I have just completed an excellent eight-week MOOC (Mass Open Online Course) on ‘Planetary Boundaries & Human Opportunities’ delivered by Prof. Johan Rockström (Executive Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre) and his colleagues on the UN backed Sustainable Development Solutions Network education platform.  I would highly recommend it and do look out for re-runs of the course that have been promised.

The original Planetary Boundaries framework was published in Nature in in 2009 and an update of the research, Planetary Boundaries 2.0, has just been published in Science.  Despite dozens of peer reviewed critiques that have strengthened the evidence in the updated version, none of the boundaries have been dropped nor have any been added, highlighting the robustness of the framework.  The boundaries are now more granular though, and allow them to be applied more easily at a regional level.

In summary, it proposes nine key planetary boundaries that we need to remain within to avoid abrupt and potentially irreversible tipping points in the earth system (see below).  Climate Change and Biosphere Integrity are the two principal boundaries, whilst the seven others are all still critical with potential knock-on effects on many other boundaries if they are transgressed.  They are: Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Atmospheric Aerosol Loading (soot, diesel particulates, steam etc.), Ocean Acidification, Biochemical Flows of Nitrogen and Phosphorous, Freshwater Use, Land-System Change (deforestation, agricultural use, etc) and Novel Entities (pollution by toxic synthetic substances, release of radioactive materials or nanomaterials etc.). We have already transgressed four of the nine boundaries (see diagram) highlighting the critical importance of accelerating sustainability efforts globally.

The course unsurprisingly focussed on the remarkable resilience of the earth system but spends significant time highlighting the concept of planetary and local scale tipping points. Tipping points are where systems (in this case- Earth Systems) reach critical points where they suddenly and rapidly transform into new systems and stable states; critically it is often very difficult to revert to the original state. Examples of this in nature that we have already witnessed include dead zones in coral reefs or eutrophication of fresh water lakes.  It forms the crux of the argument for staying within planetary boundaries.

To me, what is most powerful about the Planetary Boundaries framework is that it approaches the issue from such a neutral point of view – it is not trying to argue right or wrong but merely to indicate where the boundaries of human development lie. It will then be up to all of us to work out how we organise ourselves to remain within these boundaries.

It starts with a simple question: 'what is the optimal state of the earth to support human development and thriving?' The unequivocal evidence is that the Holocene of the last 10,000 years represents this.  Until the Holocene we did not have the conditions to develop modern agriculture which ultimately underpins human prosperity today, and it is no surprise that we have seen such phenomenal progress in the last 10,000 years. If we accept this, then surely our goal as humans in the Anthropocene is to do everything we can to stay within this state? Carl Folke, Science Director at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, summarises it perfectly: 

“Thinking green is not a moral perspective but a question of survival and wellbeing. There is no business to be done on a dead planet”

So what does it all mean for businesses, NGOs and Governments? I would argue that the implications are profound and we will be exploring in the coming months how we can integrate planetary boundary thinking in all of our work with clients. It has implications from how and where we innovate to how we report on sustainability performance.

As a final thought, and with Paris 2015 looming large, I would propose that the Planetary Boundaries need to feature much more heavily in negotiations and the setting of the Sustainable Development Goals.  Rockström highlights that most of the social goals are quantified with clear deadlines whilst the environmental goals are mainly statements of intent without hard targets or dates – the Planetary Boundaries framework wouldn't be a bad place to go for some of these…

by Jesper Ekelund

The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) launched a major initiative in September 2014 shining a light on the green skills deficit. The Skills for a Sustainable Economy campaign, of which Oak Grove is a founding supporter, highlights IEMA research showing that only 13% of organisations are confident they possess the necessary skills to compete in a sustainable economy. As such, they are ill-equipped to weather what the Institute calls 'the perfect storm' and make a successful transition to 'the system which provides the only viable future for business.'  

This is, of course, hugely relevant for education providers and young people too. How do we ensure we provide appropriate career pathways and training opportunities for new entrants to the workforce? IPPR research published in the summer highlighted a grave mismatch between what young people are training for and the types of jobs available- with 868,000 16 to 24-year-olds out of work. Somehow, we must connect the dots.

Earlier this month, IEMA published a position statement calling for collaborative action between business, government and the education sector to address this critical issue. The document calls for sustainability skills to be 'mainstreamed'- and for the incoming government in 2015 to develop a sustainability skills strategy as a matter of urgency. Vocational skills essential for the new green economy must be consciously developed alongside strategic and organisational capabilities essential to sustainability literacy. Crucially, this applies to the existing workforce just as much as it does to the next generation- we cannot afford to wait.

The IEMA campaign is geared primarily towards addressing the skills gap faced by industry- but highlights that this cannot be done without collaborative systemic change and substantial partnership work. The report emphasises the importance of systems thinking in transitioning to a sustainable economy- and this for me was one of the most significant points. Systems thinking, the ability to consider how processes interact within a whole, in this context implies 'appreciating that our current economy cannot work in the long-term and reframing the systems within it to deliver one that is capable of equitable growth within the natural limits of the environment.'  This concept is poorly understood in modern industry and teaching of it in schools, universities and further education establishments is rare. IEMA makes a particular plea for business schools and MBAs to ensure that systems thinking is a core part of their teaching and that it is consciously linked to sustainability challenges and opportunities faced by business. 

This campaign is ambitious and timely. It has the potential to galvanise the change that is needed. The recognition that technical 'green' skills and leadership competencies must be upgraded alongside an increased ability to think systemically is vital if we are to transition to a sustainable economy. Equally crucial is the call for government, business and education providers to work together on this- an investment in skills that will benefit us all.

by Jenny Ekelund