically reading the manuscript. François Collart Dutilleul and Fabrice Riem for their work on adjustment of resources and needs. David Acunzo for work on previous versions of the manuscript and figures; Armin Reller for discussions on SJERCA; Patrick Degeorges, Olivier Hamant, and Thierry Gaude for stimulating discussions. Ideas expressed in this paper have been elaborated through the activities of the Michel Serres Institute (GE, PG and IN) and seminars and projects with biology master-degree students at ENS de Lyon (http://institutmichelserres.ens- lyon.fr/spip.php?article359 and http://institutmichelserres.ens- 10 lyon.fr/spip.php?arti- cle317). With support from the Institut universitaire de France (IN) and the Master Bio- sciences-ENS de Lyon/Université Lyon1- PALSE Program (Programme Avenir Lyon- Saint Etienne).

13 Panel Definitions

1. Food, food systems, food democracy, and the territory.

Food is an all-place all-time vital resource. Currently, food availability is essentially a matter of economic, competition, trade, financial, etc. decisions on which people have no say. Thinking that food and food systems are optimal when globalized, standardized, and over- traded, while generating health and environmental risks, seems to defeat logic. Food can be a lever to democracy and social justice in response to the concentration of power in food systems, e.g., all processes from field to fork. Food democracy has been conceptualized in political (UK), economic and social (US), and judicial (France) terms and has therefore characters in common with political democracy (Colart Dutilleul, 2021).

Food security and sovereignty should result from democratic choices on the degree of food autonomy (based on freely determined criteria) and completed with the free trade of food commodities. Even more so, food systems and agriculture policies, and the market are linked to a territory and its specifics. In other words, food democracy has an individual dimension of each person's access to sufficient, healthy, balanced food in accordance with cultural and taste preferences, and a collective dimension through the implementation of direct-democratic governance of a territory.

The territory (the attachment to, the living place in a broad sense, envisioned as commons) is a way of inhabiting a given space with activities rooted in local resources, i.e., a political resource-space where basic needs are expressed and decisions are made on these resources in the form of governed projects (transition towns, municipalism as self-governance, local social economy, etc.). The aim is achieving convergence of public-private interests and coordination of disjoint public policies (water, land, agriculture, health, environment) and private sector activities through a long term structuring effect. Ultimately, the articulation between different projects and territories defines public action strategies as models of possible / potential development through territorial complementarities framed via coherent financial, regulatory, orga- nizing, etc. instruments and mechanisms.

2. Narratives. As visionary stories, narratives can (re)frame an issue or view, foster understanding of ways to engage with the future (plausible and desirable futures), prescribe and motivate action, rethink mental models, economic logic, and institutional routines. Concern- ing science, they can recast research and training by bringing knowledge systems and disci- plines into productive discussions and change the way metrics of nature are understood and practiced (Lakoff, 2010; Verland and Lynch, 2010; Bai et al, 2016).

3. Planetary boundaries. The framework of environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate without endangering the life-support capacities of the biosphere. The boundaries are interconnected and can push the Earth system into a new state if crossed (Steffen et al, 2015; a critical analysis in Downing et al, 2020; see also Barnosky et al, 2012 and Ar- guello and Negrutiu, 2019 for global pollution).

4. Planetary health is defined as health of human civilization and the state of the natural systems on which it depends (Whitmee et al, 2015; see also the Future Earth 2016 program on One Health and the ecosocial approach to health, Hancock et al, 2017; Lerner and Berg, 14 2017; Myers, 2017; Laurent, 2020). The determinants of planetary health are ecological, biological, cultural, behavioral, geographical. For example, national social protection floors should comprise at least access to health care and basic income security. According to ILO (2014), as many as 5 billion people do not benefit from a minimal social protection. Ecosys- tem health refers to ecosystem condition or state, a constituent of the bidirectionally coupled socioecological framework (Binder et a, 2013). Therefore, the human - environment relationships brings together environmental limits, minimum requirements for populations, and relationships between resource-limited and waste-limited environments (Downing et al, 2020).

Important remarks - Environmental health/Ecological health are similar terms used to monitor human health. Additional elements in Table 1. - Ecosystem health is related to ecosystem degrowth or debt, defined as the sum of negative externalities generated by extractivism (i.e., the plundering of earth’s natural resources) (https://www.cadtm.org/Dette-et-extractivisme). 5. Population dynamics and Carrying Capacity. The biophysical carrying capacity is the maximum population size that could be sustained biophysically under given technological capabilities. The social carrying capacity corresponds to the maxima that could be sustained under various social systems (and, especially the associated patterns of resource consumption). The second is less than the first at any level of technological development (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992; see also Mote et al, 2020). A historical perspective is reported by Downing et al, 2020).

6. Resources, as social constructions and conventions, have been defined in rather restrictive ways as lists of items (Fernandez et al, 2014) according to utilitarian (Convention of Biologi- cal Diversity, the EU) or commercial (WTO) considerations. For example, the 2005 The- matic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources in the EU states that the natural resources on which economies depend include raw materials such as minerals ; biomass and biological resources ; environments such as air, water, and soils ; dynamic resources such as wind, geothermal, tide, and solar energy ; and space, the earth surface. In general, the definitions do not fulfill the requirement of preserving the life support systems and satisfying the basic needs of populations or communities. Fernandez et al (2014) proposed a broad definition that is compatible with social and cultural constructions that are inclusive in social and ecological terms, namely natural resources are stocks and fluxes of materials and services that are essential to life in general, and to human life and knowledge in particular.

We posit that natural resources (the state of) are the early socioecosystemic signal of planetary health. In that perspective, the inclusive approach to physical, human, economic, institutional, financial, etc. resources becomes possible. They are at the service of social needs and social cohesion to ensure territorial resilience (see Territory).

Natural capital. A range of definitions has been assembled by the UN Statistics Organization (2014) that state in essence: Elements of nature or natural resources inputs considered as natural assets that provide the basis for all human economic production / activities and di- rectly and indirectly produce socio-economic value or benefits to people. According to Das- gupta (2021), the natural capital declined by 40p.c. between 1992 and 2014.

Resource justice is defined as a pluralistic process about collective and individual relationships encompassing the distribution of rights and responsibilities on Common Pool Resources (distributive justice) and the role and ability of stakeholders to contribute to decision-making

15 (procedural justice) (Wyborn et al, 2020). By extension in terms of more general equity and sustainability, resource justice includes investing in public services and infrastructures and provisioning guarantees and insurance against hazards that impact access of vulnerable populations to essential needs and resources (Laurent, 2020).

Resource Scarcity, Freibauer et al (2011) define scarcity as a combination of observed short- age of natural resources, a perceived dependency on natural resources, and the fear of their global depletion. A synergic effect between and within “old scarcities” (fertile land, freshwater, energy, phosphorus) and “new scarcities” (environmental degradation / biodiversity loss, time for transition) is at work. The political, social, organisational, institutional, and economic determinants of scarcity raise concerns about the future availability, accessibility, util- ity value, and distribution of resources. For example, resource scarcity-generating institutions create profitable scarcities and resource overexploitation leading to infringement of freedom, social inequity, and environmental degradation (Freibauer et al, 2011; De Schutter, 2017).

7. Rebound effect. Improving resource efficiency (energy, transportation, etc) and use can lead to increased resource consumption and demand, and commodity use essentially due to lower costs. Rebound effects can be direct and indirect (Sarkis, 2019). By extension, energy use reflects the successive addition of sources of primary energies and their respective use efficiency.

16 Tables

Table 1. A set of core principles as ethical matrix, and the planetary health triad as methodological instrument to address the socioecological convergence. Each item is briefly described below. Their integration through an interdisciplinary research frame makes them actionable globally and locally, and gives them political and societal meaning.

Principles (P): political endorse- Planetary health (H): cultural ac- ment frame ceptance frame P1 – stewardship of resources, all H1 – individuals: universal social combined protection floor P2 – human rights, well-being H2 – society: effective public health P3 – human duties and environmental H3 – ecosystems: life support capac- responsibility ity maintained Note: Science-to-policy protocols and experiments need to be based on general principles and, at the same time, to be tailored to local circumstances (Gylfason, 2011). Planetary health is a best fit instrument to operationalize the principles.

Principle 1 - Integrate responsible resource stewardship and fair allocation. Natural resources, including human resources, are assets (Dasgupta, 2010; Dasgupta and Ramanathan, 2014) that shape socio-economic systems: life-supporting capacities of ecosystems, population dynamics (Panel), and consumption patterns on the one hand (see also Fischer-Kowalski and Steinberger, 2017), and human rights and duties on the other.

Principle 2 – Ensure fundamental human rights and basic needs (well-being). In order to be fully resilient, a society should be healthy, equitable, and economically productive, A global social contract - the main instrument in solving unjust social situations through the fair access and allocation for all of built, human, social, cultural, and natural capital, as well as associated services and public goods.

Principle 3 – Preserve the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems. The relationship between the quality of the environment and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, ﬁrst recog- nized by the UN General Assembly (1968), is largely ignored or even contested (Boyd, 2016; Taylor, 2016). Our integrated approach is meant to rehabilitate the principle.

Health of individuals - “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or inﬁrmity” (World Health Organization, 1946; see also UN Economic and Social Council, 1994 ; Ottersen et al, 2014). Society health - According to Principles 2 and 3 (the social contract), a socially just and environmentally responsible society achieves social cohesion essentially by ensuring that the cov- erage of economic, social, and environmental risks makes the consequences of such risks the least unfair possible (Laurent, 2020). Ecosystem health - The integrity of Earth ecosystems implies maintaining the system’s organization, functions, and autonomy over time (Rapport et al, 1998).

17 Table 2. Complementary description of resource and governance components in Com- mon Pool Resources (CPR) and Resource Planetary Health (RPH) socioecological system analysis (SES). In both approaches context matters with respect to dynamic processes of knowledge of the state of resources, rules of sharing and conﬂict resolution mechanisms, and institutional and control instruments.

Components Common Pool Resources Resources Planetary Health Toolbox of SES framework

Resource sys- Community resources, such as All resources combined, local-to- tem forests (mangrove, wood), global. Protocols to monitor planetary grazing land, costal zones, health variables. water systems, ﬁsheries. Re- source units.

Governance Nested frameworks of users / Three principles guiding public, pri- system actors, interactions-coordina- vate, and community interests to con- tion-conﬁdence, rules, out- verge on resource responsible steward- comes. Political, government, Resource and market environments. ship and justice on the short-to-long rights frame- term. work

CPR vs RPH Allows understanding the Is a conceptually simple “quick start emergent properties of com- package” tool across administrative bined resource and gover- and geographical scales. Can enforce nance systems based on the the efficiency and fairness of CPR taxonomy of nested variables. regimes, but also the defense of com- Provides detailed frames for munal property rights where endan- design, elaboration, imple- gered by market pressures, resource mentation, follow-up of re- scarcity, population growth, conflicts, etc. CPRs can benefit from Planetary source management projects. Health metrics and monitoring, They can benefit to RPH at local to national scale.

18 Table 3. The making of the Resource Planetary Health Toolbox. Combining science, policy, and societal attributes and targets ensures the balance between management through numbers and governance through law, i.e., the Homo economicus and Homo socius represen- tations in socioecological trade-offs. RPHT can provide metrics in policy decision and regulatory impact analysis to promote science-to-policy transformations, calibrate the phases ofes transition/convergence process at all scales, break down the economic, social, and political drivers of lock-in, and give signals to markets. The first application of the Resource Planetary Health Toolbox (RPHT) is the fair and responsible adjustment of resources and needs. Resource-centered science Resource governance and legitimacy Natural capital and planetary health Adequacy between resources and accounting tools, open source needs, resource justice Trade-offs and balancing market vs Legal-political instrument design public interest and collective risks Knowledge of objective interdepen- Social management of commons and dencies to best articulate policies public policy architectures Note: There is a paradox of needs in productivist and consumerist capitalism that consists in shaping market behavior and social attitudes. To counter this paradox, it is necessary to think in terms of institutions capable of deﬁning, collectively and democratically, productive and non-productive choices. The choices respond to societal (e.g., public services, resource justice) and environmental constraints (Keusheyan, 2021), and imply systemic nature-related risks that have to be identiﬁed, assessed, disclosed, and amortized (WEF, 2020).

19 Table 4. Closing the global resource-health science and policy gap. The articulation of Planetary Health and P1-P3 principles - called the Resource Planetary Health Toolbox - aims at mastering socioecological vulnerability in an effort to implementing a system of resource- to-needs adjustment by the public power to which the rule of the market is subordinated. The reason is that the current system of resource consumption and material living standards of in- dustrialized countries can not be generalized globally. Emphasis is put on governance structures and institutional quality attuned to resource governance AND health. In doing so, governance across sectors, justice and sustainability are challenged when decisions made today will detract from the health and resources of tomorrow. How these two realms can be coupled operationally in political decision-making is attempted here. Research on the proposed topics is expected to provide protocols, norms, standards, etc. co-produced with decision-makers and end users. Closing the resource-health policy gap is therefore conceived as a multi-stakeholder platform working toward the federation and integration of current models, instruments, tools, and protocols within a maturing data science and observatory networks. Such a platform would perform the preparatory work of, for example, a joint Global Resource-COP and SDGs supported by the design outlined here. The expected outcome is a certiﬁed RPH agenda. Institutions and organizations with coordination missions are specified in the table. Additional players with expertise in the field are listed in Supplemental Table 1.

Process/No- Instrument, tool, Coordination frame tion/ References protocol /Remarks Mechanism Frame 1 - Health triptych Environmental Per- Steffen et al, 2015; Ecosystems UNEP, FAO, IUCN formance index; En- Hsu, 2016; Haines et (Half Earth State of global re- vironmental evalua- al, 2018; IUCN, proposal and sources; Planetary tions, monitoring, re- 2019; Ellis, 2019; beyond) Boundaries (Panel). porting. OECD-UNECE 2020. Human Development Indicator (HDI); Bet- ILO, UNDP UNDP, 1990; WHO ter Life Index; Index Weak sustainability: 2000; OECD, 2017; Society Social Health (ISS); median income to in- Tulchinsky and Var- (Human de- Global health status; flect GDP; avikova 2014; SPI velopment Social Progress index Strong sustainabil- 2019; http://iisp.vas- and Global (SPI); Social devel- ity: Universal Social sar.edu/ish.html; WB health) opment indicators; Protection Floor as 2019; Banerjee and GINI index; Global baseline. Duflo, 2020. burden of disease indicators. Public health: core Ottersen et al 2014; health indicators / WHO EU 2012; WHO Individuals global health indica- The capability con- 2015; SEN 2016; tors. Material stan- cept. UNEP 2016. dard of leaving. Planetary Genuine Progress In- New entity, inspired Meadows et al, 2005; health - all-indicator; Sustainable by RMA, New Zea- Natural Resource one Development Indica- land and UNEP/IRP; Charter, 2010; Whit- tor; Carrying capacity Safe and just space; mee et al, 2015; (HANDY)& Impact Aggregated indices / Hickel 2020; Ra- inequality indicators indicators facilitate worth, 2017; UNEP, Precepts, standards, comparisons (with 2019; Mote et al, guidelines of the Nat- reference to Limits to 2020; Dasgupta, ural Resource Char- growth scenarios and 2021. 20 ter. HANDY modeling). Frame 2 – Resource adjustment triptych and the P1-P3 Principles New entity inspired Havana Charter, Fundamental by the Havana char- 1948; RMA 1991; goods (com- Social costs / benefits ter on food systems; UNEP, 2017; Fischer- mons); P1 of ecosystem health Sustainable levels of Kowalski and Stein- and P3 resource use berger, 2017 UN economic and Ecological costs / social Council; Fundamental Gough, 2015; see also benefits of social Accountability for needs; P2 SPI 2019; Nuesiri, health resource over- and 2016; IUCN, 2019 misuse. Mahon, 2018; Hickel, UN human rights Fundamental 2019. idem mechanisms; rights; P2 Resource justice. Conflict resolution in policy decision-making Strong sus- Availability of effec- tainability and Environmental and tive statistical frame- sustainable social performance works; Dashboard IUCN, 2019; Baner- welfare; indicators; Science- metrics and protocols jee and Duflo, 2020; Trade-offs informed protocols are context meaning- Hirvilammi and constrained with enforced ac- ful; Modeling nature Koch, 2020; WEF, by “No net countability along the dependency for 2020. ecosystem entire players chain. countries and sectors. degradation” as baseline. Notes

Reports, outlooks, and indicators accumulate year after year, cover similar issues, but are not followed by productive cross-talk between the agencies and institutions that produce them. The adjustment triptych consists of "fundamental goods" (land, water, wealth produced by natural resources, all of which are limited), "basic needs" (economic and social needs) and "fundamental rights".

The ecosystem health (Panel) is viewed as a strong determinant of social and personal health, making the adjustment process a preventive rather then curative policy mechanism. The cho- sen instruments, tools, and protocols are the starting point to define best fit indicators and good practice guidance that enable conflict resolution in specific contexts, and coordination and arbitrage of geopolitical agendas. The approach can further stimulate designing a resource stewardship and planetary health education program at all levels of societal and corporate organization.

Abbreviations: ILO - International Labor Office / IUCN – International Union for the Con- servation of Nature / RMA - Resource Management Act / UNDP- United Nations Develop- ment Program / UNEP/ IRP - United Nations Environmental Program / International Re- source Panel / WHO - World Health Organization.

21 Figures and Legends

Figure 1. Business as usual and the conceptual architecture and articulation of the Re- source - Planetary Health approach in support of a civilization project. (A) Illustration of the current short view situation. Existing instruments and tools reveal a disjointed perception of coupled social and environmental challenges. Conflicting agendas generate inadequate policies and foster business as usual, i.e., maintaining unsustainable resource governance leading to increased socioecosystemic vulnerability (SEV). (B) The Resource Planetary Health Toolbox design. Illustration of the socioecosystemic resilience (SER) pathway and long view approach. Reframing the natural resource governance consists in the articulation of the three universal principles (P1, P2, P3) and the ‘inclusive planetary health’ pillars (Ind: individuals; Soc: society; Eco: ecosystems), operating as an integrated analytical tool. On these foundations, the resource systems approach is built as a science and society co-construction, a knowledge-based process. The entire edifice participates in the emergence of new cultural frames and narratives to guide a Socially Just, Environmentally Responsible and Culturally Acceptable (SJERCA) transition toward socioecosystemic resilient societies. SJERCA as ap- plied to SDGs becomes primarily a matter of resource justice, adjustment, and responsibility.

22 Figure 2. The SUSTAIN working model and program - a Resource Planetary Health Toolbox precursor. The diagram highlights the ecosystem component of the socioecological system. The poorly understood interactive effects of major anthropogenic stressors, such as exploitation and climate change, are addressed to evaluate how management strategies can ensure the systems remain sustainable and resilient. The framework consists of two parts or- ganized in an iterative feedback loop that can operate indefinitely to keep the system respon- sive. This allows evolving and long term protocol design. The Upper part includes the development of theoretical and empirical ecological models for systems under exploitation. In the Lower part, the response of models in the Upper part are evaluated together with end users to develop management system evaluations and scenario planning outputs, which are then re-integrated into the ecological models in the Upper panel. The ongoing research program at https://www.sustain.uio.no/research/wp/ and https://www.sustain.uio.no/.

23 Figure 3. The Resource Planetary Health Toolbox is an instrument designed to arbitrate between different socioecological scenarios / options for short-term to long-term trajectories. The dashboard (a systemic frame of resource and governance regimes) is used to adjust resources and needs. At local levels, the dashboard integrates Ostrom’s CPR (social, economic, political settings, interactions, and outcomes; Ostrom, 2009) and SUSTAIN protocols (Table 2 and Section 2.3.1). RPHT operates as an early warning signal for vulnerability, consolidates the democratic process, and sets the sustainability time boundary for the next decade. At global level, an RPH agenda is preﬁgured in Table 3.

24 References

Acemoglu D, Robinson J (2012) Why nations fail. The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Profile Books Ltd UK Acunzo D, Escher G, Ottersen OP, Whittington JD, Gillet P, Stenseth NC, Negrutiu I (2018) Framing planetary health: Arguing for research-centred science. Lancet Planetary Health 2: e101-e102. doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30023-8 AEEA 2013. Information Paper: Towards the Australian Environmental-Economic Accounts, 2013; Information Paper: Towards the Australian Environmental-Economic Accounts https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/knowledge-center/information-paper-towards-australian-environmental-economic-account AEEA 2019. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4655.0Explanatory %20Notes12019?OpenDocument Arguello Velazquez J, Negrutiu I (2019) Agriculture and global physico-chemical deregula- tion / disruption: planetary boundaries that challenge planetary health. Lancet Planetary Health 3, e10-e11 Bai, X, van der Leeuw, S, O’Brien K, et al. (2016) Plausible and desirable futures in the An- thropocene: A new research agenda. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 351–362. Banerjee AV, Duflo C (2020) Good economics for hard times. Pinguin books, London Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J, Smith AB (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486 (7401), 52–58. Barnosky AD, Brown JH, Daily GC, Dirzo R, Ehrlich AH, Ehrlich PR et al. (2013) Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century. Available from: http://consensusforaction.stanford.edu/see-scientific-consensus/consensus english.pdf Balasubramanian M (2018) Climate change, famine, and low-income communities challenge Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet Planetary Health 2, e421-422 Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Dirzo R, Stenseth NC (2014) Translating science for decision makers to help navigate the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 1(2), 160–170. Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, McPherson T, Norström AV, Olsen P et al. (2016) Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, 441-48. doi:10.1002/fee.1309. Bergstrom JC, Randall A (2016) Resource Economics. Fourth Edition. Chelenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. 480 p. Bernard A, Collart Dutilleul F, Riem F (2019). Penser autrement le rapport du droit et de l'al- imentation. Droit et Société 101, 11-20 Biermann F 2007) Earth system governance as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change 17, 326-337 Biermann F, Abbott K, Andresen S, Bäckstrand K, Bernstein S, Betsill MM et al (2012) Nav- igating the Anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science 335, 1306-1307 Binder, CR., Hinkel J, Bots PWG and Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Comparison of Frameworks for Analyzing Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 18 (4): 26-44 Bornemann B, Bernasconi A, Ejderyan O, Schmid F, Wäger P, Zingerly C (2017) Research on natural resources: the quest for integration revisited. GAIA 26/1, 16-21

25 Boyd IL (2016) Take the long view. Nature 540, 520-521Bradshaw C and Brook BW (2014) Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems. PNAS 111, 16610–16615. Butzer KW (2012) Collapse, environment, and society. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 3632-3639 Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM, Hall-Spencer JM, Ingram JSI, Jaramillo F et al (2017) Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earh System exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society 22(4):8 Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P et al. (2006) Scale and cross- scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2). Accessed July 2 2016, URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ Collart Dutilleul (2013) Proposition pour la reconnaissance internationale d’une «exception alimentaire» sur le modèle de «l’exception culturelle». In: Penser une démocratie alimentaire/ Thinking a food democracy, Collart Dutilleul F. et Bréger T. (dir.), Ed. Inida, San José, Costa Rica, 504 p. http://f.hypotheses.org/wp- content/blogs.dir/1874/!les/2014/07/DemocratieAli- mentaireVol2-24feb2014.pdf, pp 13-46. Colard Dutilleul F (2021) Nourir. Quand la démocratie alimentaire passe à table. Les Liens qui libèrent. Paris Costanza R, Fisher B, Ali S, Beer C, Bond L, Boumans R et al. (2007) Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Eco- nomics 61, 267-276. Corvalán C, Hales S and M cMichael AJ (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health Synthesis: a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (World Health Organization, Geneva), p 53. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43354/9241563095.pdf;jsessionid=3B0F786092F2EAFE486F513698228C8C?sequence=1 Daily G, Ehrich P (1992) Population, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity. Bio- Science 42/10, 761-771 Dasgupta P (2010) Nature's role in sustaining economic development. Philosophical Transac- tions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1537), 5–11. Dasgupta P, Ramanathan V (2014) Pursuit of the Common Good, Science, 345(6203), 1457– 1458 Dasgupta, P. (2021) The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. (London: HM Treasury) . www.gov.uk/ofﬁcial-documents. Daviron B (2019) Biomasse: une histoire de richesse et de puissance. Ed. Quae, Versailles DeFries RS, Ellis EC, Chapin S III, Matson P, Turner BL II, Agrawal A et al. (2012) Plane- tary Opportunities: A Social Contract for Global Change Science to Contribute to a Sustain- able Future. BioScience 62(6), 603–606. Delabre I, Rodriguez LO, Smallwood J, Jörn PW, Scharlemann JPW, Alcamo J et al., (2021) Actions on sustainable food production and consumption for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Sci. Adv. 7 : eabc8259 Demaio AR, Rockström J (2015) Human and planetary health: towards a common language. The Lancet 386, no. 10007, e36-e37. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61044-3 De Schutter O (2014a) Final report: The transformative potential of the right to food. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. Twenty-fifth session of the UN Human Rights Council. http://www.srfood.org/en/documents

26 De Schutter O (2014b) The EU's Fifth Project: Transitional Governance in the Service of Sustainable Societies. SSRN Electronic Journal, Brussels. www.srfood.org/fr/eu5p De Schutter O (2017) The political economy of food systems reform. European Review of Agricultural Economics 44(4), 705-731. doi:10.1093/erae/jbx009 Despres L and Bouget D (2019) De l’exploitation des ressources naturelles à la satisfaction des besoins fondamentaux dans une transition écologique, Droit et Société 101: 71-85 Diekert FK and Nieminen E (2016) International Fisheries Agreements with a Shifting Stock. Dyn Games Appl. doi:10.1007/s13235-016-0184-4, pp. 1–12 Dinerstein E, Joshi AR, Vynne C, et al., (2020) A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Advances 6 : eabb2824. DOI: 10.1126/sciad- v.abb2824 Dittrich M., S. Giljum, S. Lutter, C. Polzin (2012) Implications of resource use for development and the environment.Vienna. SERI report: Green economies around the world? https://www.academia.edu/1227520/ Green_economies_around_the_world_Implications_of_resource_use_fo r_development_and_the_en - vironment Dobbs R, Oppenheim J, Thompson F, Man M, Zornes M (2011) Resource Revolution: Meet- ing the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs. McKinsey Global Institute. http:// www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our- insights/resource-revolution Downing SA, Chang M, Kuiper JJ et al (2020) Learning from generations of sustainable concepts. Env Res Let 15, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7766 Ehrlich PR, Kareiva PM and Daily GC (2012) Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization. Nature 486 (7401), 68–73. Eisenmenger N, Pichler M, Krenmayr N, Noll D, Plank B, Schalmann E, Wandl MT, Gingrich S (2020) The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reﬂection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustainability Science 15, 1101–1110 Ellis E C (2019) To conserve nature in the Anthropocene, Half Earth is not nearly enough. One Earth 1, 163-167 Engebretsen E, Heggen K, Ottersen OP (2017) The Sustainable Development Goals: ambigu- ities of accountability. The Lancet 389, 365 Eriksson H, Blythe JL, Osterblom H, Olsson P (2021) Beyond social-ecological traps: foster- ing transformations towards sustainability. Ecology and Society 26(1):13. https://doi.org/ 10.5751/ES-12198-260113 EU 2012. https://ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/echi/list_en Farley J, Costanza R, Flomenhoft G, Kirk D (2015) The Vermont Common Assets Trust: An institution for sustainable, just and efficient resource allocation. Ecological Economics 109, 71–79 ; and (http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/projects/commonassets.htmlsuch initiatives) Fernandez Fernandez E, Malwé C, Negrutiu I (2014), ”Définitions des ressources naturelles et implications pour la démarche juridique”, In « Penser une démocratie alimentaire /Thin- king a food democracy – Propositions Lascaux entre ressources naturelles et besoins alimentaires », eds. F. CollartDutilleul and T. Bréger T. (Inida, San José, Costa Rica), pp. 71-78. Fischer-Kowalski, M; Steinberger, JK (2017) Growth and sustainability in a material world: the self-reinforcing cycle of population, GDP and resource use. In: Victor, PA; Dolter, B,

27 Handbook on Growth and Sustainability, 22; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P and Norberg J (2005) Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., Annual Reviews 30(1), 441–473. Folke C, Biggs R, Norström AV, Reyers B and Rockström J (2016) Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3): 41. http://dx.- doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341 Foucault M (2004) Naissance de la biopolitique. Eds Ewald F, Fontana A, Senellard M. Gal- limard Seuil, Paris. Freibauer A, Mathijs E, Brunori G, Damianova Z, Faroult E, Girona i Gomis J et al. (2011) Sustainable Food Consumption and Production in a Resource-constrained World. 3rd SCAR Forsight Expert Group Report, European Commission Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (Scar). h ttps://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/pdf/scar_3rd-foresight_2011.pdf GOPHER, Global observation of Planetary Health and Ecosystem Resources (2011). https:// ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6049339 Gough I (2015) Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs. Camb. J. Econ. 39 (5), 1191–1214. Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R et al. (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24), 7348–7355. Gylfason T (2011) Natural Resource Endowment: A Mixed Blessing? In: Beyond the curse : policies to harness the power of natural resources. Eds. R Arezki, T Gylfason, and A Sy. Washington, DC : International Monetary Fund, pp 7-34 Gylfason T (2018) Political economy, Mr. Churchill, and natural resources. Mineral Econom- ics 31, 23-34. Haines A, Hanson C, Ranganathan J. Planetary Health Watch: integrated monitoring in the Anthropocene epoch. Lancet Planet Health 2018: 2: e141–43. Hancock T, Capon A, Dooris M, Patrick R (2017) One Planet regions: planetary health at the local level. Planetary Health 1, e92-93 Hanley N (2015) Environmental economics: Pricing the planet. Nature 520(7548), 434–435 Havana Charter (1948) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Trade_Organization Herrero M, Thornton PK, Mason-D’Croz D, Palmer J, Bodirsky BL et al (2020) Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet Plane- tary Health, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1 Herrfahrdt-Pähle E, Schlüter M, Ollson P, et al (2020) Sustainability transformations: socio- political shocks as opportunities for governance transitions. Global Env. Change 63. 102097 Hickel J (2019) The Imperative of Redistribution in an Age of Ecological Overshoot: Human Rights and Global Inequality. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humani- tarianism, and Development 10/3, 416-428. 10.1353/hum.2019.0025 Hirvilammi T, Koch M (2020) Sustainable welfare beyond growth. Sustainability 12, 1824- 1832 Horton R, Lo S (2014) Comment Protecting health: the global challenge for capitalism. The Lancet, Elsevier Ltd 383(9917), 577–578. Horton R (2017) Offline: The G20 and health—platitudes and broken promises .The Lancet, 28 390 (2017) 214. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31858-5 Hsu A (2016) Environmental Performance Index. Yale and Columbia University environmental performance index framework, New Haven: Yale University. http://epi.yale.edu/ sites/default/ les/2016EPI_Full_Report_opt.pdf. International Labour Office (2014) World social protection report 2014/15: Building economic recovery, inclusive development and social justice. Geneva: ILO. Available from: http://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/ShowTheme.action?id=3985. iPES-Food (2016) From uniformity to diversity. http://www.ipes-food.org/reports IUCN (2019) An Introduction to the IUCN Natural Resource Governance Framework (NRGF) https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/ introduction_to_the_nrgf_version_1_july_2019.pdf Jarrige F, Vrignon A (2020) Face à la puissance, une histoire des énergies alternatives à l’âge industriel. La Découverte, Paris. Kareiva P and Fuller E (2016) Beyond resilience: how to better prepare for the profound disruption of the Anthropocene. Global Policy 7, 107-118. Keusheyan R (2019) Les besoins artificiels. Comment sortir de consummérisme. Zones, Paris. Kissinger H (2014) World order. Reflections on the character of Nations and the cause of History. London: Penguin Press. pp 32-36. Klare MT (2002) Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York, NY, USA: Owl Books. Lakoff, G. (2010) Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environ. Commun. 4, 70–81. Laurent E (2020) Et si la santé guidait le monde? L’espérance de vie vaut mieux que la crois- sance. Les Liens qui libèrent. Paris Laurent E, Jouzel J (2018) The Well-being Transition: Measuring what counts to protect what matters Sciences Po OFCE Working Paper, n° 35. Leal Filho W, Wolf F, Lange Salvia A et al (2020) Heading towards an unsustainable world: some of the implications of not achieving the SDGs. Discover Sustainability (2020) 1:2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-020-00002-x Lerner H, Berg C (2017) A comparison of three holistic approaches to health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health. Front. Vet. Sci 4, 163 Lim SS, Fullman N, Murray CJL, Kutz MJ, Ellen M Goldberg, Pigott DM et al (2016) Mea- suring the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: a baseline analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet 388: 1813-1850, http://dx.- doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31467-2 Lindner EG (2012) A Dignity Economy: Creating an Economy that Serves Human Dignity and Preserves Our Planet. Lake Oswego, OR, USA: Dignity Press. Lomborg B (2001) The skeptical environmentalist. Cambridge: University Press. Magalhaes P (2016) Draft on the covenant on the management of Earth System use. Safe operating Space of Humankind as a natural intangible common heritage of humankind. In SOS Treaty, Eds. P. Magalhaes, W. Steffen, K. Bosselmann, A. Aragao, V. Soromento-Marques. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp 289-302

29 Mahon, C (2008) Progress at the Front: The Draft Optional Protoco to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Human Rights Law Review 8: 4, 617- 646 Malwe C, Fernandez EF (2013) Re-drawing existing powers over natural resources for food security at the light of a natural resources constrained world. In F Collart Dutilleul. Ed, Pen- ser une démocratie alimentaire (vol. I), Inida (Costa Rica), pp.201 https://hal.archives- ouvertes.fr/hal-00930190 Martin JL, Maris V, Simberloff DS (2016) The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(22), 6105–6112 Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J and Behrens WW III (1972) The Limits to Growth. A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York, NY: Universe Books. Meadows D, Randers J, and Meadows DL (2005) A synopsis: The Limits to Growth: The 30- YearUpdate. London: Earthscan Editions. Medina MC and Petit O (2012) ”Conflicting Rights and Interests in Indigenous Territories: The Implications of Exploitation and Conservation of Natural Resources”, in Strategic Natu- ral Resource Governance. Contemporary Environmental Perspectives, eds. C. Maganda and O. Petit, (PIE Peter Lang), pp. 19–50. Moran D, Giljum S, Kanemoto K and Godat J (2020) From satellite to supply chain : new approaches connect Earth observations to economic decisions. One Earth 3, 5-8.

Motesharrei S, Rivas J and Kalnay E (2014) Human and nature dynamics (HANDY): Model- ing inequality and use of resources in the collapse or sustainability of societies. Ecological E conomics 101(C), 90–102. Myers SS (2017) Planetary health: protecting human health on a rapidly changing planet. The Lancet 390, 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32846-5. Naeem S, Ingram JC, Varga A, Agardy T, Barten P, Bennet G et al. (2015) Get the science right when paying for nature's services. Science 347(6227), 1206–1207. Natural Resource Charter (2010) (non-renewable resources) https://resourcegovernance.org/ sites/default/files/documents/nrcj1193_natural_resource_charter_19.6.14.pdf Negrutiu I (2011) Interdisciplinarity for the long-term: targetting resources. In: Les ressources. Les colloques de l'Institut universitaire de France, eds. I. Negrutiu, N. Del Fatti, J.P. Bravard et al (Saint-Étienne: PUSE) pp. 327–337. Negrutiu I, Hamant O, Le Gall J, Merchez L, Weber JL (2014) From Valuing Nature to Re- claiming Resources. pp 1-6. http://dev.anthropocene-curriculum.org/pages/root/campus- 2014/valuing-nature/fro…uing-nature-to-reclaiming-resources-handbook-and-practicals/ from-valuing-nature/ Negrutiu I, Frohlich M, Hamant O (2020) Flowers in the Anthropocene: a political agenda. Trends in Plant Science 25, 349-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2019.12.008 New Zealand Parliament (1991) Resource Management Act 1991. Available from: http:// www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/whole.html#DLM230265. Nuesiri EO (2016) Social and environmental accountability, Working Paper, https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/accountability_paper.pdf

30 OECD 2017, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=BLI OECD-UNECE 2020, 5th Joint OECD/UNECE Seminar on the Implementation of SEEA, https://seea.un.org/events/5th-joint-oecdunece-seminar-implementation-seea Ordway jr SH (1956) ”Possible limits of raw-material consumption”, in Man’s role in changing the face of the Earth, ed. Thomas WL (University of Chicago Press), 987-992. Ostrom E (2002) Managing Resources in the Global Commons. Journal of Business Admin- istration and Policy Analysis 30–31, 401–413. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133 Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and States: polycentric governance of complex economic Ssystems. American Economic Review, 100 (3): 641-72, Ottersen OP, Dasgupta J, Blouin C, Buss P, Chongsuvivatwong V, Frenk J et al. (2014) The Lancet–University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health – The political origins of health inequity: prospects for change. The Lancet 383, 630-667. Ottersen OP and Engebretsen E (2020) COVID-19 puts the Sustainable Development Goals center stage.Nature Medecine 26, 1671-1673 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1094-y Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD, Blanchard J, BonebrakeTC, I-Ching Chen I-C et al (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, 1-9 Polanyi K (1944) The Great transformation; https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Grande_Trans- formation ( - ﬁctive commodities: land, labor, money) Pradyumna A (2018) Planetary health and food systems: insights from global SDGs.Lancet Planetary Health 2, e417-e418 Randers J (2011) 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, Chelsea Green Pub- lishing Rapport DJ, Costanza R, McMichael AJ. (1998) Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecol- ogy & Evolution 13(10), 397–402. Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopin G, Gutman GP, Hammond A, Kates R, Swart R (2002) Great Transition: The promise and lure of the times ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute. http://www.world-governance.org/article90.html?lang=en. Raworth, K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut. Ox- fam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience, vol. 8. pp. 1–26. Rockstrom J (2016) Future Earth. Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science 351(6271), 319–319. Rosling H, Ekström AM, Ortendahl C (2001) The global health development-what is the status and what can be done? Lakartidningen 98(47), 5382-5385 Sarkis J (2019) Sustainable transitions: technology, resources, and society. One Earth 1, 48- 50 Schoon M, Van der Leeuw S (2015) The shift toward social-ecological systems perspectives: insights into the human-nature relationship. Natures, Sciences, Sociétés 23, 166-174. Schultz L, Folke C, Österblom H and Olsson P (2015) Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(24), 7369–7374. 31 SEN 2016, Stanford >Enciclopedia of Philosophy, The capability approach, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/ Serres M (1992) Le Contrat Naturel. Paris: Éditions Flammarion. Sigdel R, Anand M, Bauch CT (2018) Convergence of socio-ecological dynamics in dis- parate ecological systems under strong coupling to human social systems. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/296202 SPI 2019. Social Progress Index, https://www.socialpro gress.org/ Srinivasan TU, Carey PS, Hallstein E et al (2008) The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. PNAS 105:1768-1773 Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al. (2015) Plane- tary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223): 1259855–1259855. Sterner T, Barbier EB, Bateman I, van den Bijgelaar I, Crépin A-S, Edenhofer O et al (2019) Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nature Sustainability 2, 14-21. Stockstad E (2015) Sustainable goals from UN under fire. Science 347, 702-703 Sverdrup H and Ragnarsdóttir KV (2014) Natural Resources in a Planetary Perspective. Oel- kers EH (ed.), Geochemical Perspectives 3(2), 129–341. Supiot A (2015) La gouvernance par les nombres. Paris: Editions Fayard Swiss Re Institute report (2020) https://www.swissre.com/media/news-releases/nr-20200923- biodiversity-and-ecosystems-services.html Tanentzap AJ, Lamb A, Walker S, Farmer A (2015) Resolving conflicts between agriculture and the natural environment. PLOs Biol 13(9): e1002242. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002242 Taylor P (2016).The Common Haritage: constructive utopianism, in SOS Treaty, ed. Magal- haes P, Steffen W, K. Bosselmann A, Aragao A, Soromento-Marques V (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne), pp 104-130. Tulchinsky TH, Varavikova EA (2015) The global health situation. In: The New Public Health, Academic Press Turner, RA, Addison J, Arias A, Bergseth BJ, N. A. Marshall NA, Morrison TH and Tobin RC (2016) Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecology and Society 21(3), 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08542-210318 UNDP, 1990. Human Development Report 1990. UN Economic and Social Council (1994) Draft Principles On Human Rights And The Envi- ronment. pp. 1–5. Report No.: E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9, Annex I. Available from: https:// www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1994-dec.htm. UNEP International Resource Panel (2014) Managing and Conserving the Natural Resource Base for Sustained Economic and Social Development. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/ Portals/50244/publications/IRP%20Think%20Piece%20Contributing%20to%20the %20SDGs%20Process.pdf UNEP International Resource Panel (2015) Policy Coherence of the Sustainable Develop- ment Goals. A natural resource perspective. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/ 50244/publications/Policy Coherenceofthe Sustainable DevelopmentGoals.pdf UNEP International Resource Panel (2016) Global Material Flows and Resource Productiv- ity. Schandl H, Fischer-Kowalski, West MJ et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 32 305597138_Global_Material_Flows_and_Resource_Productivity_An_Assessment_Study_of _the_UNEP_International_Resource_Panel. UNEP International Resource Panel (2017) Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Im- plications. Ekins, P., Hughes, N., et al. https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/resource-efficiency. UNEP International Resource Panel (2017) Assessing Global Resource Use. A systems approach to resource efficiency and pollution reduction. https://www.resourcepanel.org/ reports/assessing-global-resource-use. UNEP International Resource Panel (2019) Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Re- sources for the Future We Want. Oberle, B., Bringezu, S., Hat eld-Dodds, S. et al. https:// www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework [Internet]. New York and Geneva: United Nations; 2011 pp. 1–42. Available from: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/2 United Nations General Assembly (1968) 2398 (XXIII) Problems of the human environment. Available from: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/243/58/IMG/ NR024358.pdf?OpenElement UN Statistics Organization. Towards a definition of Natural Capital [Internet]. 2014. Avail- able from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/londongroup/meeting21/Towards%20a %20definition%20of%20Natural%20Capital%20-%202nd%20draft.pdf Vanoli A (2005) A History of National Accounting. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Veland S, Lynch AH (2016) Scaling the Anthropocene: How the stories we tell matter. Geo- forum 72, 1–5. Vitali S, Glattfelder JB and Battiston S (2011) The Network of Global Corporate Control. Montoya ARH (ed.), PLoS ONE 6(10), e25995. Vivero Pol JL (2013) Food as a commons: Reframing the narrative of the food system. DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2255447Corpus ID: 152771178 Weber J-L, Fernandez Fernandez E, Malwe C, Salles J-M, Collart Dutilleul F and Negrutiu I (2014) “A Natural Resource-Systems approach: Targeting the Ecological Transition at the Regional Scale”,, in Penser une démocratie alimentaire /Thinking a food democracy – Propo- sitions Lascaux entre ressources naturelles et besoins alimentaires, eds. F. Collart Dutilleul and T. Bréger (Inida, San José, Costa Rica), pp 126-143. Weber JL (2018) Environmental Accounting. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmen- tal Science DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.105. Wenar L (2016) Property rights and the resource curse. Philos. Public Aff. 36, 1-32 Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C, Boltz F, Capon AG, de Souza Dias BF et al. (2015) Safe- guarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation- Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet 386(10007), 1973–2028. World Bank (2019) https://data.worldbank.org/topic/social-development WEF (2020) World Economic Forum, Nature Risk Rising: Why the Crisis Engulfing Nature Matters for Business and the Economy. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF_New_Nature_Economy_Report_2020.pdf World Health Organization (1946) Constitution, as adopted by the International Health Con- 33 ference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; entered into force on 7 April 1948. Availablefrom: http://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf?ua=1 WHO (2015) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/173589/ WHO_HIS_HSI_2015.3_eng.pdf;jsessionid=CFFE3D6FB35C468DA5B5540C06C6ED33? sequence=1 WHO (2000) Ranking of health systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Orga- nization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000 and https://w ww.who.int/whr/2000/ media_centre/press_release/en/ Wilson M, Gathorne-Hardy A, Alexander P and Boden L (2018) Why “Culture” matters for planetary health. Lancet Planetary Health 2, e467-e468 Wyborn C, Montana, J., Kalas, N., Davila Cisneros, F., Clement, S. et al (2020) Research and action agenda for sustaining diverse and just futures for life on Earth. Biodiversity Revisited. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12086.52804/2

34 Supplemental Files

Supplemental File 1

Socioecological convergence, Resources / Health approach, and SDGs

The socioecological convergence (Schoon and Van der Leeuw, 2015; Sidgel et al, 2018), an iterative co-evolution, operates through the health-resource system. In that sense, convergence means that overexploitation of natural resources and transgression of planetary boundaries negatively impact health. At the same time, convergence also means that a political focus on resources has a health dividend, while a political focus on health has implications for how resources are governed.

The convergence and interconnectedness between resources and health deserves particular at- tention when designing and implementing the SDG agenda. We estimate that 13 of the 17 goals make resources the metrics, support, and vector of equitable and sustainable development in social, economic, political, cultural, and environmental terms (specifically 5 out of 6 well-being goals, 6 out of 7 enabling infrastructure goals, and 2 out of 3 natural environment goals) (see also UNEP, 2019). Similarly, health issues (Lim et al, 2016) have a comparable score (14/17). Furthermore, 5 of 7 quantified planetary boundaries (Steffen et al, 2015) are genuine resource systems (land, water, air, life, minerals) on which SDGs depend (Campbell et al, 2017; Arguello and Negrutiu, 2019). Of note, food systems have a central role for achieving the SDGs. Also, businesses experience strong nature-dependency (e.g., essentially physical resource-dependency) of their direct and supply chain gross-added value (WEF, 2020). Hence, a resource-driven asymmetric conflictual situation between the market, the corporate, and the society.

The SDG framework has to intentionally address the emerging trade-offs between interlinked sets of goals (Pradyumna, 2018; Herrero et al, 2020). For example, climate change, decreas- ing agricultural production, increasing undernutrition, and a lack of public health services in developing countries are major challenges to achieving the SDGs by 2030 (Balasubramanian, 2018). Additional barriers to implementing the SDGs and their consequences are reported in Stockstad, 2015 and Leal-Filho et al, 2020.

In their detailed study, Eisenmerger et al (2020) explore the SDG process in a socioecological perspective to show that the SDG targets and indicators (essentially intensive indicators (resource productivity, efficiency, intensity) “fail to monitor absolute trends in resource use and prioritize economic growth over ecological integrity” (a bias toward economic growth and underscore of ecological goals). This is because SDGs rely mainly on institutions responsible for unsustainable resource use; they lack coherent systemic views on how the socio-economic and socioecological processes operate.

With resources and health as a lens, it is apparent how the targets incorporated into the SDGs are interlinked and interdependent (Ottersen and Engebretsen, 2020).RPH is the kind of instrument that can provide interlinked indicators that are context-sensitive ane context dependent monitoring by involving committed stakeholders.

Thus, SGDs need a reevaluation in order to go far beyond the green growth objectives. To trigger the societal acceptance of and support for SDGs on the ground, political and institutional changes are necessary. The ubiquity of SDGs makes it hard to anticipate the extent of socio-economic outcomes induced by convergent and rather simultaneous cultural shifts

35 across the diversity of perceptions and practices of resource use (Wilson et al, 2018). In that context, the potent and adaptive planetary health paradigm constitutes a system of values and a systemic frame of reference for reflexive governance aligning equity in health and wealth within the limits of the biosphere that intersects with the SDGs (see also Demaio and Rock- ström, 2015; Pecl et al, 2017; Sterner et al, 2019; Herrero et al, 2020).

36 Supplemental File 2. Substantial Resource expertise and regulatory instruments exist but lack socioecological convergence. The resource field has generated exhaustive knowledge, research, and training skills, tradi- tional know-how, dedicated institutions and organizations with a large body of data, tools, instruments, rules, norms, and financial mechanisms, corporate information, expertise, and practice, and the corresponding geopolitical and world order perspective. Yet, the integration of such knowledge production, as well as research on, and governance of, resources remains to be achieved. For example, the work of the International Resource Panel (UNEP, 2015, 2016, and 2019) shows that “resources are the nutrients of the social ecosystem” (Sverdrup and Ragnarsdottir, 2014) and as such are a precondition of sustainable societies. However, its resource policy recommendations so far have had no effect on business as usual.

Along those lines, a myriad of initiatives explore possible futures at various geographical scales but have not achieved wide-scale visibility. They are experimenting with practices and instruments that structure communication, create synergies in cooperative governance across multiple scales and stakeholder groups, and address trade-offs within and between institutions and agencies, and explore education, good policies, and good governance instruments (IUCN, 2019; Wyborn et al, 2020).

A few examples include: (i) a database of one hundred initiatives that have designed methods to equilibrate power systems and reinvigorate democracy (Bennett et al, 2016); (ii) the EU5P initiative (De Schutter, 2014b) for bottom-up social innovations, sustainable food systems, and the next EU Common agriculture Policy (iPES Food, 2016); (iii) the pan-European blue and green networks and initiatives with indigenous communities (Pecl et al, 2017); (iv) Nor- way’s approach to oil and gas wealth management (defined by law as common property resources) with strong emphasis on education, good policies, and good governance (Gylfason, 2011), and now experimenting the management of marine ecosystems and resources under climate change (Diekert and Nieminen, 2014); (v) the Natural Resources Governance Frame- work, an initiative of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, has recently provided a “set of principles, standards, and tools for assessing natural resource governance and promoting its improvement” (Nuesiri, 2016 ; IUCN, 2019) through transparency, liabil- ity, controllability, responsibility, and responsiveness.

Concerning existing legal frames having relevance to the resource field, the following illustrates the way ill-adapted political instruments or institutions aggravate current social and environmental problems, and puts emphasis on the legitimacy of institutions and decision-making (Turner et al, 2016; Nuesiri, 2016).

The maldistribution of rents from natural resources is grounded in institutions and political economy despite the fact that in most national constitutions and under international law natural resources are common property resources (Article 1, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted in 1996 as an extension of the 1948 Human Rights Declaration; We- nar, 2008; Gylfason, 2018). Because of the supreme status of human rights in international law, the legal aspect of natural resources as a human right grants people equal and non-dis- criminatory access to common property resources (Wenar, 2008). This is further enforced by Article 1 of the UN International pact on economic, social, and cultural rights (adopted in 1966; Mahon, 2008) and the UN Economic and Social Council injunction (1994) that “civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights are universal, interdependent, and indivisible”. In addition, fighting economic inequality is rooted in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the right to an adequate standard of living) that provides leverage to the imperative redistribution of incomes and resources within societies (Hickel, 2019). Taken to- 37 gether, the existing UN legal frames constitute coherent foundations toward enacting a universal social protection ﬂoor (International Labor Ofﬁce, 2014; De Schutter, 2014a). Impor- tantly, this apparent disorder is likely to have his roots in the effective supremacy and protection of exclusive property rights (material and immaterial) to the detriment of vital needs and interests of populations, together with the absence of an international competition law (Col- lart Dutilleul, 2021).

To address the disorder issue, the following examples are mentioned.

(1) While emphasis has been placed on human rights, little has been stated about human duties in preserving the life-supporting capacity of natural systems (Serres, 1992; Taylor, 2016). Indeed, the limits imposed by a finite world need to be acknowledged in order to reconcile human needs with the available resources (Ehrlich et al, 2012; Steffen et al, 2015; Martin et al, 2016; Hancock et al, 2017).

(2) The food democracy approach is a change of paradigm in the food system governance process (Panel; Collart Dutilleul, 2013 and 2021; Bernard et al, 2019). It reverses the socioecological and political perception of food: food as commodity (Vivero Pol, 2013) is becoming a planetary health issue and the current “from field to fork” strategy is shifting to “from fork to field” democratic practice. Consequently, the food systems (including farmer and ru- ral smallholder rights) and the supporting core resources required for the production of food (land, water, and biomass) need to be jointly managed (Negrutiu et al, 2020).

(3) Also, realizing that the conventional market system does not adequately and efficiently allocate a variety of natural resources, the Vermont Common Assets Trust program (Farley et al, 2015) aimed at providing an institutional frame for sustainable, just, and efficient resource allocation at the State level. Last, but not least, the New Zealand Resource Management Act (RMA, New Zealand Parliament, 1991) is a pioneering reform in environmental law creating an integrated natural resource sustainable management system at the apex of the country’s legislative hierarchy to direct all other policies, standards, plans, and decision-making. This case model illustrates how an integrated resource governance can serve as an overarching principle spanning the national interest. These two examples highlight the type of obstacles such transgressive initiatives are confronted with, namely the effects of partial offset of wealth-concentration on the corporate sector, a lack of sufficiently accurate planetary health monitoring at various spatial scales as an aid to defining sustainability criteria in decision- making, pressures of market forces, and usage of judicial system levers which enable decisions made under the RMA to be contested (Tanentzap et al., 2015).

38 Supplemental Table 1. Five areas of additional expertise for closing the resource-health science-to-policy gap: designing a socioecological convergence process across global institutions and organizations. The inventory identified a semantic proliferation on the fundamentals of the socioecological systems thinking. A clarification is needed.

Organization, Pro- Reference / link Observations gram

1. Resources, geopolitics, and diplomacy

Resources for the Fu-https://www.rff.org/publications/ Analyze the supply of US natural ture (RFF) resources, the management of ecological wealth, energy economics and policy, etc.

Natural Resources http://www.nrdc.org/about/ Work with businesses, elected lead- Defence Council ers, and communities on current (NRDC) challenges (environment, water, health-pollution, climate).

Digital Belt and https://www.researchgate.net/pro- Belt and Road Science Plan; Ecolo- Road Program file/Dong_Liang28/publication/ gical and B&R Environmental Co- (DBAR) 338356983_DBAR_ operation Plan

EU SCAR foresight https://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/ Resource scarcities and transitions, process index.cfm?pg=about#foresight ; bioeconomy, productivity and suffi- Freibauer et al, 2011 ciency narratives.

Friends of the Earth https://foe.org/ Nature, consumption, system change through planning and law iPES Food De Schutter, 2017; www.ipes- Food systems analysis and reform.- food.org/pages/LongFoodMove- Food and data as combined strategic ment assets – scenario building to 2045.

IUCN IUCN, 2019 Natural Resources Governance Framework

OECD and World OECD, 2017; World Bank, 2019 Social and environmental account- Bank ability; Reports on social and environmental issues

Scientists consensus Barnosky et al, 2014 Science-to-policy frameworking on Initiative global challenges

University of Natural https://boku.ac.at/en/ Including the Institute for Ecolo- Resources and Life gical Economics, Vienna Sciences, Vienna (BOKU) 39 World Resources https://www.wrforum.org/us/ Agenda and developing solutions on Forum (WRF) sustainable use of resources worldwide.

World Resource In- https://www.wri.org/about; Haines User-friendly information systems, stitute (WRI) et al, 2018 protocols and standards to over- come barriers to change.

Grantham Institute, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/ Quantify the environmental implic- Imperial College grantham/research/resources-and- ations of the need for resources (wa- London pollution/ ter in particular); technologies required for low-carbon development.

Common Home of https://www.commonhomeofhu- Global Environment Impact, Plan- Humanity and Com- manity.org/ ; Magalhaes, 2016 etary boundaries, condominium mon Heritage of Hu- legal approach mankind (CHH)

GESDA, Geneva https://gesda.global/ Scientific emerging topics. Science and diplomacy anticipator (5, 10, and 25 years).

2. Planetary health (https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Planetary- Health-101-Information-and-Resources.pdf)

The Planetary Health https://www.planetaryhealthalli- Rockefeller Foundation Economic alliance: The World ance.org/planetary-health Council on Planetary Health Secret- in 2050 project ariat, University of Oxford, UNDP, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

University of Califor-https://ucghi.universityofcaliforni- Global Health Institute/ Planetary nia a.edu/centers-of-expertise health Center of expertise (multi- campus approach)

University of Sidney https://www.sydney.edu.au/news- Planetary Health initiative and plat- opinion/news/2017/12/14/planet- form ary-health-init iative-launches-at- university-of-sydney.html

3. The transition process and associated risks

The Bridge collabor- https://bridgecollaborativeglob- Health, development and the envir- ative Network al.org/ onment. The Nature Conservancy, Duke University, International Food Research Policy Institute, PATH

Rachel Carson Cen- https://www.carsoncenter.uni- Environmental humanities research and dialogue 40 ter, Munich muenchen.de/index.html

Future Earth programhttps://futureearth.org/ Health knowledge-Action network / Future Earth's Global Research Pro- jects. Transformative sustainability science.

The Great Transition https://greattransition.org/ Cultural shifts and new praxis for – Global Scenario roundtable/problem-action-author- global transformation. Group response

University of Mary- Motesharrei et al, 2014 HANDY model. Predicting long- land term behaviour, carrying capacity, societal collapse vs sustainable steady states.

International Institutehttps://www.iied.org/iied-strategy- Institutional theory and research on for Environment and 2019-2024 valuable local solutions taken to in- Development (IIED) fluential global forums.

IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ Reports

IRGC at EPFL https://www.epfl.ch/research/do- Governance of systemic risks and mains/irgc/; https://www.epfl.ch/ low-carbon transitions. Reports and research/domains/irgc/concepts- insurance companies network. and-frameworks/transition-risk/

One Earth journal https://www.cell.com/one-earth/ Global environmental change; AND One Earth or- aims; https://www.oneearth.org/ thematic dossiers on resources, ganization science/; Dinerstein et al. (2020). transition, etc. Global safety net framework.

Planetary Emergency https://clubofrome.org/publication/ Club of Rome initiative 2019 plan the-planetary- emergency-plan/

Research Institute for https://www.chikyu.ac.jp/rihn_e/ Redefine the role of science in soci- Humanity and Nature ety, improve dialogue between dif- (RIHN) Kyoto ferent traditions of knowledge, and stimulate multiactor collaboration.

Stockholm Resili- https://www.stockholmresili- Sustainability science and convenor ence Center (SRC) ence.org/ between science, policy and prac- and Beijer Institute tice.

Breakthrough Insti- https://thebreakthrough.org/ Technological solutions to environ- tute, Oakland, Cal. mental and human development challenges (Food, Energy, Conser- vation).

41 OFCE – SciencePo, Laurent and Jouzel, 2018 A socioecological narrative (well- Paris being, resilience, sustainability) and well-being indicator-based institutional reform.

ORSI project. https://www.ecowelfare.fi/en/ The Eco-welfare state Tampere University themes/orsi_project/; Hirvilammi and Koch, 2020

Doughnut Economicshttps://time.com/5930093/amster- Raworth K, Doughnut economics Action Lab dam-doughnut-economics/

4. Bridging the trans-generational gap – youth organizations

Singled out organiza- (https://www.thegreenspotlight.- Defend Our Future; Earth Guardi- tions, essentially on com/2018/12/youth-orgs/) ans; Earth Force; Our Children’s climate issues Trust; Sunrise Movement; Fridays for Future; Earth Uprising; Youth 4 Nature; SustainUS; US Youth for Justice and Sustainability; Interna- tional Youth Climate Movement; Zero Hour

Environment WPAY https://www.un.org/development/ UN economic and social affairs, desa/youth/environment-wpay.htmlyouth

Youth and Environ- https://yeenet.eu/about-yee/ Member of the UNEP; 50 member ment Europe (YEE), organizations. and European Youth Forum

5. The corporate and associated projects and platforms

Business for Nature http://shift.tools/contributors/573? A global coalition of influential or- contributor_list_id=67 ganizations and businesses.

The Carbon Disclos- https://www.cdp.net/en/info/about- Monitoring tools to become man- ure Project and the us ; https://www.google.com/ agement tools - standards of envir- Global Reporting Ini-search?client=firefox-b- onmental reporting (climate, water, tiative e&q=Global+Reportin g+Initiative forests).

World Business https://www.wbcsd.org/Over- Platform of 250 company coalition Council for Sustain- view/ Our-approach ; https://natural- for the transformation of major eco- able Development capitalcoalition.org/natu ral-capital- nomic systems. and Natural Capital protocol/ Coalition Protocol to measure, value, and integrate natural capital impacts and dependencies into business processes. 42 IEEE (Institute of https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/docu- GOPHER (Global observation of Electrical and Elec- ment/6049339 Planetary Health and Ecosystem tronics Engineers) Resources). Spatio temporal data University of Minnesota mining (land cover change time series).

World Economic http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ Shape global, regional, and industry Forum (WEF). Pub- WEF_New_Nature_Economy_Re- agendas. Evaluate hidden risks of lic-private coopera- port_2020.pdf nature loss. tion

UNEP https://www.unenvironment.org/re- Global chemical outlook reports I sources/report/global-chemicals- and II outlook-ii-legacies-innovative-solutions

Harvard Business https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/re- Reflecting companies /organizations School, IWAI - Im- search/publications/Pages/default- positive and negative impacts on pact-weighted ac- .aspx?q=Impact-weighted%20Ac- employees, customers, the environ- counts initiative counts ment and the broader society.

IPSF – International https://www.ecoactu.ma/wp-con- Compare approaches, tools, and Platform for Sustain- tent/uploads/2020/10/dt3-interna- methodologies of sustainable fin- able Finance tional-platform-sustainable-fi- ance across countries; develop glob- nance-annual-report-2020_en-2.pdfally applicable sustainable finance standards.

Note: Updated inventory of current indicators available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ beyond_gdp/news_en.html and http://wikiprogress.org/