No abstract

No abstract

T he UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a detailed dashboard of goals and targets agreed to by all 193 UN member countries. The 17 SDGs and associated 169 targets represent a global consensus, years in the making. They are an important step in the transition to a sustainable world because they open the door for much needed additional work. To achieve the SDGs, policy makers, scientists, and practitioners will have to clarify how the goals and targets interconnect, including trade-offs and synergies, and develop three additional elements: (1) an aggregation of metrics of human and ecosystem well-being, (2) dynamic models of the integrated system of humans and the natural world, and (3) innovative ways to build broad public consensus on the future we want -the details of a world in which the SDGs have been implemented.We need aggregate metrics of human and ecosystem well-being to replace growth in gross domestic product (GDP) as the primary development goal for nations (http://thesolutionsjournal.com/ node/237220). One could argue that aggregating targets for the individual SDGs is not necessary (or possible) and that the pursuit of the individual goals is sufficient to achieve sustainable development. This might be true if the goals were independent of each other and they all contributed to the overarching objective equally. In reality, however, there are multiple interconnections and clear trade-offs and synergies across and within the goals, especially in how the environmental, social, and economic goals and targets interact. For example, the recent single-minded focus on GDP growth has exacerbated inequality and environmental damage in many countries. If one takes these elements into account, as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) does, then there arguably has been no net progress globally for decades (Kubiszewski et al. 2013; Ecol Econ 93: 57-68). Increasing income inequality, environmental damage, and other costs can cancel out positive gains from GDP growth. The new metrics should therefore incorporate insights from ecology and psychology to describe how natural, social, human, and built capital assets interact to contribute to sustainable well-being, based on the idea that the best system is one that achieves the overarching goal of a world that is simultaneously prosperous, equitably shared, and ecologically sustainable. There is compelling new research relating ecosystem services and natural and social capital to human wellbeing, which can be integrated with GPI to produce an expanded version that connects more directly with the SDGs. Nevertheless, this will not be enough on its own.GDP has been successful in part because it is linked to the overall System of National Accounts (SNA), which is based on a static, linear, input-output model of the market economy. Although this approach was the best available when the SNA and GDP were developed in the 1930s and 1940s, we now know more about how complex, dynamic systems involving interacting human and natural systems function. Accordingly, we need t...

No abstract

Some countries have been more successful than others at dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. When we explore the different policy approaches adopted as well as the underlying socio-economic factors, we note an interesting set of correlations: countries led by women leaders have fared significantly better than those led by men on a wide range of dimensions concerning the global health crisis. In this paper, we analyze available data for 35 countries, focusing on the following variables: number of deaths per capita due to COVID-19, number of days with reported deaths, peaks in daily deaths, deaths occurred on the first day of lockdown, and excess mortality. Results show that countries governed by female leaders experienced much fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita and were more effective and rapid at flattening the epidemic's curve, with lower peaks in daily deaths. We argue that there are both contingent and structural reasons that may explain these stark differences. First of all, most women-led governments were more prompt at introducing restrictive measures in the initial phase of the epidemic, prioritizing public health over economic concerns, and more successful at eliciting collaboration from the population. Secondly, most countries led by women are also those with a stronger focus on social equality, human needs and generosity. These societies are more receptive to political agendas that place social and environmental wellbeing at the core of national policymaking.

Increasingly, empirical evidence refutes many of the theoretical pillars of mainstream economics. These theories have persisted despite the fact that they support unsustainable and undesirable environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Continuing to embrace them puts at risk the possibility of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and overcoming other global challenges. We discuss a selection of paradoxes and delusions surrounding mainstream economic theories related to: (1) efficiency and resource use, (2) wealth and wellbeing, (3) economic growth, and (4) the distribution of wealth within and between rich and poor nations. We describe a wellbeing economy as an alternative for guiding policy development. In 2018, a network of Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo), (supported by, but distinct from, the larger Wellbeing Economy Alliance—WEAll) promoting new forms of governance that diverge from the ones on which the G7 and G20 are based, has been launched and is now a living project. Members of WEGo aim at advancing the three key principles of a wellbeing economy: Live within planetary ecological boundaries, ensure equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity, and efficiently allocate resources (including environmental and social public goods), bringing wellbeing to the heart of policymaking, and in particular economic policymaking. This network has potential to fundamentally re-shape current global leadership still anchored to old economic paradigms that give primacy to economic growth over environmental and social wealth and wellbeing.

IntroductionTransformative action points to move towards a Circular Bioeconomy of Wellbeing Focus on sustainable wellbeing Box I Gross Domestic Product versus Genuine Progress Indicator Invest in nature and biodiversityBox II Renewable natural capital and nature-based solutions are key for a circular bioeconomy Box III Connecting private forest owners for collective biodiversity protection in Denmark Generate an equitable distribution of prosperity Box IV Payments for watershed protection in Ecuador Box V Bioplastics as a means for territorial regeneration in Italy Rethink land, food and health systems holistically Box VI Regenerative agriculture Box VII Forests for water-from global to localBox VIII Agroforestry to support deforestation-free cocoa production Transform industrial sectors Box IX ReSOLVE Framework for circularity Box X Wood-based textiles Box XI Sustainable biofuel for diesel and jet enginesBox XII A nanocellulose vehicle Reimagine cities through ecological lenses Box XIII Engineered wood products for reimagining building construction Box XIV The association between urban green spaces and human health Enabling action points to move towards a Circular Bioeconomy of Wellbeing Create an enabling regulatory framework Box XV The US BioPreferred public procurement Programme Deliver mission-oriented innovation to the investment and political agendasBox XVI The Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBI JU) Enable access to finance and enhance risk-taking capacity Box XVII The European Circular Bioeconomy Fund (ECBF) Intensify and broaden research and educationBox XVIII Amazonia 4.0 A Call to Action References ContentK2A Knowledge to Action 9• Economic and industrial sectors relying on biological resources and nature-based solutions (food, wood industry, bulk and speciality chemicals, construction, packaging, textiles, pharmaceuticals, bioenergy and all sectors benefiting from biobased solutions or ecosystem services such as nature tourism or water supply).

In a 2014 issue of Nature, members of our research group called for abandoning the gross domestic product as the key indicator in economic policymaking. In this new article, we argue that a new post–gross domestic product economy focusing on wellbeing rather than material output is already emerging in the Anthropocene, thanks to the convergence of policy reforms and economic shifts. At the policy level, the Sustainable Development Goals require policymakers to protect ecosystems, promote greater equality, and focus on long-term equitable development. At the economy level, the provision of services has outpaced industrial production as the key driver of prosperity, with innovative business models optimizing the match between supply and demand and giving rise to a burgeoning “sharing economy”, which produces value to people while reducing output and costs. The economic transformation already underway is, however, delayed by an obsolete system of measurement of economic performance still dominated by the gross domestic product–based national accounts, which rewards the incumbent and disincentives the new. We show that a different approach to measuring wellbeing and prosperity is the “missing link” we need to connect recent evolutions in policy and the economy with a view to activating a sustainable development paradigm for a good Anthropocene.