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 Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland 3Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Norway 4 Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
* Correspondence :
Ioan Negrutiu
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 institu-
tions 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 operationalization 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 Social 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). Resources 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 developed 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; Biermann 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; Fischer-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; Motesharrei et al, 2014; Stockstad, 2015; Nuesiri, 2016; De Schutter, 2017; Horton, 2017; Engebretsen 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
3reinforcing 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; Acemoglu 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 regulation, 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 fragmented research landscape and policy agendas (Schoon and Van der Leeuw, 2015; Bornemann 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 International Resource Panel, 2015; Eisenmerger et al, 2020). Supplemental File 1 discusses the im-
pact 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 misleading: 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 Defini)ons) is building on slow drivers and cumula;ve ;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 instru-
ments. 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 lo-
cal 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 robust 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 Inform 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 consumerresource models that integrate environmental limits, minimum requirements for populations, and relationships between resource-versus waste-limited environments. Such instruments en-
able the translation of environmental limits into targets and deadlines, thus guiding decisionmaking 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) realtime 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 challenging (Vanoli, 2005; Hanley, 2015; Weber, 2018; Acunzo et al, 2018).
In summary, the proposed model (Figure 1B; Table 1) is a transformative process that enables adjusting the balance between management through numbers (a dominant trend today) and governance through law. The current imbalance has resulted from institutional degener-
6acy facilitated by an inflation of technical rules and norms inspired by statistics, benchmarking, 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 enactment 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 Toolbox (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 twocomponent 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-processpractice quality and monitoring for the benefit of improved auditing and transparency. Preliminary 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 successes 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.
