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 manage- ment of resources, the signature landmark of the Great Acceleration in the Anthropocene. Current governance systems are not equipped to handle challenges such as the implementa- tion 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 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 experi- mentally 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 initia- tives 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 col- lectively, 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 re- sources 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 so- cioecological view to broadly define resources as inclusive physical, human, economic, insti- tutional, 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 pub- lic 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 founda- tions 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 sig- nals 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 sustain- ability is considered in terms of an inclusive social and ecological system. This socioecologi- cal 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 diplo- matic 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 re- sources (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 inter- ests 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, ac- cess 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 situ- ation at odds with the public interest (or common purpose) in fields as diverse as the environ- ment, 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