The Science of Sustainability EXPLORING A UNIFIED PATH FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION The Science of Sustainability hile the U.S. city of Louisville, Kentucky isn’t known globally for the environmental work happening there, that might very well change— Wthe city has become home to a first-of-its-kind collaboration between environmentalists, city leaders and public health professionals. The Green Heart Project, funded in part by the United States National Institutes of Health, will plant trees in neighborhoods throughout the city and monitor how they af- fect residents’ health. It’s a boundary-pushing medical trial— a controlled study of nature as a medical intervention. Green Heart is just one project in one city, but it rep- resents a new way of thinking about the role of conservation in solving human problems. It is part of an emerging mod- el for cross-sector collaboration that aims to create a world ready for the sustainability challenges ahead. Is this world possible? Here, we present a new sci- ence-based view that says “yes”—but it will require new forms of collaboration across traditionally disconnected sec- © Randy Olson tors, and on a near unprecedented scale. 2 The Science of Sustainability: A False Choice In both options, we used leading projections of population growth and gross domestic product to estimate how demand for food, energy A False Choice and water will evolve between 2010 and 2050. Under business-as-usu- al, we played out existing expectations and trends in how those chang- Many assume that economic interests and environmental inter- es will impact land use, water use, air quality, climate, protected hab- ests are in conflict. But new research makes the case that this percep- itat areas and ocean fisheries. In the more sustainable scenario, we tion of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary but ac- proposed changes to how and where food and energy are produced, tively counterproductive to both ends. Achieving a sustainable future asking if these adjustments could result in better outcomes for the will be dependent on our ability to secure both thriving human com- same elements of human well-being and nature. Our full findings are munities and abundant and healthy natural ecosystems. described in a peer-reviewed paper—“An Attainable Global Vision The Nature Conservancy partnered with the University of Min- for Conservation and Human Well-Being”—published in Frontiers in nesota and 11 other organizations to ask whether it is possible to Ecology and the Environment. achieve a future where the needs of both people and nature are ad- These scenarios let us ask, can we do better? Can we design a fu- vanced. Can we actually meet people’s needs for food, water and ener- ture that meets people’s needs without further degrading nature in gy while doing more to protect nature? the process? “The perception of development vs. conservation is not just unnecessary, but actively counterproductive to both ends.” To answer this question, we compared what the world will look Our answer is “yes,” but it comes with several big “ifs.” There is like in 2050 if economic and human development progress in a “busi- a path to get there, but matters are urgent—if we want to accomplish ness-as-usual” fashion and what it would look like if instead we join these goals by mid-century, we’ll have to dramatically ramp up our ef- forces to implement a “sustainable” path with a series of fair-minded forts now. The next decade is critical. and technologically viable solutions to the challenges that lie ahead. 3 The Science of Sustainability: A False Choice “The impression that economic and environmental goals are mutually exclusive Mike Benna has contributed to a lack of connection among Furthermore, changing course in the next ten years will require global collabora- tion on a scale not seen perhaps since World War II. The widely held impression that some of the sectors best economic and environmental goals are mutually exclusive has contributed to a lack of equipped to solve such connection among key societal constituencies best equipped to solve interconnected problems—namely, the public health, development, financial and conservation com- interconnected problems.” munities. This has to change. The good news is that protecting nature and providing water, food and energy to a growing world do not have to be either-or propositions. Our view, instead, calls for smart energy, water, air, health and ecosystem initiatives that balance the needs of economic growth and resource conservation equally. Rather than a zero-sum game, these elements are balanced sides of an equation, revealing the path to a future where people and nature thrive together. 4 TESTIMONIALS DR. SANIA NISHTAR, SI, FRCP, PhD “We must choose to prioritise long-term sustainability over short-term gratification, and calculate the true cost borne by Co-Chair, Independent High-Level Commission on societies in the future instead of just the price of actions and policies today. The global community has a responsibility to Non-Communicable Diseases, World Health Organization facilitate this transformation, and it starts by recognizing the environment as a key determinant of human health.” “We have the knowledge, power and technology to fast-track solutions to the enormous environmental challenges we face. DOMINIC WAUGHRAY We just need to act much quicker, together and smarter. This analysis offers a wide lens on global systems and shows what’s Head of the Centre for Global Public Goods, Member of the Executive Committee,World Economic Forum possible by energizing communities, partnerships and innovative alliances while helping people harness Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies to drive impact.” ACHIM STEINER “Nature-based solutions for climate are one of the most cost-effective approaches we have for achieving our climate goals. Administrator They also provide multiple co-benefits for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Investing in nature is not only the United Nations Development Programme smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do.” “As we have seen in the fight for health equity, working towards a sustainable world requires a multisectoral approach DR. GARY L. GOTTLIEB, MD, MBA in which people, their surrounding environment, and the economy flourishes because all sectors have come together in Chief Executive Officer,Partners in Health partnership towards a common purpose.” SIR ANDREW HAINES “This landmark report shows how, with bold and ambitious policies which integrate the achievement of conservation and MBBS, MD, FRCGP, FRCP, FMedSci development goals, it is possible for humanity to flourish at much lower levels of environmental impact than hazardous Professor, Environmental Change and Public Health London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine ‘business-as-usual’ approaches.” DR. CINDY HUANG, PhD, MPA “We are facing unprecedented global challenges, from climate change to refugee crises to pandemic threats. The linkages Co-Director of Migration, Displacement, and between such challenges have yet to be fully explored and appreciated. This new study puts into stark relief why we must Humanitarian Policy, Center for Global Development look for solutions across sectors and silos.” “Our growing understanding of the intricate links between nature and the well-being of people shows that there are many DR. GEORGINA MACE, PhD Professor and Head of the Centre for Biodiversity and options that do not lead to trade-offs between the economy and the environment. The problem is that almost all institutions Environment Research, University College London and decision-making bodies treat the economy, health and the natural environment in separate silos. This governance challenge is critical to address soon.” “This important, path-breaking study indicates that—even with projected population and GDP growth—it’s indeed possible DR. HAROLD MOONEY, PhD to maintain global conservation targets. As it reports, this would require unprecedented policy shifts and collaborations Senior Fellow Emeritus, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment across traditionally disconnected sectors. But it explicitly and holistically shows us what the future could look like. There is promise for what we want to see, but we have to commit to change.” “This paper moves beyond clashing worldviews, which argue that the needs of people must be sacrificed for nature or that DR. TERRY CHAPIN, PhD nature must be sacrificed for people. Instead, it takes critical goals of each and asks whether they are compatible. Can they be Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Center for Humans & Nature met? Coarse-scale modeling has its limitations, but these findings show a future in which people and nature thrive is indeed plausible and worth working towards.” The Science of Sustainability: Two Paths to 2050 Two Paths to 2050 This vision is not a wholesale departure from what others have offered. A number of prominent scientists and organizations have put forward important and thoughtful views for a sustainable future; but often such plans consider the needs of people and nature in in- solation from one another, use analyses confined to limited sectors or geographies, or assume that some hard tradeoffs must be made, such as slowing global population growth, taking a reduction in GDP growth or shifting diets off of meat. Our new research considers glob- al economic development and conservation needs together, more ho- listically, in order to find a sustainable path forward. What could a different future look like? We’ve used as our stan- dard the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 measures for “a world where all people are fed, healthy, em- ployed, educated, empowered and thriving, but not at the expense of other life on Earth.” Our analysis directly aligns with ten of those goals. Using the SDGs as our guideposts, we imagine a world in 2050 that looks very different than the one today—and drastically different from the one we will face if we continue in business-as-usual fashion.