0

Synthesis Report of Policy Briefs ahead of the 2018 High Level

Political Forum

Transformation Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies

Formulated by collaboration: Wageningen University and Research and the State University of New York

1

Transformation Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies:

Synthesis Report of Policy Briefs ahead of the 2018 High Level Political Forum

Formulated by collaboration Wageningen University and Research and the State University of New York

December 21, 2017

Authors:

Alkema, Lise

Barnhoorn, Anniek

Bos, Julie

Comyn, Arabella

van Dis, Eline

Ekoh, Susan S.

Fleuren, Janna

Friedrich, Nellie

Immovilli, Marco

Kruid, Sanne

Meijer, Ivo

Milberg, Esther

Oung, Ty Keithya

Ramesh, Sri Vaishnavi

Schothorst, Eline

Sterling, Jeremy

van Stralen, Thom

Vergouw, Machteld

Weiss, Sebastian

Supporting Lecturers: ir. A. Hendriksen (WUR)

M. Lahsen (WUR)

D. Sonnenfield (SUNY)

UN Contact persons

Dr. C. Freire Dr. R. A. Roerhl

Disclaimer notice:

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of Wageningen University & Research or State Univer-

sity of New York, nor the experts consulted. Experts speak on their own behalf and their views do not necessarily reflect

the views of their institutions.

2

Preface

The following report has been issued in the course of a consultancy project for the Policy Analysis Branch of the United

Nations Division for Sustainable Development (UN-DSD) and will provide input to the UN´s 2018 High-level Political

Forum on Sustainable Development. The report serves to provide insights into emerging, crosscutting, innovative, and

integrative topics on the science-policy interface at the nexus of Sustainable Development Goals 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15.

These refer to clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, sustainable cities and communities, responsible

consumption and production, and the protection of life on land. The report has been issued by a collaborative group of

eighteen master´s students and one PhD student from the State University of New York (SUNY) in the United States of

America and Wageningen University and Research (WUR) in The Netherlands during the period of October to December

2017.

Lise Alkema - MSc Environmental Sciences: Environmental Policy “Zero Plastic Waste”, Management Team

Anniek Barnhoorn - MSc International Development Studies: Politics and Governance of Development “Decentralised Smart Off-grids”, Editing Team, Presentation Team

Julie Bos - MSc Climate Studies: Climate, Society and Econom-ics “Sustainable and Healthy Diets”, Management Team, Presentation Team

Arabella Comyn - MSc International Development Studies: Politics and Governance of Development “Biophilic Cities”, Editing Team, Presentation Team Eline van Dis - MSc International Development Studies: Poli-tics and Governance of Development “Decentralised Smart Off-grids”, Communication Team, Integration Team

Susan S. Ekoh - PhD Environmental and Natural Resource Policy “Biophilic Cities”, Editing Team

Janna Fleuren - MSc Environmental Sciences: Environmental Policy “Zero Plastic Waste”, Operationalisation Team

Nellie Friedrich - MSc Forest and Nature Conservation: Policy and Society “Biophilic Cities”, Operationalisation Team, Edit-ing Team

Marco Immovilli - MSc Environmental Sciences: Environmen-tal Policy “Decentralised Smart Off-grids”, Management Team

Sanne Kruid - MSc International Development Studies: Politics and Governance of Development “Sustainable and Healthy Diets” Communication Team, Operationalisation Team

Ivo Meijer - MSc Environmental Sciences: Environmental Poli-cy “Zero Plastic Waste” Presentation Team

Esther Milberg - MSc Environmental Sciences: Environmental Policy “Decentralised Smart Off-grids”, Operationalisation Team Keithya Oung Ty - MPS Environmental Studies: Environmental Policy “Zero Plastic Waste”, Integration Team Sri Vaishnavi Ramesh - MPS Environmental Science: Renewa-ble Energy Concentration “Zero Plastic Waste”, Editing Team

Eline Schothorst - MSc Forest and Nature Conservation: Policy and Society “Zero Plastic Waste”, Integration Team

Jeremy Sterling - MSc Climate Studies: Climate, Society and Economics “Biophilic Cities”, Management Team, Editing Team

Thom van Stralen - MSc International Development Studies: Politics and Governance of Development “Sustainable and Healthy Diets”, Editing Team

Machteld Vergouw - MSc Forest and Nature Conservation: Policy and Society “Sustainable and Healthy Diets”, Communi-cation Team, Integration Team Sebastian Weiss - MSc Climate Studies: Climate, Society and Economics “Biophilic Cities”, Integration Team

3

Content

Preface 2

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Key Messages 5

3. Introduction 6

4. The Nexus – SDGs and Science-Policy Brief Topics 7

5. Strategies to Transform Towards Sustainable & Resilient Societies 9

6. Challenges 11

7. Key Recommendations 12

8. Moving Forward 13

Appendix A: Methodology 17

Appendix B: SDG Linkages 18

Bibliography

Annex A: Science-Policy Brief: Decentralised Smart Off-grids 28

Appendix 1A: Glossary 36

Appendix 1B: Expert List 37

Appendix 1C: Conventional Centralised Grid versus Decentralised

Smart Off-grid

38

Appendix 1D: Energy Justice for Prosumers 38

Appendix 1E: Cooking Fuels 38

Appendix 1F: Decentralised Energy Markets 39

Annex B: Science-Policy Brief: Sustainable and Healthy Diets 41

Appendix 2A: Organisations Working on True Cost Accounting 48

Appendix 2B: Expert List 49

Annex C: Science-Policy Brief: Zero Plastic Waste 50

Appendix 3A: Glossary 57

Appendix 3B: List of Consulted Experts 58

Appendix 3C: Business Model Canvas of National Resource Fund 59

Appendix 3D: Innovations in Separation and Treatment Technologies 60

Appendix 3E: Overview of Innovations in Bio-consistent Packaging 62

Annex D: Science-Policy Brief: Biophilic Cities 67

Appendix 4A: Case Studies 74

Appendix 4B: List of Experts 74

Appendix 4C: List of Suggested Tools, Methods, and Resources 75

Appendix 4D: A Non-Exhaustive List of Biophilic Design Elements,

Innovations and Concepts

78

Appendix 4E: Non-Exhaustive List of Criteria for Tailoring Non-

Monetary Valuation Methods of Ecosystem Services to

Specific Policy Context

82

Appendix 4F: Biophilic Cities Vertical Framework 83

Appendix 4G: Glossary of Terms 85

4

1. Executive Summary

This report and the four annexed science-policy briefs provide policy recommendations for addressing Sustainable De-

velopment Goals 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15, which together express the need for clean water and sanitation, affordable and

clean energy, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, and healthy life on land, in

line with the theme of transformations towards sustainable and resilient societies. The science-policy briefs address

Decentralised Smart Off-grids, Sustainable and Healthy Diets, Zero Plastic Waste, and Biophilic Cities. Each of the briefs

address multiple SDGs, not solely those five assigned for this report by the UN-DSD. Consequently, they have the poten-

tial to substantially contribute to the overall aim of the SDGs to shape the development of sustainable and resilient

societies for all.

The brief on Decentralised Smart Off-grids describes how a decentralised energy system based on clean and re-

newable energy in low- or middle-income countries can be used to tackle the issue of energy poverty in a sustainable

and resilient way. Participatory approaches are key to the successful introduction of clean renewable smart off-grids

that truly meet the needs of energy-poor regions. Regulations should be adopted that support participatory approaches

in decision-making process, favours investments in energy provision projects and protects the interests of local popula-

tions.

The brief on Sustainable and Healthy Diets shows that current diets create immense negative externalities impact-

ing people’s health and the environment. A large proportion of these externalities result from animal protein produc-

tion, and therefore a shift towards plant-based diets is needed for a shift to achieve more sustainable and healthy diets.

The calculation and implementation of the ‘true cost’ of livestock based food is highlighted as a way to facilitate a glob-

al shift towards sustainable and healthy diets, in combination with an international framework to institutionalize the

internalization of these costs.

The Zero Plastic Waste brief reframes plastic waste as a resource and promotes innovation in the use and man-

agement of recycled plastics, and the production of alternative packaging. It proposes the establishment of a fund that

convenes relevant actors to coordinate research and management relating to plastic waste. This fund will create a fi-

nance flow based on differentiated taxes and subsidies to stimulate coherent sustainable practices in the packaging and

waste management industry.

In the final brief, Biophilic Cities are presented as a means to improve human wellbeing, health, and to conserve

life-supporting ecosystems and biodiversity. A policy framework, with modular components dependent on the imple-

mentation context, is presented to guide the adoption of biophilic urban design. Community engagement is highlighted

as essential to biophilic urban planning.

This synthesis report integrates the themes and approaches identified within the four annexed science-policy

briefs. Both the integrated report and the science-policy briefs may be considered separately, however, it is recom-

mended to begin with this report before moving on to the briefs. This will provide a better understanding of the nexus

of SDGs that form the basis of and provide context for the policy recommendations.

5

2. Key Messages

Synthesis report

• It is imperative that strategies aimed at sustainable development adopt holistic approaches.

• The SDGs are most effectively addressed using a nexus approach that focuses on synergies between the SDGs.

• It is necessary to consider socio-cultural and environmental contexts when deciding on appropriate policies and strategies. Further research is needed to understand the interplay and associated dynamics between political, fi-nancial, and social challenges.

Decentralised Smart Off-grids

• With over 1 billion people in the world lacking access to electricity, the inaccessibility of energy is hindering human development as well as human well-being.

• Providing electricity to energy poor regions should therefore therefore be a priority as it a critical factor in promot-ing development.

• Clean Renewable Smart Off-grids (CRSO) within a decentralised energy system are a comprehensive strategy for meeting sustainable energy solutions

• CRSOs within a decentralised energy system can provide energy whilst promoting community participation, local development, and renewable and clean energies.

• To implement this solution a multi-level stakeholder platform, as well as an unambiguous and transparent legal framework must be set into place.

Sustainable and Healthy Diets

• Current diets have immense negative impacts on people’s health and the environment, of which livestock based foods are one of the main contributors.

• A shift towards plant based diets is needed to begin transformation towards more sustainable diets with fewer negative externalities.

• ‘True cost’ is a promising way to facilitate a shift to sustainable diets by including externalities in the price of prod-ucts, and making sustainable alternatives for livestock based foods more accessible.

• To calculate, conceptualise and share information on sustainable diets and true cost, a framework on sustainable diets is proposed

Zero Plastic Waste

• Resource systems need to become circular. This involves a shift to treating used plastics as a resource rather than as waste.

• To overcome the lack of coherent investment and research in innovative recycling technologies and sustainable packaging design, coordination is needed.

• A National Resource Fund must be established, which instates Extended Producer Responsibility of the packaging industry through financial measures and convenes representatives of relevant sectors. This National Resource Fund can perform the coordination of, and investment, in circular plastic resource systems.

• Moving towards a zero plastic waste society, creates business opportunities in both sustainable packaging and integrated waste management.

Biophilic Cities • Biophilic design and concepts address human and ecosystem wellbeing.

• Cities can and should be constructed as proxies for, or extensions of, naturally occurring ecosystems. Biodiversity must be paramount, with special attention given to native and threatened species in order to ensure the healthy functioning of ecosystems.

• Equitable community engagement in planning processes improves wellbeing. Meaningful participation requires both the representation of the diversity present in relevant communities and addressing and accounting for exist-ing power structures.

• Investing in nature assures good prospects for high investment returns due to enhanced efficiency through nature-based solutions.

• Investing in nature assures good prospects for high investment returns due to enhanced efficiency through nature-based solutions.

6

3. Introduction

Current human conduct shapes, and is being shaped by, manifold problems of far-reaching scope that need to be ad-

dressed by sustainable development. Rising temperatures, pronounced weather extremes, rising sea levels, the de-

struction of ecosystems, and other effects of climate change challenge humanity and human development in the 21st

century1,2. Roughly 5 million people die each year[1] due to the prevailing carbon-intensive energy system and climate

change-related causes such as infections, diseases, or environmental disasters1. Furthermore, the planet is in the midst

of the largest episode of species extinction of the past 65 million years, with a rate of biodiversity loss that is estimated

to be 1000 or even 10,000 times higher than the natural rate of species extinction 3,4. Current production and con-

sumption patterns are exceeding the planet's carrying capacities, illustrated by the fact that humanity is currently using

1.7 times as many ecological resources and services than the Earth can regenerate 5. These issues underscore that cur-

rent human development is far from meeting “[...] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs" 6, as the Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development in its path-

breaking report Our Common Future.

Nevertheless, the international community has already made promising steps in the right direction. As a result

of the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit, which demanded “a new vision and a responsive framework for after 2015, in which

business as usual was replaced by an ambitious, integrated and transformational agenda for action” 7,a set of 17 Sus-

tainable Development Goals (SDGs) were proposed. These 17 SDGs and their 169 targets - enshrined in the 2030 Agen-

da for Sustainable Development - refer to the timeframe between 2015 and 2030, whereas the preceding Millennium

Development Goals pertained to the 2000 - 2015 period. This set of SDGs constitutes the primary universal agenda for

sustainable development of our time.

This report is the product of a consultancy project for the Policy Analysis Branch of the United Nations Division

for Sustainable Development (UN-DSD) by collaborating externs from Wageningen University and Research (WUR) and

the State University of New York (SUNY). It provides insights into emerging, crosscutting, innovative, and integrative

topics on the science-policy interface. Consisting of a synthesis report and four science-policy briefs, it provides input

for the UN´s 2018 High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), focused on the theme of “Transfor-

mations Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies”. At the request of the UN-DSD and in line with the agenda for the

2018 HLPF, the topics identified by the group of externs lie at the nexus of SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12 and 15. They thereby ad-

dress the integration of efforts towards clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, sustainable cities and

communities, responsible consumption and production, and the protection of life on land.

Fragmentation of efforts addressing different SDGs is a key obstacle for coherent and effective policies in the

domain of sustainable development. Consequently, the objective of this report is to identify and foster synergies and

interlinkages between SDGs. The report addresses the topics of 1) Decentralised Smart Off-grids, 2) Sustainable and

Healthy Diets, 3) Zero Plastic Waste and 4) Biophilic Cities as emerging, policy-relevant ­­­topics and technological solu-

tions at the nexus of the five above-mentioned SDGs. The four corresponding science-policy briefs contain actionable

advice and practical solutions in the form of policy frameworks and tools for the development and implementation of

policies that serve to facilitate the transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies.

The synthesis report will examine interlinkages to the respective SDGs (Chapter 4), followed by a delineation of

how to facilitate a transition towards sustainable and resilient societies (Chapter 5). Based on that chapter, there will be

a discussion of possible challenges that may arise in the course of such a transition and how to deal with them (Chapter

6). Subsequently, there will be a synthesised list of key recommendations (Chapter 7). This report concludes with final

remarks on how to move forward, including lessons learned throughout the research process and recognition of its

limitations (Chapter 8). This is complemented by an explanation of the interdisciplinary research methodology adopted

and a list of consulted experts (Appendix 1 and 2). The Annex contains the four science-policy briefs on Decentralised

Smart Off-grids, Sustainable and Healthy Diets, Zero Plastic Waste, and Biophilic Cities (Annex A - D).

[1] For the year 2012, the number of casualties of climate change-related causes was estimated to be 400.000 and 4.5 million for the carbon-based energy system, respectively. These numbers are projected to increase to over 600.000 and 5.3 million by the year 2030, respectively.

7

4. The Nexus - SDGs and Science-Policy Brief Topics

This section explores how the five SDGs are interlinked and together form a nexus. Such an understanding of interac-

tions at various levels, including both mutual benefits and possible trade-offs, is essential in order to develop coherent

strategies and policies that achieve sustainable development outcomes 8. A key objective of this chapter is to provide

insight into the synergies between the appointed SDGs, and to provide a basis for the decision to focus on the four

selected topics.

Key interlinkages of SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 15

Ensuring the availability of, and access to, clean water and renewable energy (SDGs 6 & 7) is essential for sustainable

development. Both are closely related to sustainable resource use and responsible production (SDG 12). Therefore,

three of the selected topics are related to the use of water, energy and other resources, and the responsible production

of goods and services: renewable energy, sustainable food patterns, and responsible packaging. Additionally, responsi-

ble production of goods and use of such resources will positively impact the quality of ecosystems (SDG 15) by limiting

externalities, such as land degradation, and biodiversity loss. Furthermore, the appreciation of nature itself, as ad-

dressed by the science-policy brief on biophilic cities, is tied to responsible production and consumption levels, as both

influence each other. This will facilitate moving towards sustainable and resilient cities and settlements. Circular re-

source flows, such as circular plastic packaging systems, are key features of sustainable settlements (SDG 11), as well as

being pertinent to the provision of clean water and renewable energy (SDGs 6 & 7).

As stated in the Terms of Reference, this nexus stresses the ambition to ensure a transformation towards sustainable

and resilient societies. Altogether, the four proposed innovations, Decentralised Smart Off-grids, Sustainable and

Healthy Diets, Zero Plastic Waste, and Biophilic Cities will contribute towards such a transformation.

4.3 Concluding remarks Although the four topics focus on different domains of sustainable development, they complement each other. They

are linked through the nexus in which they lie, and strengthen each other in the strategies they use.

8

Biophilic Cities

Zero Plastic Waste Sustainable and Healthy Diets

Decentralised Smart Off-Grids

Shifting towards sustainable diets is essential to achieve a

sustainable food system in addition to many of the SDGs 9. Sustainable diets are characterised by low consumption of livestock based food (LBF) and aim to ensure a healthy lifestyle with sufficient nutrition and decreased risk of non-

communicable diseases 10. This aligns with the goals of zero hunger, and good health and wellbeing (SDGs 2 & 3) 10. A reduction in animal protein consumption will lower the usage of valuable freshwater (SDG 6), land (SDG 15), and will decrease the emission of greenhouse gases (SDG 13) by the livestock sector. Such a reduction in consump-tion of LBF can be realised by shifting away from unsus-tainable food consumption and production (SDG 12).

Substantial reduction of waste generation both promotes the use and production of sustainable plastic resources while specifically focussing on focussing on the responsible consumption and pro-duction of resources (SDG 12). Cities and settlements must im-plement integrated policies that promote resource efficiency and reduce the adverse impact of waste (SDG 11). Creating circular waste flows contributes to the elimination of dumping hazardous materials in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and therefore

supports the protection of these resources 11,12 (SDGs 6, 14 & 15). Additionally, the reduction of energy consumption for the produc-

tion of new fossil based plastics increases energy efficiency 13. Some bio-consistent plastics and their recovery even have poten-

tial for modern and clean energy production 14 (SDG 7 & 13). Stimulating the coherent investments in recycling technologies and alternative packaging materials aims at making the packaging industry more sustainable (SDG 9). This is achieved by establishing a National Resource Fund: a partnership to achieve sustainability (SDG 17).

Biophilic cities aim to ensure the improvement of people’s wellbeing and health (SDG 3) by reconnecting people to nature. Biophilic city design and planning incorporates climate change adaptation and mitigation (SDG 13) and promotes the development of related industries (SDG 9), ensuring the city is resilient and sustainable (SDG 11). Furthermore, biophilic cities should be constructed ecosys-tems that incorporate and protect biodiversity and native species (SDG 15). Aquatic ecosystems are also affected by this conservation, while freshwater resupply and access are improved by enhanced urban ecosystem services (SDG 6). Through community engagement, with equity as a central tenet of the science-policy brief, peace, justice, and equality are fostered (SDGs 10, 16 & 5). The design of biophilic cities should also ensure transparency and knowledge-sharing in order to promote mutual learning (SDG 17).

Energy is crucial for achieving almost all of the SDGs 15. Smart Off-grids primarily contribute to the provision of universal clean and renewable energy (SDG 7) access. The benefits of this are directly linked to eradicating poverty (SDG 1), as there is a positive correla-tion between energy use and development. Specifically, there is a link between energy access and the degree of human develop-

ment as measured in the Human Development Index 16. Ensuring energy access can facilitate access to education, health, and em-ployment opportunities for the poor, which positively affect in-come and equality (SDGs 4 & 10) 8. By promoting renewables and efficient energy use (SDG 12) greenhouse gas emissions are re-duced (SDG 13) 8. Furthermore, ensuring energy access to the world’s poor will contribute to halting deforestation, because firewood is a commonly used energy source (SDGs 13 & 15).

Interactions between the Sustainable Development Goals in the four science-policy briefs

Off - grids

8

9

Efficiency

Consistency

Sufficiency

5. Strategies to Transform Towards Sustainable & Resilient Societies

Current policies aimed at sustainable development are mostly designed with the intention of equally addressing the three pillars of

Society, Environment, and Economy 17. Although this approach to sustainable development is widely supported and applied, it re-

mains a broad framework, lacking clearly identifiable strategies on how it may be implemented most effectively 18,19,20. In response

to this shortcoming, literature on global sustainable development has identified three core, interdependent strategies: efficiency –

which aims to decouple economic growth from excessive resource use by increasing the output per given input; consistency – which

aim to decouple economic growth from the overuse of resources by implementing circular production systems that operate within

the constraints of planetary biophysical boundaries; and sufficiency – which aims to decouple wellbeing from economic growth by

shifting norms and values. While efficiency and consistency have been widely discussed and applied in relation to sustainable devel-

opment, sufficiency remains a mostly theoretical concept, often absent in political and societal debate 21. Yet, to reach sustainable

development, the three strategies need to be addressed in a holistic and integrated way, rather than in isolation21. Parallel to the

Wuppertal Institute’s research on sufficiency[2] 22, multiple economists have proposed the need for alternative economic models,

including the concept of “doughnut economics” 23,24,25. Doughnut economics identifies a ‘safe space for human development’ that

lies between two boundaries: the minimum level that ensures meeting all needs for human wellbeing (social foundation); and the

maximum level that ensures operating within planetary boundaries 26,25.

The decoupling of resource use and wellbeing from economic growth can lead to a society that functions on a dynamic minimum

level of resource use and at an optimal level of wellbeing 21. It must be acknowledged that in certain regions economic growth can

still be a vehicle for increased wellbeing 27,28. Yet this economic growth must be sustainable. In other words, it must be economic

growth in line with efficiency, consistency, and sufficiency. Wellbeing however is based on more than economic growth, for at a

certain point wellbeing will begin to decline or plateau in spite of continued economic growth 27,28. Therefore, there is a need to

replace traditional economic indicators of progress with more wellbeing-oriented indicators. The related decouplings of both re-

source use and wellbeing from economic growth facilitate the transformation towards sustainable and resilient

societies that is addressed in each science-policy topic, see Figure 1.

Efficiency is directed at using resources in such a way as to generate a higher output with the same or

lower input, in order to achieve the highest possible resource productivity 29. It focuses on decoupling

resource use from economic growth 21.

Consistency. This strategy aims to align production processes and material flows with natural resource

cycles in order to avoid the production of harmful waste 30,31. Therefore, renewable resources are pre-

ferred, under the condition that they are used within their limits of regeneration. When using non-

natural materials, the resources should be recycled in a closed loop system. Like efficiency, this requires

technological innovations and focuses on decoupling natural resource use from economic growth 30,

32,21.

Sufficiency. According to the prevailing socio-economic paradigm of continuous, maximal economic

growth, the wellbeing of citizens is first and foremost measured by the GDP and economic growth of their

respective nation. However, studies have shown that increased consumption and economic growth only

increase wellbeing up to a certain threshold, after which wellbeing stabilises or declines 27,28. Building on

this scientific knowledge, various scholars suggest that wellbeing needs to be decoupled from economic

growth, 33,34 a goal that can be achieved through the application of a sufficiency strategy. Similar to the

doughnut economics model 25,sufficiency implies two thresholds. The societal threshold, or minimum,

sets basic living standards, like access to clean water. The environmental threshold, or ceiling, sets the

maximum consumption level possible without exceeding the earth’s carrying capacity, like a maximum

allowance for greenhouse gas emissions 31,29. Nevertheless, the decoupling of wellbeing and economic growth

[2] This institute focuses on sustainability research and develops models, strategies and instruments to achieve sustainable development. It does

so by using scientific disciplinary findings and solutions on global, national and local levels 22.

10

can be achieved through a variety of strategies, just as sufficiency can be interpreted and implemented in many ways. For example,

Bhutan and Thailand have both incorporated sufficiency-related policies into their national policies 35,36.

Figure 1: Strategies to sustainable development integrated in the science-policy briefs [3]

> The shift towards sustainable and healthy diets requires a change in the people's valua-

tion of food sources 37. This requires con-

sumer awareness38. > A healthy diet will contribute to human

wellbeing 39.

> Through Clean Renewable Smart Off-grids (CRSO) technologies energy can be provided to energy poor regions without crossing

planetary boundaries 40. Energy is an important requirement for human wellbeing. > The CRSO concept emphasises consumer empowerment, by simply providing the opportunity to actively participate in the

energy system 41. By giving (producing) consumers the responsibility and autonomy of their own energy system, human well-being is improved 41.

A shift towards a diet with high nutritional value and low resource input means reduced consumption of livestock base foods, which will lead to less intensive resources use and

environmental pressures 10,42.

> Shifting from the use of fossil fuels as energy sources to renewable resources will lead to less environmental pressures and to more consistent resource use. > The smart technology in off-grids detects energy supply and demand, and it ensures efficient distribution that minimises

energy waste 43.

> Biophilic design presents a shift toward improving the efficiency of the functionality

of infrastructure in the city 44. Through integration of the natural and built environments, infrastructure construction and functionality is made more efficient, both decreasing resource use and

increasing biodiversity 45. > Biophilic design emphasises the non- monetary values of the environment rather than solely the instrumental or intrinsic values of nature, thereby engendering more sustainable growth practices and resource use.

A shift towards circular resource flows, which addresses both efficiency and consistency, can be established by using plastics that are made from renewables or recycled

materials 46. This shift can be achieved by establishing a national plastic resource fund that brings together representatives of the relevant actors 11.

> A shift from a short-term oriented concept of human wellbeing, based on economic concerns, to a long-term oriented concept of wellbeing by way of enhanced

human-nature relationships 47. > Biophilic design also emphasises community engagement within the planning process, the ethics of coexistence, and stewardship, which each provide non-economic ways to enhance

wellbeing 47,48,49.

> A shift in behaviour and

corporate conduct is needed in which sustain-able packaging is promoted over single use plastic packaging. This requires sustainable

business and societal practices in which less new plastics are produced and plastic waste is

valued as a resource (plastic symposium), which is related to a value shift towards sus-

tainability rather than profit maximization and consumerism.

[3] Outer Text: Decoupling Economic growth from Wellbeing; Inner Text: Decoupling Economic Growth from Resource Use

11

6. Challenges

Throughout the four science-policy briefs, several challenges with relevance to each topic were identified. These challenges are essential to consider as they can hinder the implementation of policies, thereby rendering the transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies more complex. Evidently, there are countless challenges and obstacles to consider. The obstacles outlined briefly below are of particular relevance, however, as they were identified in each of the science-policy briefs. These challenges are each separate research fields, and so are only addressed here to the extent of identifying key obstacles and how they can be over-come according to scientific research. These challenges, and the related research, will be outlined in the three following sections: Political context, Financial context, and Social context.

6.1 Political context Decision-making within a political context involves a high degree of complexity. This is both due to the plurality and diversity of stakeholders, such as governments, companies, and local communities, and their diverse views and inter-ests. The key challenges found within a political context are: limited governmental institutional capacity, strong corpo-

rate influence, and a lack of synergies between levels of government and policy.

The first challenge is limited governmental institutional capacity, which prevents governmental institutions at the local, national,

and international level from being effective, accountable, and transparent 8,50.The lack of transparent governmental institutions presents a challenge as it provides room for corruption, thereby preventing the effectiveness of institutions and their actions 8. By enforcing transparency corruption can be minimized, and effectiveness and accountability can be facilitated across all institutional

levels 51. Institutions must be strong in order to support a transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies 8,50. The second

challenge is strong corporate influence, which can prevent sustainable development 52. Large corporations, such as agri-food busi-

nesses and energy utilities, play a key role in establishing the rules that serve to govern their own activities 52,53. Given that this can hinder transformational processes, there is a need for new policies that improve the democratic legitimacy of resource governance. Regulatory organisations must therefore be established in such a way that institutional lock-in is addressed, in which incumbent

institutions are favoured over new entrants to the sector 54,55,56. The third and final challenge is the lack of synergy between levels and departments of government and between policies that aim to achieve the SDGs. In order to counter this, newly introduced policies and goals need to complement those that already exist 8.Overall, effective political commitment is required across interna-tional, national, and local levels for progress towards resilience and sustainability.

6.2 Financial context Within development assistance, financial resources present a challenge that constantly plays a large role among policy

makers. The main challenges within the financial context are: the need for more financial resources, the inefficient allocation of funding, and the difficulty in accessing available funds for small businesses.

The first challenge is that a certain amount of investment is required to reach the SDGs. Investments from the private sector and national and international public sectors can be mobilised for sustainable development if governments set the right policy frame-

works 57. The second challenge is the poor allocation of existing funding. Whether from the private or the public sector, financial

support needs to be distributed more efficiently. The inefficient allocation of funds is partly due to associated perceptions of risk 58. Therefore investors need access to assessment tools that identify the trade-offs involved. This will lead to more effective use of funding for sustainability policies, innovations, and programmes. Finally, small businesses face challenges when attempting to ac-cess dedicated funds. It is necessary to adjust the project assessment requirements for choosing funding allocations in order to

minimise the barriers that local businesses in low-income markets face when trying to upscale 59. Moreover, initiatives and pro-grammes, such as network programmes, that facilitate the access to funds for small businesses should be launched. Overall, funding mechanisms need to be improved to provide greater access and a transparent overview of the policies and procedures involved 59.This will support the streamlining of investment, but requires strong institutional capacity 58. Hence, financial context and political context are interlinked.

6.3 Social context The social context involves social practices and interactions. There are two key challenges to consider in relation to the social context. These are: a lack of adequate representation of stakeholders in joint decision-making processes,

and poor information structures.

First, the lack of representation of relevant stakeholders, coupled with unbalanced power relations within multi-stakeholder plat-

forms, can create a distorted picture of the interests and concerns of affected communities 60,61. The presence of an accurate rep-resentation of the diversity of stakeholder communities during decision-making processes produces more equitable outcomes, and

must be addressed by governments through regulation 62. The second challenge is poor information structures, which refers to the

role of actors – such as scientific, government and media institutions - in providing the public with information 63. This requires transparent and accessible information governance. Access to information is directly linked to the creation of public knowledge,

awareness, and support, as well as the empowerment of actors 64.The social context is deeply linked with the political and financial contexts. Political commitment and capacity, as well as financial resources, are essential to tackling the issues present in the social context 8,40,Fehler! Textmarke nicht definiert..

12

6. 4 Conclusion This chapter has outlined some key challenges commonly identified by each science-policy brief, and are illustrative of the

complex nature of sustainable development. Given such complexity it is imperative that policy tools and policies be assessed

with regard to their capacity to address or overcome such complexities, and that they do so using an integrative approach

relevant to the SDG nexus.

7. Key Recommendations

Decentralized Smart Off-grids

• Adopt Clean Renewable Smart Off-grids (CRSO) within a decentralised energy system to ensure a reliable energy access for energy poor regions.

• Adopt regulations that supports participatory approaches in decision-making process, favours investments in energy provision projects and protects the interests of local populations.

• Adopt the action plan that envisions a multi-level stakeholder platform, a continuous local engagement and capacity building.

• Contextualise the needs and demands of the population as well as regional characteristics within the identified energy poor region.

• Build transparent and accountable institutions.

Sustainable and Healthy Diets

• Implement the true cost of livestock based food to internalise externalities to promote sustainable and healthy diets.

• International research is needed to further develop calculation methods to internalise environmental, social, health, and eco-nomic externalities.

• Establish evidence-based sustainable dietary guidelines as broad principles for consumers, producers, and policy makers.

• Review fiscal measurements to implement true cost to stimulate the production and consumption of sustainable and healthy food products.

• Establish innovation funds to stimulate the production and availability of tasty and affordable alternatives to animal proteins.

• Establish the United Nations Framework on Sustainable and Healthy Diets to achieve international consensus and begin the transition/transformation towards sustainable diets.

Zero Plastic Waste

• Instate extended producer responsibility of packaging companies by implementing differentiated tax regulations on packaging.

• Establish a National Resource Fund with representatives from the plastic packaging and waste industry, that collects the tax revenues. The National Resource Fund should:

• Streamline investments in high quality recycling, alternative materials and waste management systems.

• Coordinate foreign investment in waste management systems of least developed countries.

• Facilitate a shift in perception of plastic packaging from waste to resource.

Biophilic Cities

• Encourage communities to engage in urban planning processes as knowledge resources, decision makers, and stewards of their own environment.

• Adopt urban biophilic design to address human and ecosystem wellbeing.

• Apply lessons from past experiences of planning and community engagement to future initiatives, by iterating upon the policy framework.

• Engage diverse representations of the public through equitable methods of accessibility and distribution of benefits.

• Stimulate environmental learning as a way to improve wellbeing, increase stewardship of nature, and institutionalise environ-mental values.

• Promote productive competition and exchange of information between settlements through transparency

13

8. Moving Forward

In this final chapter, the key findings of the preceding chapters are reviewed, and future policy making and research avenues are suggested.

The analysis in Chapter 4 describes the position of the four science-policy brief topics within the nexus of the five assigned SDGs (6, 7, 11, 12 & 15). However, Chapter 5 also shows that SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) is the least addressed in our topics. Nevertheless, connections are present through the holistic approach of the science-policy briefs. For example, creating circular waste flows contributes to the protection and restoration of aquatic ecosystems, and biophilic elements can contribute to water management. Given the strong focus of the briefs on specific topics, the briefs have not included all potentially relevant fields of research. Nonetheless, Chapter 4 (Nexus) describes how the science-policy briefs adequately address both the assigned SDGs and other more. The nexus approach should continue to be encouraged.

The research in Chapter 5 identified three strategies for sustainability: efficiency, consistency, and sufficiency. The analysis shows that the three strategies must be integrated in order to truly realise their productive synergies for sustainable development. The chapter notes that although efficiency and consistency are widely discussed and applied, sufficiency is not 21. This is so because sufficiency has multiple interpretations and is grounded in certain cultural contexts. This report presents one perspective of suffi-ciency. Future operationalisation of sufficiency, combined with the other two strategies, should be researched more elaborately, taking into account the diversity of socio-political contexts and cultural interpretations.

In Chapter 6 the political, financial, and social challenges were discussed. This study acknowledges that the existing dispari-ties between countries around the world are imperative considerations when accounting for national capacities and resources, and also in drafting and implementing policies. The socio-political and economic situation of a country has substantial implications for how much the country can commit to transformative action towards sustainable and resilient societies. These challenges are each separate research fields, and this report solely identifies the key obstacles within these fields. Therefore, future research into these challenges is highly recommended.

Furthermore, research gaps have been identified in the topics of the science-policy briefs. First, there is a lack of infor-mation on how social dimension of implementation can be addressed in energy systems. In particular, further research is needed into holistic approaches to the technological, financial, and social implementation of energy systems. Second, the science-policy brief on sustainable and healthy diets emphasises the importance of the true cost of food products, the requirement for further research into the calculation of the costs of social externalities and the combination of these externalities with environmental costs. Third, research has been conducted and is still underway on new separation and treatment techniques for plastic waste, as well as alternative materials. However, the functionality of these innovations, and especially their applicability in a coherent packaging and waste management system, should be further analysed and developed. Fourth, for the successful implementation of biophilic urban planning, individual biophilic initiatives relative to the social, political, economic, and environmental context need to be studied. Research into the extent and effects of the overall value shifts engendered by engaging the community during processes of biophilic policy making, should also be further explored.

Current research gaps that have been identified in each of the four science-policy briefs, have in common a lack of practical advice

to operationalise fundamental research into policy practices. Our overall recommendation is therefore to encourage or facilitate

research which emphasises practical approaches to linking research to tangible action.

In spite of the limitations, the implementation of the four science-policy briefs, with additional research into the identified challenges, will support a transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies.

14

Bibliography 1 DARA (2012). Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet. 2nd edition. Madrid: DARA and the Cli-mate Vulnerable Forum. Accessed December 15, 2017. http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CVM2-Low.pdf.

2 IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. Accessed Decem-ber 15, 2017. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

3 Scientific American (2009) Measuring the Daily Destruction of the World´s Rainforests. Accessed December 15, 2017. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-daily-destruction/.

4 Center for Biological Diversity. “The Extinction Crisis.” Accessed December 15, 2017. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/.

5 Rahimifard, S., Trollman, H.; (2017) Surpassing sustainability: making a ‘net-positive’ impact, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 10:6, 299-301. Accessed December 15, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19397038.2017.1401037.

6 United Nations (1987) Our Common Future - Brundtland Report. Oxford University Press, p. 204. Accessed December 15, 2017 http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm.

7 United Nations (2017) A Brief History on Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: http://web.unep.org/post2015/history.php.

8 Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M.m Ringler, C., McCollum, D. (2017). A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementa-tion. International Council of Science

99 United Nations (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 (p. 35). Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

10 World Resources Institute (2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable future. Installment 11 of “Creating a Sustainable Food Future”. Working paper, (April), 90.

11 Worm, B. (2015). Silent spring in the ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(38), 11752-11753.

12 Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., Law, L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), 1-5.

13 Garcia, M.,J., Robertson, M.L. (2017). The future of plastics recycling. Science, 358(6365), 870 - 872.

14 Wijffels, R. Personal communication, Algaeparc, 29 11 2017

15 United Nations (2017). Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. Retrieved from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf

16 Steinberger, J., Roberts, J. (2010). From constraint to sufficiency: The decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecological Economics, 70, 425-433.

17 World Summit on Sustainable Development, & United Nations. (2003). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: The final text of agreements negotiated by govern-ments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 26 August-4 September 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa. New York: Unit-ed Nations Department of Public Information.

18 Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom line”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243-262.

19 Sridhar, K. (2010). A multi-dimensional criticism of the Triple Bottom Line reporting approach. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 6(1), 49-67.

20 Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work?. Indiana business review, 86(1), 4.

21 Schneidewind, U. and Zahrnt, A. (2014). The institutional framework for a sufficiency driven economy. Ökologisches Wirtschaften, 29 (3), pp. 30-33.

22 Wuppertal Institut. (2017). Mission of the Wuppertal Institute. (Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie ) Retrieved from: https://wupperinst.org/en/the-institute/

15

23 Stiglitz, J.E. (2006). Stability with Growth.

24 Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st Century.

25 Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience, 8(1), 1-26.

26 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., ... & Nykvist, B. (2009). Planetary boundaries: explor-ing the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society, 14(2)

27 Stengel, O. (2011). Less Is More Difficult. Why Sufficient Lifestyles Have a Rough Ride–And How We Can Promote Them. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 20(1), 26-30.

28 Alexander, S. (2012). The optimal material threshold: Toward an economics of sufficiency. real-world economics review, 61(2).

29 Allievi, F., Vinnari, M. and Luukkanen, J. (2014). Meat consumption and production -- analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and con-sistency of global trends. Journal of Cleaner Production.

30 Huber, J. (1995): Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Strategien für eine ökologische und soziale Erdpolitik. Berlin: Ed. Sigma.

31 Linz, M. (2004). Weder Mangel Noch Übermaß: Über Suffizienz Und Suffizienzforschung, Wuppertal Institut Fur Klima, Umwelt, Energie.

32 Gerlach, A. (2003). Sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Manage-ment Conference, June pp. 38-49.

33 Sorrell, S. (2010). Energy, economic growth and environmental sustainability: Five propositions. Sustainability, 2(6), 1784-1809.

34 Steinberger, J. K., & Roberts, J. T. (2010). From constraint to sufficiency: The decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 425-433.

35 Royal Government of Bhutan (2008). The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan. Retrieved from:

http://www.nab.gov.bt/assets/templates/images/constitution-of-bhutan-2008.pdf

36 Royal Thai Government (2017, April 10). From the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy to Sustainable Development Goals - April 7, 2017. Retrieved from: http://thaiembdc.org/2017/04/10/from-the-sufficiency-economy-philosophy-to-sustainable-development-goals-april-7-2017/

37 Beverland, M. B. (2014). Sustainable Eating. Journal of Macromarketing, 34(3), 369–382.

38 Garnett, T. (2013). Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 72(1), 29–39.

39 Ayala, A. & Meier, B.M. (2017). A human rights approach to the health implications of food nutrition insecurity. Public Health Reviews, 38(1),10

40 Bhattacharyya, S. C., & Palit, D. (Eds.). (2014). Mini-grids for rural electrification of developing countries: analysis and case studies from South Asia.

41 Parag, Yael and Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2016) Electricity market design for the prosumer era. Nature Energy, 1 (16032). ISSN 0001-4966

42 Wellesley, L., Happer, C., & Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing climate, changing diets: pathways to lower meat consumption. Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House.

43 Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., & Blaabjerg, F. (2014). Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 748-764.

44 MININFRA. (2013). Urbanization and Rural Settlement Sector Strategic Plan: 2012/13-17/18. Kigali: Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Infrastructure.

45 UN Habitat (2016). World Cities Report. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

46 World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company. (2016). The New Plastics Economy – Rethinking the future of plactis

47 Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning and design. Washington, DC: Islandpress.

16

48 Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 176(1), 273-291.

49 Douglas I. Personal communication. University of Manchester. 01 12 2017

50 Willems, S. & Baumert, K. (2003) Institutional capacity and climate actions. OECD. Retrieved from: ttp://www.oecd.org/env/cc/21018790.pdf

51 Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165.

52 Clapp, J., & Fuchs, D. A. (Eds.). (2009). Corporate power in global agrifood governance. MIT Press.

53 Bazilian, M., Nakhooda, S., & Van de Graaf, T. (2014). Energy governance and poverty. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 217-225.

54 Alvial-Palavicino, C., Garrido-Echeverría, N., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Reyes, L., & Palma- Behnke, R. (2011). A methodology for com-munity engagement in the introduction of renewable based smart microgrid. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 314-323.

55 Klitkoua A., et al., (2015), The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: the case of energy for road transport

56 Wolsink, M. (2017). Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes. Landscape Research, 1-20.

57 Smidt-Traube, G. (2016, March 1). Funding the SDGs. UNA-UK. Retrieved from: http://www.sustainablegoals.org.uk/funding-the-sdgs/

58 Odarno, L., Sawe, E., Swai, M., Katyega, M.J.J. & Lee, A. (2017). Accelerating Mini-Grid deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lessons from Tanzania. The World Resource Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/accelerating-mini-grid-deployment-sub-saharan-africa_1.pdf

59 Gradl, C., Knobloch,C. (2011). Energize the BoP: Energy Business Model Generator for Low Income Markets—A Practitioner’s Guide. Endeva.

60 Asenbaum, H. (2016). Facilitating Inclusion: Austrian Wisdom Councils as Democratic Innovation between Consensus and Diversi-ty. Journal of Public Deliberation,12(2). Retrieved from: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art7

61 Van Koppen, C.S.A.K., Spaargaren, G. (2017) Environment And Society. An introduction to the social dimensions of environmental change.

62 Saito-Jensen, M., Nathan, I., & Treue, T. (2010). Beyond elite capture? Community-based natural resource management and pow-er in Mohammed Nagar village, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Conservation, 37(3), 327-335.

63 Mol, A. (2006). Environmental governance in the Information Age: the emergence of informational governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 497-514.

64 Fuchs, D., Di Giulio, A., Glaab, K., Lorek, S., Maniates, M., Princen, T., & Røpke, I. (2016). Power: the missing element in sustainable consumption and absolute reductions research and action. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132, 298–307.

17

This report and the included science-policy briefs were written by 19 students andne PhD from Wageningen University (WUR) in the Netherlands and the State University of New York (SUNY) in the o United States of America respectively, commissioned by the United Nations Policy Analysis Branch. The methodology consisted of primary and secondary data collection. The primary data had been collected by expert interviews. The secondary data had been collected by literature research from scientific and grey literature.

Logical framework As a start of our project, we used the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) in order to identify the the key factors of our project. Through the logical framework we set the main objective of our project to be to “identify innovative ideas for the integration of SDG 6,7,11,12 and 15 towards a transformation to sustainable and Resilient Societies.” The logical framework had been used as a starting point for a data collection plan and shaped our project in an early phase. Activities mentioned below were based on this data collection plan and thus on the logical framework.

Selection themes policy briefs During the first two weeks of the process the topics for the policy briefs were selected. The theme selection had been based on the terms of reference (ToR), an in-depth analysis of the nexus of the 5 considered SDG’s, and a discussion with our contact persons at the Policy Analysis Branch of the United Nations. While choosing and defining the four topics, the the following selection criteria had been used:

Topics should be related to the five SDG’s and contribute to an integrative approach.

Topics should contribute to transformations towards sustainable and resilient societies.

The topics have to address high-impact scientific findings or technological solutions related to the field of sustainable development.

Selection Synthesis theme During the first weeks of the group process, various discussion tools were used in order to determine a synthesis focus.

Plenary discussions served as a vehicle for generating group consensus.

Literature analysis The desk research involved analysing peer-reviewed scientific literature found through acknowledged databases such as the Academies of Sciences and the Wuppertal Institute. Grey literature is also included, such as governmental documents or research reports from renowned research institutes and organisations.

Expert consultation Experts from different fields and sectors are interviewed through open and semi-structured interviews. in the first weeks of the projects the interviews were broad and explorative. Later in the process, the interviews became more in-depth and semi-structured, based on topics and aspects listed by the specific subgroups. Besides providing expert knowledge through interviews, some experts were also consulted for feedback on the policy briefs. A full list of consulted experts can be found in the table below.

18

This table shows the linkages between each of the four policy briefs and specific targets of the SDGs they contribute to. This gives an overview of which targets are most affected by the selected topics. In total, 74 targets are found to be impacted either directly or indirectly. Direct impact means that no intervening stage or third party interference is required. For example, a reduction in livestock based food (LBF) consumption can directly impact target 15.5, since it contributes to reducing natural habitat degradation. An indirect impact is an effect that does require such an intervention. For instance, reduction of LBF consumption indirectly contributes to target 2.1. More crops can be used for human consumption instead of livestock feed, although additional interventions should ensure that these crops are accessible to all people, especially those who are in most need of food. The direct and indirect impact is depicted

by a darker or lighter colour respectively.

SDG Targets Target Description Impact

Decentra-

lized Smart

Off-Grids

Sustaina

ble Diets

Zero

Plastic

Waste

Biophilic

Cities

1.1

By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all

people everywhere, currently measured as

people living on less than $1.25 a day

1.2

By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion

of men, women and children of all ages living in

poverty in all its dimensions according to

national definitions

1.4

By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in

particular the poor and the vulnerable, have

equal rights to economic resources, as well as

access to basic services, ownership and control

over land and other forms of property,

inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new

technology and financial services, including

microfinance

1.5

By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and

those in vulnerable situations and reduce their

exposure and vulnerability to climate-related

extreme events and other economic, social and

environmental shocks and disasters

2.1

By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all

people, in particular the poor and people in

vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe,

nutritious and sufficient food all year round

Direct linkages

Indirect linkages

19

2.2

By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including

achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed

targets on stunting and wasting in children

under 5 years of age, and address the

nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant

and lactating women and older persons

2.4

By 2030, ensure sustainable food production

systems and implement resilient agricultural

practices that increase productivity and

production, that help maintain ecosystems, that

strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate

change, extreme weather, drought, flooding

and other disasters and that progressively

improve land and soil quality

2.8

Adopt measures to ensure the proper

functioning of food commodity markets and

their derivatives and facilitate timely access to

market information, including on food reserves,

in order to help limit extreme food price

volatility

3.1

By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality

ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births

3.4

By 2030, reduce by one third premature

mortality from non-communicable diseases

through prevention and treatment and promote

mental health and well-being

3.9

By 2030, substantially reduce the number of

deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals

and air, water and soil pollution and

contamination

3.13

Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in

particular developing countries, for early

warning, risk reduction and management of

national and global health risks

4.7

By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the

knowledge and skills needed to promote

sustainable development, including, among

others, through education for sustainable

development and sustainable lifestyles, human

rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture

of peace and non-violence, global citizenship

and appreciation of cultural diversity and of

20

culture’s contribution to sustainable

development

4.8

Build and upgrade education facilities that are

child, disability and gender sensitive and

provide safe, nonviolent, inclusive and effective

learning environments for all

5.5

Ensure women’s full and effective participation

and equal opportunities for leadership at all

levels of decisionmaking in political, economic

and public life

6.1

By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access

to safe and affordable drinking water for all

6.3

By 2030, improve water quality by reducing

pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing

release of hazardous chemicals and materials,

halving the proportion of untreated wastewater

and substantially increasing recycling and safe

reuse globally

6.4

By 2030, substantially increase water-use

efficiency across all sectors and ensure

sustainable withdrawals and supply of

freshwater to address water scarcity and

substantially reduce the number of people

suffering from water scarcity

6.5

By 2020, protect and restore water-related

ecosystems, including mountains, forests,

wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

7.1

By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable,

reliable and modern energy services

7.2

By 2030, increase substantially the share of

renewable energy in the global energy mix

7.3

By 2030, double the global rate of improvement

in energy efficiency

7.4

By 2030, enhance international cooperation to

facilitate access to clean energy research and

technology, including renewable energy, energy

efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel

technology, and promote investment in energy

infrastructure and clean energy technology

21

7.5

By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade

technology for supplying modern and

sustainable energy services for all in developing

countries, in particular least developed

countries, small island developing States, and

land-locked developing countries, in accordance

with their respective programmes of support

9.1

Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and

resilient infrastructure, including regional and

transborder infrastructure, to support economic

development and human well-being, with a

focus on affordable and equitable access for all

9.4

By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit

industries to make them sustainable, with

increased resource-use efficiency and greater

adoption of clean and environmentally sound

technologies and industrial processes, with all

countries taking action in accordance with their

respective capabilities

9.5

Enhance scientific research, upgrade the

technological capabilities of industrial sectors in

all countries, in particular developing countries,

including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and

substantially increasing the number of research

and development workers per 1 million people

and public and private research and

development spending

9.6

Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure

development in developing countries through

enhanced financial, technological and technical

support to African countries, least developed

countries, landlocked developing countries and

small island developing States

9.7

Support domestic technology development,

research and innovation in developing

countries, including by ensuring a conducive

policy environment for, inter alia, industrial

diversification and value addition to

commodities

9.8

Significantly increase access to information and

communications technology and strive to

provide universal and affordable access to the

22

Internet in least developed countries by 2020

10.1

By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain

income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the

population at a rate higher than the national

average

10.2

By 2030, empower and promote the social,

economic and political inclusion of all,

irrespective of age, sex, disability, race,

ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other

status

10.3

Ensure equal opportunity and reduce

inequalities of outcome, including by

eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and

practices and promoting appropriate legislation,

policies and action in this regard

10.9

Encourage official development assistance and

financial flows, including foreign direct

investment, to States where the need is

greatest, in particular least developed

countries, African countries, small island

developing States and landlocked developing

countries, in accordance with their national

plans and programmes

11.1

By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe

and affordable housing and basic services and

upgrade slums

11.3

By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable

urbanization and capacity for participatory,

integrated and sustainable human settlement

planning and management in all countries

11.4

Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the

world’s cultural and natural heritage

11.6

By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita

environmental impact of cities, including by

paying special attention to air quality and

municipal and other waste management

11.7

By 2030, provide universal access to safe,

inclusive and accessible, green and public

spaces, in particular for women and children,

older persons and persons with disabilities

23

11.8

Support positive economic, social and

environmental links between urban, peri-urban

and rural areas by strengthening national and

regional development planning

11.9

By 2020, substantially increase the number of

cities and human settlements adopting and

implementing integrated policies and plans

towards inclusion, resource efficiency,

mitigation and adaptation to climate change,

resilience to disasters, and develop and

implement, in line with the Sendai Framework

for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic

disaster risk management at all levels

11.10

Support least developed countries, including

through financial and technical assistance, in

building sustainable and resilient buildings

utilizing local materials

12.1

Implement the 10-year framework of

programmes on sustainable consumption and

production, all countries taking action, with

developed countries taking the lead, taking into

account the development and capabilities of

developing countries

12.2

By 2030, achieve the sustainable management

and efficient use of natural resources

12.3

By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at

the retail and consumer levels and reduce food

losses along production and supply chains,

including post-harvest losses

12.4

By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound

management of chemicals and all wastes

throughout their life cycle, in accordance with

agreed international frameworks, and

significantly reduce their release to air, water

and soil in order to minimize their adverse

impacts on human health and the environment

12.5

By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation

through prevention, reduction, recycling and

reuse

12.6

Encourage companies, especially large and

transnational companies, to adopt sustainable

24

practices and to integrate sustainability

information into their reporting cycle

12.7

Promote public procurement practices that are

sustainable, in accordance with national policies

and priorities

12.8

By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have

the relevant information and awareness for

sustainable development and lifestyles in

harmony with nature

12.9

Support developing countries to strengthen

their scientific and technological capacity to

move towards more sustainable patterns of

consumption and production

12.11

Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that

encourage wasteful consumption by removing

market distortions, in accordance with national

circumstances, including by restructuring

taxation and phasing out those harmful

subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their

environmental impacts, taking fully into account

the specific needs and conditions of developing

countries and minimizing the possible adverse

impacts on their development in a manner that

protects the poor and the affected communities

13.1

Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to

climate-related hazards and natural disasters in

all countries

13.2

Integrate climate change measures into

national policies, strategies and planning

13.3

Improve education, awareness-raising and

human and institutional capacity on climate

change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction

and early warning

13.4

Implement the commitment undertaken by

developed-country parties to the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100

billion annually by 2020 from all sources to

address the needs of developing countries in

the context of meaningful mitigation actions

and transparency on implementation and fully

25

operationalize the Green Climate Fund through

its capitalization as soon as possible

13.5

Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for

effective climate change-related planning and

management in least developed countries and

small island developing States, including

focusing on women, youth and local and

marginalized communities

14.1

By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce

marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from

land-based activities, including marine debris

and nutrient pollution

15.1

By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration

and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland

freshwater ecosystems and their services, in

particular forests, wetlands, mountains and

drylands, in line with obligations under

international agreements

15.2

By 2020, promote the implementation of

sustainable management of all types of forests,

halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and

substantially increase afforestation and

reforestation globally

15.3

By 2030, combat desertification, restore

degraded land and soil, including land affected

by desertification, drought and floods, and

strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral

world

15.5

Take urgent and significant action to reduce the

degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of

biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent

the extinction of threatened species

15.6

Promote fair and equitable sharing of the

benefits arising from the utilization of genetic

resources and promote appropriate access to

such resources, as internationally agreed

15.9

By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity

values into national and local planning,

development processes, poverty reduction

strategies and accounts

26

15.10

Mobilize and significantly increase financial

resources from all sources to conserve and

sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems

16.6

Develop effective, accountable and transparent

institutions at all levels

16.7

Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and

representative decision-making at all levels

16.10

Ensure public access to information and protect

fundamental freedoms, in accordance with

national legislation and international

agreements

17.3

Mobilize additional financial resources for

developing countries from multiple sources

17.5

Adopt and implement investment promotion

regimes for least developed countries

17.14

Enhance policy coherence for sustainable

development

17.16

Enhance the global partnership for sustainable

development, complemented by multi-

stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and

share knowledge, expertise, technology and

financial resources, to support the achievement

of the sustainable development goals in all

countries, in particular developing countries

17.17

Encourage and promote effective public, public-

private and civil society partnerships, building

on the experience and resourcing strategies of

partnerships

17.19

By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop

measurements of progress on sustainable

development that complement gross domestic

product, and support statistical capacity-

building in developing countries

27

SCIENCE – POLICY BRIEFS

28

v

DECENTRALISED SMART OFF-GRIDS

Example Benefits

Contact local population

Multi-stakeholder network

Technological Design

Implementation and Realisation

Monitoring and Evaluation

Identify local population Build trust Examine social practices, energy practices, needs and demands

Involve relevant actors Identify different interests Build trust within the network

Create potential technological design(s) Incorporate multi-actor input Decide on technological design to implement

Implementation of technological design Capacity building Establishing decentralized energy systems Energy access and energy trade

Periodic assessment Global evidence base Reporting

1

2

3

4

5

3

Regulations Impartial regulatory agency Redirecting subsidies Ensure investments through risk minimisation and cost recovery

Decentralised Smart Off-grid technologies with clean and renewable energy sources are a comprehensive strategy to provide energy to energy poor regions 14% of the population

live without energy

• Sustainable energy system that harnesses renewable energy sources

• Resilient energy system that can recover from shocks and disturbances

• Lower construction cost than extending the central grid • Empowering energy consumers by creating prosumers

Policy Framework

The ESUSCON energy project in Huatacondo in the Chilean Tarapaca Region was successful as it understood that long-term sustainability of the energy system is based on community members becoming responsible for the management and performance of the grid31.

Aim

Gain knowledge on social practices of the local population and build trust

Aim

Polycentric governance to promote equitable collaboration which facilitates the decision-making process

Aim

Technological design(s) involves the multi-stakeholder network, and must fit the context

Aim

The implementation and realization of this project provides its first benefits to the local community

Aim

Monitoring and periodic evaluation promotes transparency and future CRSO development

29

Key Messages:

With over 1 billion people in the world lacking access to electricity, the inaccessibility of energy is hindering human development as well as human well-being. oviding electricity to energy poor regions should therefore be a priority as it a critical factor in promoting development.

Clean Renewable Smart Off-grids (CRSO) within a decentralised energy system are a comprehensive strategy for meeting sustainable energy solutions.

CRSOs within a decentralised energy system can provide energy whilst promoting community participation, local development, and renewable and clean energies.

To implement this solution a multi-level stakeholder platform, as well as an unambiguous and transparent legal framework must be set into place.

Introduction

Reliable and affordable energy access is crucial to supporting human development and well-being. It improves the productivity of every phase of the agri-food chain and provides processing and storage options to reduce food loss. This is essential for shops, schools, hospitals, entrepreneurs, and industries to carry out their activities1,2 Reliable energy access is also key to combating poverty and achieving energy justice3 (see Appendix 1D). Currently, over 1 billion people (14% of the world population) live without the benefits of electricity, and millions more live with poor or inadequate energy4,5,6. As a consequence, 2.7 billion people use traditional biomass for cooking and heating, resulting in deforestation and indoor pollution, leading to 1.5 million premature deaths every year7 (see Appendix 1E). Therefore, ensuring universal access to clean, renewable, reliable, and affordable energy must be a key priority for national and international development efforts. However, since the energy sector accounts for roughly two thirds of all anthropogenic GHG emissions, a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energies is required to mitigate environmental degradation and climate change. Where such clean and renewable energy harnesses local resources, it can help to meet the growing energy demand, whilst also contributing to greater energy independence and speeding the transition towards resilient and sustainable energy systems for the future8,4. Clean Renewable Smart Off-grids (CRSOs) within a decentralised energy system present a solution to the above statistics and consequent problems. CRSOs create a locally managed energy platform based on off-grids that work in isolation from the main grid (see Appendix 1F). This energy platform is a sustainable system as it harnesses renewable and clean energies that facilitate the transition towards a fossil fuel

free world. Within this platform, all energy that circulates in the grid is generated and stored through locally managed infrastructure9. This fosters a sense of responsibility among households and other local consumers using the CRSO10. They produce, consume, and trade their generated energy within the energy platform or with other nearby platforms11. This new kind of energy consumer, and producer, is called “prosumer”12. Energy flows within the grid are managed by smart technologies that detect and react to energy supply and demand, and share this information with the users13,14 Decentralisation should not merely be implemented where the expansion of a central grid is not possible. Rather it can be applicable in situations where the deployment of traditional grids is unreliable, prohibitively expensive, or unsuitable to the energy practices and needs of the local population15,16. A CRSO within a decentralised energy system can provide a reliable and resilient system that has four major benefits (see Appendix 1C). First, the system empowers local energy consumers through the creation of prosumers 17,18,19. These prosumers have a sense of autonomy since they can locally manage and self-regulate their own energy system and practices 20. Related to this, the second benefit aims to build the capacity of these prosumers. Capacity building can lead to income-generating activities, such as: maintenance of the smart off-grids; education of the possibilities of the energy systems; and how to initiate a CRSO project. These two benefits boost local development21. Third, in decentralised CRSOs, energy is harnessed from several different renewable sources and from multiple prosumers, enabling the system to tolerate and recover from disturbances and shocks22. The fourth and

final benefit of CRSOs within a decentralised energy system is that they are less expensive than extending

the main grid, because it avoids the high costs of connecting houses to a central grid, and it

reduces the maintenance costs thanks to the above mentioned capacity building

process23,24.

In pursuing the development and the implementation of a CRSO within a

decentralised energy system several requirements should be met. This can be difficult to achieve because of political and financial

power structures 25,26,9 ; this will be discussed later on in the policy brief. It is essential for government to:

Be transparent and accountable to public and private actors

Be strongly committed to the electrification cause27

Have the capacity and willingness to enforce regulations28

Create an enabling and supportive environment for bottom-up initiatives

Enable non-governmental impartial agencies

Government regulations need to be Unambiguous and transparent to avoid uncertainty29.

DECENTRALISED SMART OFF-GRIDS

Air pollutants, mostly emitted by energy generation, contribute to 6,5

million premature deaths a year

30

Policy Framework

This policy brief suggests a framework for providing energy to energy poor regions through a comprehensive integrative strategy in a way that enables local energy consumers to also become producers (prosumers). This framework consists of both an action plan as well as regulatory recommendations for the implementation of CRSOs within a decentralised system. These two separate parts should ideally be implemented simultaneously if possible, dependent on the national context.

Action Plan The action plan consists of five different phases: Initiation; engaging local populations; technological design; implementation and realisation; and monitoring and evaluation. It is important to note that there may be some overlap in the subsequent phases as some are implemented simultaneously. Within these phases, each may be applied as seen fit , thereby taking into consideration different social, political, financial, geographical, and environmental contexts30.

Box 1: Mini-grid deployment in Tanzania

Since the 2008 Electricity Act and consequent institutional, policy and regulatory reform, Tanzania’s capacity of mini-grids has doubled. Making Tanzania a regional leader in mini-grid development. This continuous process of regulatory innovation has helped set clear rules, allowing for revision along the years. The government has strived towards encouraging greater participation of the private sector by creating flexible financial mechanisms. Innovative operational and ownership models that can facilitate sustainability of the service have been put into place, such as utility-model, faith-based organisations and community model. The deployment of mini-grids have boosted local development. Electricity has extended the working hours of shops, and increased their customer amount. Services like healthcare and schools have also benefited from electricity-consuming equipments6.

Phase 0: initiation The initiator identifies the lack of reliable energy access and pursues the initial steps that facilitate the development of a CRSO within a decentralised energy system. The position of an initiator within the government or society can vary. They may be government actors, NGOs, private actors, or local entrepreneurs. Within this phase geographical and environmental characteristics (such as dispersal of the population, remoteness of the region, climate, and the abundance of renewable resources) should be mapped and understood to facilitate the following phases. The initiator can undertake some steps them-self but should also outsource tasks to respective parties.

Phase 1: Engage local population Contact must be made and trust built through cultural mediators in order to facilitate dialogue, in order to design an intervention that meets the current and future self-defined energy needs of the local population31,32,33. To contact the local population, the initiator must employ existing contact networks and identify representatives of the local population (e.g. community leaders, village leaders, school teachers, local governments etc.) to facilitate the

collection of information on their social practices32. Gaining this information involves understanding social characteristics (e.g. livelihoods), cultural values and traditions (e.g. use of biomass as energy source being refused due to the perception of it being impure), economic practices (income-generating activities already present or member’s willingness to pay for capacity), as well as demographic aspects, (e.g. age, gender and professional activities)34,35. This information will help to identify the energy needs and demands of the local population, which is crucial to the success of CRSO implementation36,37, 38. It must be acknowledged that energy needs and demands can differ within the population39,40. Despite these differences affordability and reliability are necessary requirements for all 41. The former relates to circumstances in which members of these populations are not paid on a regular schedule, limiting their capacity to make payments themselves. The latter refers to energy quality, safety, quantity, as well as technological simplicity in terms of management and maintenance37. Overall, community engagement is required to optimise participation, the responsibility to the technology, and ultimately to build trust32. Community engagement is not only essential in Phase 1, rather it is a critical factor that should be incorporated throughout the entire project99,12,32,33,42.

Phase 2: Multi-stakeholder network

By involving diverse and relevant actors in the decision-making process early on, participation of actors and the selection of optimal technological solutions is ensured43,32. The relevant stakeholders, in addition to the initiator, includes: (i) consumers, in particular the local population; (ii) suppliers, who supply materials of components; (iii) financial actors: who provide financial capital; (iv) research networks, such as universities and technical institutions; and (v) local government bodies and actors, as they are essential providers of skilled employees and information44. This multi-stakeholder network does not have to be created anew but could be operated by existing institutions and build on existing national capacity and expertise 25,30. Identifying positions, interests, and expectations of the different actors facilitates decision-making processes and ensures transparency45. Once these are identified, tasks can be defined which will demonstrate the commitment of stakeholders and enhance their accountability43. Institutional support, through regulations, creates equitable stakeholder power within the network, as well as increasing the interconnectivity between stakeholders. It also contributes to designing the socio-technical networks that that are relevant to the social context 30,46,47. Polycentric governance will help overcome this complexity, as it does not only facilitate cooperation between all relevant stakeholders, but also allows contextualisation, learning, experimentation, innovation, and adaptation between these stakeholders48,49,50. In doing so, trust must not be underestimated as it plays a crucial role amongst stakeholders and influences cooperation49.

31

Phase 3: Technological design Research networks must design possible technologies where each component (e.g. energy storage system, typology of renewable energy, typology of information communication technology etc.) has been regarded as a best fit for the local community 43,51 Such matches are identified by the assessment of energy needs and demands, gathered in Phase 1, and by the geographical and ecological characteristics of the region. Affordability, reliability, safety, technological simplicity, and user-friendliness are principal variables that shape technological design. To facilitate this process, the research network must work closely with the representative(s) of the community. The working space of the researchers must be physically accessible to the local population. This collaboration should result in technological designs that can be implemented and easily integrated into the society and the culture of the locality34. Even though the research network has the expertise to make the final decision about the technology to be implemented, the design process continues throughout the next phases, in which all relevant stakeholders have input and give periodic feedback on the technological design43. The technological solution must be adaptable to shifting future needs and demands, thus ensuring that the chosen technology remains relevant to future contexts of CRSOs43.

Phase 4: Implementation and realisation In phase 2 tasks are defined, including the responsibilities of the project management team, which is a key stakeholder within this phase. It both organises and coordinates actors and resources, as well as defines and delegates tasks across different actors43. The division of tasks heavily relies on the participation of relevant stakeholders, most importantly, the participation and input of the local population43. Stakeholder collaboration within polycentric governance will play a key role in the management of unforeseen setbacks (e.g. bankruptcy of companies) that might occur, or when technological design must be reshaped based on new financial, legal, or social circumstances43,9. In addition, various stakeholders at different levels, especially local populations, require education on how to use and manage the technology52. This involvement also reduces operational and maintenance costs and fosters the familiarity of local population with CRSO technologies53,54. After the implementation of the physical technology of the CRSO, the decentralised energy system is created through the formation of a platform (see Appendix 1F). This platform can either have the form of a local energy market, in which prosumers trade and sell their energy (a prosumer-prosumer model), or as a community platform model in which the community pools their assets, including renewable resources, space, and storage capacity, to generate energy and revenue for the community as a whole919,15. Stakeholders are required to organise the energy exchange platform, which can be performed virtually. In regions without online access, the CRSO project could be accompanied by the provision of internet23. These stakeholders and possible technological difficulties should already be defined in Phase 2. In this model, the local

population is informed, involved, and active, which also requires education and training 23,19. Moreover, the smart element in the technology does not only inform users on their energy use and how this affects the price, but it also enables the “revaluation of energy practices”, which have been directly linked to more responsible usage of energy consumers19,17. Finally, prosumers that have not previously had access to energy are likely to initially develop responsible energy practices.

Phase 5: Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation should take place throughout the duration of the project. Monitoring refers to the collection and analysis of information about the project55. While evaluation refers to the periodic assessment of both the technology and the stakeholder collaboration. The latter includes social well-being, personal agency, access to the energy market platform, equity, inclusiveness, participation, and safety. In the initial phases monitoring and evaluation should be performed regularly, as this is strongly correlated with establishing trust49. Results also need to be distributed amongst stakeholders post implementation56. They should provide an overview of all the phases, thereby also allowing for a detailed account of implementation processes. This report should consider qualitative and quantitative research, for example through questionnaires and formal or informal interviews.

Regulative Recommendations The second component of the framework consists of several regulatory requirements necessary to implement the action plan. Regulations must balance the interests of local populations with the promotion of investments in CRSOs at the same time57. This section addresses four regulatory recommendations that must be considered.

Box 2: Regulatory Agencies

Regulatory agencies must:

Be impartial

Be independent from governments and their budgets

Include public and private participation and assessments

Secure transparent and accountable regulatory processes within polycentric governance

Guard equity, affordability, reliability, health and safety for CRSO users in regulation60

First, there is a presence of powerful incumbent interests that influences regulations and regulatory tools, creating institutional lock-ins, where incumbent institutions are favoured over new institutions58. Public and private utilities exercise political and financial power to maintain their exclusivity59,60. This is an obstacle to implement any shift to a decentralised energy system or towards CRSOs. There is a need for an independent regulatory agency that is protected from political interest. Therefore, this agency should not be part of the government, but instead be constructed from NGOs and other civil society organisations, with UN support. The main purpose of the agency is to nurture the equity, transparency, and accountability of polycentric governance referred to in Phase 260 (see Box 2).

32

A national government should allow such an agency to operate in the national, regional, and local context. Second, and in relation to the previous point, strong political commitment is needed to create an environment in which the agency can operate. Additionally, commitment is needed to create a synergy between different levels and departments of the government, as well as synergy between policies61. This will help identify laws and regulations that hinder transformational processes. Amending laws that prohibit the mutual trade of energy between users is essential to facilitate an environment where CRSO and decentralised energy systems can be implemented12,9. Third, the government and the independent regulatory agency, which operates on a national as well as on a municipal level, must foster a multi-stakeholder network with equitable power distribution. The aim is to ensure a valid representation of all stakeholders, specifically the local population who are to be supported by the CRSO3258,9,62. Legal tools can be used to guarantee this. This is of particular relevance to issues related to land use, as illustrated in the case of indigenous people’s right to protect their lands63. Additional policy instruments, for example licensing, are essential to meet societal energy needs, in relation to affordability, reliability, and safety standards 57,37,47. Regulations grant accessibility of relevant stakeholders to different elements that play a role in the transformation towards decentralised energy systems, such as the grid itself, the energy platform, information on government operations, the suggested independent agency, and how to interact with these two. Fourth, capacity building is "the ability to perform functions, solve problems, and achieve objectives", and it is important at different levels (WHO, n.d.), in particular at individual and institutional levels. On an individual level, local populations need to receive education in order to become an energy-skilled workforce (explained in further detail in Phase 4)64. Additionally, local entrepreneurial skills to access funds for energy-related projects like CRSOs should be provided. Finally, as the role of the government changes along with the transition from centralised to decentralised energy systems, both the local and national levels of the government must acquire new skills64. Lastly, funding is a crucial element required in the development of the CRSO project. However, institutional lock-in can impede the allocation of funding towards CRSO projects and may enrich “non-intended audiences”, as acknowledged in the first point of regulatory recommendations59. The government can take two regulatory actions to allocate funding. First, create a favourable environment for external investment in CRSOs through cost recovery and through minimising the risks ,21. Second, subsidies must be allocated efficiently to contribute to CRSO projects. They must be redirected from non-renewable sources to renewables, and from central energy systems to decentralised energy systems 59,24. These shifts will create opportunities not only for businesses to invest in

clean and renewable generators, but also for NGOs and civil societies. The responsibility for implementing the regulations detailed in this section must fall to relevant government departments, specifically identified within the national context. Among others, the Departments of Energy, Environment, Finance, Economic, Justice, and Social Affairs must collaborate effectively, as a holistic and integrated approach is the only solution to thoroughly and efficiently overcome the obstacles of the energy issue.

Concluding remarks This policy brief provides a framework that addresses the provision of reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy in energy poor regions, through the implementation of clean and renewable smart off-grid technologies within a decentralised energy system. Universal energy accessibility cannot be achieved in the short term, but, with the provided framework one can progress towards that goal by the 2030 Agenda. In pursuing this aim it is essential for research institutions, private actors, governments, and international institutions to bridge the gap between fundamental research and the practical implementation of the project. Although there is plenty of research on social dimension of energy grids, what is lacking is the way to address these implications in practice. Overall, a holistic approach that incorporates the technological, financial, political, and social aspects of energy system is lacking. This policy brief has attempted to implement this holistic approach through the suggested multi-level stakeholder network. Within this network, the participation of local populations are of specific importance. The conception of how energy is used and provided must change: energy cannot be merely seen as a service that has to be provided but must instead be seen as a source that future generations can use for their empowerment and well-being.

Key Recommendations

To facilitate the implementation of CRSOs within a decentralised energy system, policy makers must:

● Adopt CRSO within a decentralised energy system to ensure a reliable energy access for energy poor regions.

● Adopt regulations that supports participatory approaches in decision-making process, favours investments in electrification project and protects the interests of local populations.

● Adopt the action plan that envisions a multi-level stakeholder platform, a continuous local engagement and capacity building.

● Contextualise the needs and demands of the population as well as regional characteristics within the identified energy poor region.

● Build transparent and accountable institutions. Anniek Barnhoorn, Eline van Dis, Esther Milberg & Marco Immovilli

33

Bibliography

1 IEA (2017) World Energy Outlook - Energy Access Outlook

2017. From Poverty To Prosperity. Paris: IEA 2 Peters, J., & Sievert, M. (2016). Impacts of rural electrification revisited–the African context. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 8(3), 327-345. 3 Adichie, Chumamanda Ngozi (2015, Januari 13). Light out in Nigeria. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/opinion/sunday/lights-out-in-nigeria.html 4 Carbonnier, G., & Brugger, F. (2013). The Development Nexus of Global Energy. The Handbook of Global Energy Policy, 64-78 5 United Nations (2017). Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. Retrieved from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf 6 Odarno, L., Sawe, E., Swai, M., Katyega, M.J.J. & Lee, A. (2017). Accelerating Mini-Grid deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lessons from Tanzania. The World Resource Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/accelerating-mini-grid-deployment-sub-saharan-africa_1.pdf 7 IEA (2010) World Energy Outlook – Energy Development Index. Paris: IEA. 8 IEA (2015) Energy And Climate Change. Paris: IEA 9 Wolsink, M., Personal communication, University of Amsterdam, 18 12 2017 10 Mohlakoana, N., “Private Interview” 08-December-2017 11 Mengelkamp, E., Notheisen, B., Beer, C., Dauer, D., & Weinhardt, C. (2017). A blockchain-based smart grid: towards sustainable local energy markets. Computer Science-Research and Development, 1-8. 12 Wolsink, M. (2017a). Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes. Landscape Research, 1-20. 13 Ilic, D., Da Silva, P. G., Karnouskos, S., & Griesemer, M. (2012, June). An energy market for trading electricity in smart grid neighbourhoods. In Digital Ecosystems Technologies (DEST), 2012 6th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE

14 Ardito, L., Procaccianti, G., Menga, G., & Morisio, M. (2013). Smart grid technologies in Europe: An overview. Energies, 6(1), 251-281. 15 Anonymous, Personal communication, 18 12 2017 16 Odarno, L. (2017) “Private Interview” 06 12 2017 17 Jacobs, S. B. (2016). The Energy Prosumer. Ecology LQ, 43, 519 18 Saintier, S. (2017). Community Energy Companies in the UK: A Potential Model for Sustainable Development in “Local” Energy?. Sustainability, 9(8), 1325. 19 Parag, Y. and Sovacool, B. K. (2016) Electricity market design for the prosumer era. Nature Energy, 1 (16032). ISSN 0001-4966 20 Zio, E., & Aven, T. (2011). Uncertainties in smart grids behavior and modeling: What are the risks and vulnerabilities? How to analyze them?. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6308-6320. 21 Bhattacharyya, S.C. (2013). Energy Access and Development. Chapter 14 in The Handbook of Global Energy Policy. Goldthau, A. (Ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 22 Elkins & Skea (nd). A resilient Energy System for energy security in a low-carbon economy. Retrieved from: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/asset/195B5DB0-26AF-4632-ABCA8478DCA8939C/ 23 Mengelkamp, E., “Private Interview” 01 12 2017 24 Bhattacharyya, S. C., & Palit, D. (Eds.). (2014). Mini-grids for rural electrification of developing countries: analysis and case studies from South Asia. Springer 25 Anonymous, Personal communication, 18 12 2017 26 Anonymous, Personal communication, 18 12 2017 27 Bhattacharyya, S.C. (2013). Energy Access and Development. Chapter 14 in The Handbook of Global Energy Policy. Goldthau, A. (Ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 28 Willems, S. & Baumert, K. (2003) Institutional capacity and climate actions. OECD. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/21018790.pdf 29 Bhattacharyya, S., “Private Interview” 04 12 2017

34

30 Ockwell, D. & Byrne, R. (2016) Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: climate relevant innovation-system builders (CRIBs), Climate Policy, 16:7, 836-854 31 Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach?. ELT journal, 50(3), 213-218. 32 Alvial-Palavicino, C., Garrido-Echeverría, N., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Reyes, L., & Palma- Behnke, R. (2011). A methodology for community engagement in the introduction of renewable based smart microgrid. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 314-323. 33 Wolsink, M. (2012). "The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 16.1: 822-835. 34 García, V. G., & Bartolomé, M. M. (2010). Rural electrification systems based on renewable energy: The social dimensions of an innovative technology. Technology in Society, 32(4), 303-311. 35 Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2014). What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 41-58. 36 Barnett, A. (1990).The diffusion of energy technology in the rural areas of developing countries: a synthesis of recent experience. World Development, 18, 15. 37 Schillebeeckx, S. J., Parikh, P., Bansal, R., & George, G. (2012). An integrated framework for rural electrification: Adopting a user-centric approach to business model development. Energy Policy, 48, 687-697. 38 Peters, J., & Sievert, M. (2016). Impacts of rural electrification revisited–the African context. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 8(3), 327-345. 39 Campbell, B., Cloke, J., & Brown, E. (2016). Communities of energy. Economic Anthropology, 3(1), 133-144. 40 Verbong, G. P., Beemsterboer, S., & Sengers, F. (2013). Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy. Energy Policy, 52, 117-125 41 United Nations (2017). Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. Retrieved from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf

42 Urmee, T., & Md, A. (2016). Social, cultural and political dimensions of off-grid renewable energy programs in developing countries. Renewable Energy, 93, 159-167. 43 Lammers, I., & Arentsen, M. J. (2017). Rethinking Participation in Smart Energy System Planning. Energies, 10(11), 1711. 44 Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research policy, 31(8), 1257-1274. 45 Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin. 46 Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Research Policy, 43(4), 772-791 47 Van Koppen, C.S.A.K., Spaargaren, G. (2017) Environment And Society. An introduction to the social dimensions of environmental change. 48 Toonen, T. (2010). Resilience in public administration: the work of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom from a public administration perspective. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 193-202. 49 Ostrom, Elinor (2010). "Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems". American Economic Review 100 (3): 641–672. 50 Goldthau, A. (2014). Rethinking the governance of energy infrastructure: Scale, decentralization and polycentrism. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 134-140. 51 Naus, J., Spaargaren, G., van Vliet, B. J., & van der Horst, H. M. (2014). Smart grids, information flows and emerging domestic energy practices. Energy Policy, 68, 436-446. 52 World Bank (2008). Operational Guidance for World Bank Group Staff: Designing Sustainable Off-Grid Rural Electrification Projects: Principles and Practices. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/120391468313811877/pdf/470220WP0Box331C10OffgridGuidelines.pdf 53 Gradl, C., Knobloch,C. (2011). Energize the BoP: Energy Business Model Generator for Low Income Markets—A Practitioner’s Guide. Endeva. 54 Drinkwaard, W., Kirkels, A., Romijn, H. (2010). A learning‐based approach to understanding success in rural

35

electrification: Insights from Micro Hydro projects in Bolivia. Energy for Sustainable Development, 14:232–237. 55 EVALOC: Evaluating Low carbon communities (2014, January). A step by step guide to monitoring and evaluation. Retrieved from: http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/technologies/projects/mesc/guide-to-monitoring-and-evaluation-v1-march2014.pdf 56 Prennushi, G., Rubio, G., & Subbarao, K. (2001). Monitoring and evaluation. World Bank PRSP Sourcebook. 57 Williams, N. J., Jaramillo, P., Taneja, J., & Ustun, T. S. (2015). Enabling private sector investment in microgrid-based rural electrification in developing countries: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 1268-1281. 58 Klitkoua A., et al., (2015), The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: the case of energy for road transport 59 Mills, E. (2017). Global Kerosene Subsidies: An Obstacle to Energy Efficiency and Development. World Development, 99, 463-480.

60 Bradshaw, A. (2017). Regulatory change and innovation in Latin America: The case of renewable energy in Brazil. Utilities Policy. 61 Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M.m Ringler, C., McCollum, D. (2017). A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation. International Council of Science 62 Glemarec, Y. (2012). Financing off-grid sustainable energy access for the poor. Energy policy, 47, 87-93. 63 United Nations (2008). United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Retreived from: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf 64 Bhattacharyya, S. C., & Palit, D. (2016). Mini-grid based off-grid electrification to enhance electricity access in developing countries: What policies may be required?. Energy Policy, 94, 166-178.

36

Appendices Appendix 1A: Glossary Capacity building: "the ability to perform functions, solve problems, and achieve objectives" at different levels1. Particularly at an individual and institutional level. Clean and renewable energies: energy that is replenished by nature, derived both directly and indirectly from natural resources such as the sun, wind, and water 2. Decentralised energy system: where energy is generated in close proximity to the site of consumption, is locally managed and regulated. This empowers and boosts communities as the profits of possible cost reduction are kept within the community 3,4

.

Local population: the term local population in this policy brief encompasses the complexity of interests and practices between and within each community of the local population. Additionally, local population may also be constructed out of people that do not form a community, but live individually within that local territory 5. This complexity must be captured in each project and dealt with, which might require the application of changes during the development and implementation of the project. Multi-stakeholder network: a governance structure that gathers multi-stakeholders on various levels to engage within the decision-making process. In doing so, “stakeholders (citizens, companies, local governments, societal organizations, etc.) jointly identify public interests, and then formulate policies and projects based thereupon”6. Off-grid systems: energy distribution networks that are isolated from the main grid, supplied by independent clean and renewable energy source(s), and managed by any kind of operator7. Polycentric governance: an organisational structure in which a multitude of actors jointly order their relationships with each other in accordance with a set of rules 8. Prosumer: “prosumers are agents that both consume and produce electricity”9. Smart technologies: innovations that optimise the energy distribution in off-grids through a sociotechnical network of energy information flows that detect and react to local energy supply and demand10. Hence, smart technology is characterized by a two-way flow of energy and information11.

37

Appendix 1B: Expert List Experts from different fields and sectors were interviewed through open and semi-structured interviews. In the first weeks of the projects the interviews were broad and explorative. Later in the process, the interviews became more in-depth and semi-structured, based on topics and aspects that were identified. Besides providing expert knowledge through interviews, some experts were also consulted for feedback on the policy briefs. A full list of consulted experts can be found in the table below.

Name Organisation/ Institution/ Company Country Validation

Ballard Asare-Bediako

Hogeschool Arnhem en Nijmegen (HAN); focuses on the application of Smart Grid solutions, energy management systems, and electrical machines

The Netherlands

Bas Berends VP EU Partnerships OffGridBox The Netherlands

Bas van Vliet Wageningen University & Research; environmental sociologist The Netherlands

David Ockwell University of Sussex; expertise includes Climate Change, climate policy, energy policy, International Development, and sustainable energy production

United Kingdom Yes

Ed Brown National Co-Coordinator, UK Low Carbon Energy for Development Network & Loughborough University; Associate Director, Sustainability Research School

United Kingdom Yes

Emilio Lebre la Rovere

Federal University Rio de Janeiro & INFORSE (International Network for Sustainable Development)

Brazil

Esther Mengelkamp

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; Expertise on information and communication systems of local energy markets, and energy storage systems

Germany

Imke Lammers University of Twente; Institute for Governance and Innovation Studies The Netherlands

Jon Cloke National Network Manager, UK Low Carbon Energy for Development Network & Loughborough University; geography department

United Kingdom Yes

Lily Odarno

Africa Associate, Global Energy Program at the World Resource Institute

United States of America

Maarten Wolsink University of Amsterdam; social researcher on renewable energy (non-hydro) implementation

The Netherlands Yes

Nguyen Chung Kien

Formerly worked in the Vietnamese energy sector for Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd.

Vietnam

Nthabiseng Mohlakoana

University Twente; Department of Governance and Technology for Sustainability

South Africa

Rudy Root DNV GL (Safer Smarter Greener) The Netherlands

Subhus Bhattacharyya

Montford University; School of Engineering and Sustainable Development

United Kingdom

Wardah Inam MIT TATA Centre India

38

Appendix 1C: Conventional Centralised Grid versus Decentralised Smart Off-grid

Conventional centralised grid Decentralised Smart Off-grid

Energy generation Centralised, usually in the hands of a utility. Little room for energy storage.

Distributed among many prosumers that can actively generate their own energy. Prosumers can supplement utility or energy company. Room for (distributed) energy storage

Pricing Fixed by utility Dynamic “Smart” appliances receive real time pricing and react consequently

Resilient energy provision Utility reacts to prevent further damages

Prosumers can react to changes in energy demand and supply, preventing grid congestions or overload

End-user Consumers passively receive energy from a utility

‘Prosumers’ actively managed their energy consumption and production

Information Consumers are uninformed and do not participate to the system

Prosumers are informed and actively participate to the system

Adapted from: Parag et al., 2016

Appendix 1D: Energy Justice for Prosumers Energy justice is a concept that does not merely address universal accessibility, affordability, and reliability of energy, but also considers energy to be important for social inclusion12. Yet, tackling social inequalities and the injustice created by environmental degradation and climate change must go hand in hand. In doing so, regulations should be implemented so that prosumers are given a clear role and the more vulnerable prosumers are protected 13,14. The most coherent solution is to base renewable energy projects on shared-ownership, communal action, and the education of people about energy and its benefits towards empowering them13

. This could work as a virtuous circle, reinforcing itself, motivating more communal action. All together, this could be a path towards achieving smart, inclusive, and sustainable growth.

Appendix 1E: Cooking Fuels

Often governments put their priority on providing access to electricity, neglecting the importance of access to clean and modern cooking fuels15,16. Nonetheless, the urgency of providing people with clean and modern cooking fuels is clear when considering that 2.7 billion people are still relying primarily on biomass (e.g. wood, charcoal, tree leaves) and fossil fuels (e.g. kerosene, coal) for their cooking practices17,18. The use of traditional solid cooking fuels and the consequent indoor pollution is attributed to serious health effects, leading to the premature death of over 4 million people every year19. Moreover, the collection of biomass, although free of any cost, requires time that could otherwise be directed to income-generating activities18. It is therefore essential to promote an efficient shift from these polluting and harmful cooking fuels to more modern and clean sources. In doing so, projects for access to clean and modern cooking fuels must consider that people might continue to use traditional fuels, as a result of two main factors: affordability and cultural preferences (e.g. preference for the taste of the food as cooked in the traditional way)18. Therefore, projects must understand the social practices related to cooking practices, analyse the need and the demands of the populations, as well as empower such populations to self-define and self-manage their own cookstoves. Finally, projects must emphasise the economic possibilities stemming from clean and modern cooking fuels18.

39

Appendix 1F: Decentralised Energy Markets An energy system with many smart prosumers requires energy markets that suit the decentralised production and consumption of energy3,9. Decentralised energy markets are key to managing the distribution of renewable energy generation and to optimally coordinate decisions concerning the distribution of a large number of “self-interested autonomous agents”9. Hence, a decentralised prosumer energy market is complex because it is a multi-agent system 9,20. Parag and Sovacool (2016) identify three decentralised energy markets: (i) peer-to-peer models, (ii) prosumer-to-interconnected

(or ‘island’ grids); (iii) organised prosumer groups9.

Three decentralised energy models identified by Parag and Sovacool (2016)

1 Peer-to-peer model Within this model there is a direct connection between agents allowing direct energy trading

2 Prosumer-to-interconnected (of ‘isolated’ grids)

Within this model the surplus of energy is stored, or if connected to another grid sold to the other grids (This can be the main grid).

3 Organized prosumer groups

Within this model groups of prosumers, as an organisation or community, pool their presumption resource to generate revenue for the community as a whole.

40

Bibliography

1 World Health Organisation (nd). Capacity Building and Initiatives. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/control/capacity_building/background/en/ 2 Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., & Blaabjerg, F. (2014). Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 748-764. 3 Mengelkamp, E., Notheisen, B., Beer, C., Dauer, D., & Weinhardt, C. (2017). A blockchain-based smart grid: towards sustainable local energy markets. Computer Science-Research and Development, 1-8. 4 Schnitzer, D., Lounsbury, D. S., Carvallo, J. P., Deshmukh, R., Apt, J., & Kammen, D. M. (2014). Microgrids for Rural Electrification: A critical review of best practices based on seven case studies. United Nations Foundation. 5 Campbell, B., Cloke, J., & Brown, E. (2016). Communities of energy. Economic Anthropology, 3(1), 133-144. 6 Lammers, I., & Arentsen, M. J. (2017). Rethinking Participation in Smart Energy System Planning. Energies, 10(11), 1711. 7 Dagnachew, A. G., Lucas, P. L., Hof, A. F., Gernaat, D. E., de Boer, H. S., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2017). The role of decentralized systems in providing universal electricity access in Sub-Saharan Africa–A model-based approach. Energy, 139, 184-195. 8 Ostrom, Elinor (2010). "Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems". American Economic Review 100 (3): 641–672. 9 Parag, Y. and Sovacool, B.K. (2016) Electricity market design for the prosumer era. Nature Energy, 1 (16032). ISSN 0001-4966 10 Wolsink, M. (2012). "The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 16.1: 822-835. 11 Alvial-Palavicino, C., Garrido-Echeverría, N., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Reyes, L., & Palma- Behnke, R. (2011). A methodology for community engagement in the introduction of renewable based smart microgrid. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 314-323. 12 Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied Energy, 142, 435-

444.

13 Saintier, S. (2017). Community Energy Companies in the UK: A Potential Model for Sustainable Development in “Local” Energy?.

Sustainability, 9(8), 1325.

14 Jacobs, S. B. (2016). The Energy Prosumer. Ecology LQ, 43, 519.

15 Kaygusuz, K. (2012). Energy for sustainable development: A case of developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 16(2), 1116-1126.

16 Bhattacharyya, S.C. (2013). Energy Access and Development. Chapter 14 in The Handbook of Global Energy Policy. Goldthau, A. (Ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 17 Kaygusuz, K. (2012). Energy for sustainable development: A case of developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 16(2), 1116-1126.

18 IEA (2017) World Energy Outlook - Energy Access Outlook 2017. From Poverty To Prosperity. Paris: IEA

19 World Health Organisation, (2016). Household air pollution and health. Retrieved from:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/

20 Linnenberg, T., Wior, I., Schreiber, S., & Fay, A. (2011). A market-based multi-agent-system for decentralized power and grid

control. In Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), 2011 IEEE 16th Conference on (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

• Construct sustainable dietary guidelines based on the latest studies, involving an independent, interdisciplinary expert panel, representing different regions1.

• Consult civil society organisations and the food industry1.

• National governments must adopt the guidelines and adapt them to their local contexts1,2.

* In this policy-brief, LBF is defined as food products for human consumption that derive from the livestock sector, including meat, poultry and dairy 42

Key Messages: • Current diets have immense negative impacts on people’s

health and the environment, of which livestock based foods are one of the main contributors.

• A shift towards plant-based diets is needed to achieve more sustainable diets with fewer negative externalities.

• A promising way to work towards such a sustainable diet is to internalise social and environmental externalities in the price of livestock based food products and thereby stimulating consumption and production of sustainable alternatives for livestock based foods.

• Three strategies to shift towards sustainable diets are: the establishment of sustainable dietary guidelines, taxation on livestock based foods, and the establishment of innovation funds. An international framework on sustainable diets will support these strategies.

Introduction . Current global trends towards diets based on a high intake of animal protein (AP) are unsustainable and unhealthy, since foods that are livestock based have both large environmental and societal impacts1–13. In 2009 more than 90% of the world’s populations had an average personal intake of protein that exceeded the estimated requirements13. The consumption of AP is projected to rise even further in emerging economies1,7,13–15. As the international community is committed to achieving the SDGs, shifting towards sustainable diets by reducing the consumption of livestock based foods* (LBF) should be a high priority12. See Box 2 for the definitions of sustainable diets and reduced AP consumption.

International agreements and action on this transition holds great potential to counter the health and environmental effects of the overconsumption of AP. In general, AP consumption is highest in developed countries. However, in order to achieve a global shift towards healthier and more sustainable diets, consumption of AP should be reduced in all high consuming populations of developed as well as developing countries1,7,12–16.

The overconsumption of LBF causes health- and environment-related externalities worldwide. Examples of such health effects are non-communicable diseases19–21 and obesity12,21,22, the latter of which is currently one of the most costly social burdens12. Furthermore, the widespread overuse of antibiotics in the livestock sector endangers the lives of millions by contributing to increased human resistance to vital medicines12,23. See Box 1 for more information on health issues. In the US, these combined effects incur health costs of US$20bn per year12. Health issues related to meat consumption are not just a problem for high income countries, but also for middle income countries2. For example, in Brazil about 81% of men and 58% of women consume more meat than recommended2. This raises health concerns, especially considering the fact that nearly 50% of Brazilian adults are overweight24.

In addition to health impacts, LBFs have many negative environmental impacts. They are massive contributors to global GHG emissions and freshwater depletion12,18,17, as specified in Figure 1. Besides the impacts of livestock, the feed for livestock also substantially contributes to inefficient use of land, energy, and water13. Half of all plant proteins and one third of all calories produced worldwide are currently used as livestock feed12,25. The ‘feed conversion ratio’ (also described as ‘conversion efficiency’) of livestock is low, meaning that the amount of resources used per amount of LBF produced is very high12,13,26. To illustrate this, when accounting for feed production, the livestock industry requires more than three-quarters of global agricultural land12. Furthermore, the sector is a leading contributor to deforestation27 and species extinction12. Estimates are that competition for agricultural land and food would not exist if less crops would be used as livestock feed, and instead for direct human consumption27.

Towards Sustainable Diets . The transition towards sustainable and healthy dietary patterns that rely less on AP provides a win-win situation for both people and the environment28. Therefore, the goal of this sciene-policy briefs is to provide national governments and the international community with actionable pathways towards sustainable diets, entailing a shift from animal to plant protein. See ox 2 for the definitions of a sustainable diet and the aimed reduction of AP. Estimates show that if populations with the highest AP intake were to reduce their LBF consumption the planet would be able to feed the 10 billion people that are expected to live on the

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE AND HEALTHY DIETS

Box 1: Health Effects of LBF Consumption An increase in LBF consumption above the recommended level is related to several health concerns including diet-related chronic and non-communicable diseases12.

• The consumption of red and processed meats increases the risk of colon, rectal20,64 and prostate cancers19.

• An increase in processed meat intake to 50g per day is associated with a 42% increased risk of cardiovascular disease and 19% increased risk of diabetes65.

• 70% of all antibiotics used in domesticated animals are used in food production, and antibiotic resistance is one of the emerging health concern23.

Figure 1: Environmental impacts of LBF production

** £120 billion. Calculated on 20-12-2017 at a conversion rate of 1 Euro= 1,1841 US$. 43

earth by 2050 without further agricultural expansion13. Because the biggest win-wins for health and the environment can be achieved in populations with high levels of LBF consumption, they are the target audience of this science-policy brief7. See Box 2 for a definition of these populations. Scientists and policymakers have primarily focused on technological advances in production of LBF to increase the sustainability of current production processes. However, far greater attention needs to be paid to consumption practices7,10,13,29. Dietary choices, which are mainly based on automatic behaviour, are difficult to influence1,13. Therefore, strategies to change consumers’ choices should move beyond soft measures (like providing information and educational campaigns) towards interventions for fundamental and transformative change30. In order to achieve sustainable diets, a holistic approach is essential1,13.

Currently, the price of food products does not represent the true impact that these products have on the environment and society: many externalities are not reflected in the price that consumers pay21. Such externalities can be positive (e.g. a positively valued landscape), but many of the externalities of food systems are negative (e.g. land degradation)31. These externalities must be included in the true cost (TC) of LBF in order to disincentivise their consumption and thereby reduce their impact on the environment and society32–35. If TC were to be implemented for all products, foods such as LBF that are currently relatively cheap in spite of numerous negative externalities, would be comparatively more expensive than sustainably produced products31. This would stimulate producers to use more sustainable practices while stimulating a change in consumers’ dietary patterns. It is most important to implement TC for products with many externalities, like LBF, because changing the patterns of their consumption is a big step towards more sustainable diets3. This science-policy brief recommends the reflection of the TC of LBF in market prices in order to account for their unsustainable impacts. This would contribute to a transformation towards a sustainable and healthy society.

The True Cost of Livestock Based Foods .

What is True Cost? A TC analysis shows the monetized values of environmental (e.g. CO2 emissions, land degradation), economic (e.g employment)31 and social and health externalities (e.g. non-communicable diseases)21,31 The fact that externalities are not included in the prices that consumers currently pay for products does not in fact mean that consumers are not paying for those costs36. Ultimately, society will always pay the true cost of negative externalities - both evident costs and hidden ones31,36. However, the burden of paying for these costs is currently the primary burden of the most disadvantaged in society31. Consumers indirectly pay ‘reparation costs’ for the negative impacts of food products in the form of taxes, but also through a decline in personal and environmental health31,36. It is estimated that, without intervention, the societal cost of LBF products will rise in the coming years37. The taxation of products with negative externalities can stimulate consumption of more sustainable products38. Additionally, innovation funds could provide the means to stimulate the production of such sustainable products. Furthermore, dietary guidelines can be updated to provide

consumers with information on how to eat more healthily and sustainably. In the remainder of this brief, the aforementioned interventions will be further explained. In implementing true cost it is essential that consumers understand why prices change39. If there is no understanding, public support will be lacking. Clear information therefore needs to be provided on the impacts of LBF on health and the climate, as a result of high demand and high consumption12,39.

Difficulties with True Cost Calculations Implementing TC is the ideal situation, although it is difficult to include all of the four mentioned categories of externalities21, as it may not be possible to monetise all costs3,21 such as cultural costs31. Furthermore, costs may be incurred in places other than where the damage manifests, and by sectors other than those causing the damage21. In addition, detailed evidence and monetary valuation methods on location specific costs are lacking3. Currently, calculations on internalising externalities mainly focus on internalising environmental and economic costs. Nevertheless, more research should be done to incorporate social and health externalities3.

An increasing amount of actors are working on true costing 21, ranging from scientists (TEEB), businesses (TruCost), social enterprises (True Price), to non-profits (Food Tank) and philanthropic organisations (Global Alliance for the Future of Food) (an extended list of organisations that work on TC can be found in Appendix B.1). This shows increasing acknowledgement of the importance of internalising externalities. The aforementioned organisations do not all use the same indicators nor methods to calculate the price of TC. Therefore, an overarching research body is essential for sharing and establishing best practices on indicator use and measurement. An example of an estimation of the cost of externalities of the food system in the UK in 2017 has been estimated to be more than US$160** billion per year3.

Box 2: Definitions

Sustainable Diet: “Sustainable Diets are those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to the healthy lives of present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.”66

High Consuming Populations (HCPs): Regions that consume more than 60g of protein (combined plant and animal based) and 2,500 kilocalories per person per day (pppd). In general, these populations are currently mainly in developed countries13. However, many emerging economies are also developing into high consuming populations1,13,67. (Note: this definition, based on a global dataset, looks at averages across countries and regions13).

Reduced Animal Protein Consumption: The protein consumption of HCPs should have a maximum of 60g of proteins pppd, as part of a sustainable and nutritious diet. The recommendations focus specifically on reducing intake of AP and complementing the total intake of proteins with plant proteins. The proposed reduction, which would affect diets of approximately 2 billion people, would reduce agricultural land use and greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45% per person13.

44

Strategies for Action . To facilitate a transition towards sustainable diets, this science-policy brief proposes the implementation of TC in the market price of LBF. Implementation of TC mechanisms in specific countries must not create market distortions due to the changes in prices. In order to maintain a level playing field, equal rules for TC accounting should be institutionalised within an international framework that not only addresses the environmental impact of current protein production, but also governs the health impacts of excessive protein consumption. Within such a framework on sustainable diets, this science-policy brief suggests establishing three main proposals for such international policies. The following sections elaborate on the policy recommendations and explain their importance. The integration of these policies is necessary to contribute to the implementation of the TC for more sustainable diets.

1. Sustainable Dietary Guidelines Evidence-based sustainable dietary guidelines based on both environmental and nutritional indicators should be made available to populations to provide advice on consumption patterns. Currently, dietary guidelines rarely include environmental considerations. These therefore require special attention. They should serve as broad principles on the international level that can be implemented on a national scale, with respect to local cultures21. These principles could be developed by an international body, in collaboration with the WHO and FAO. Science shows strong arguments for producing a new set of sustainable and healthy dietary guidelines12,21. Setting such guidelines contributes to reaching international consensus on the definition of sustainable diets21.

2. Taxation: Lower Consumption of LBF Firstly, TC can be used to create public awareness about the negative environmental and health impacts of consumption patterns, particularly those related to consumption of LBF40. However, it is important to eventually add price-based instruments that implement TC and effectively change consumption behavior41. Taxes are recommended in order to internalise the externalities of LBF. The price of products with many negative externalities would increase, while the price of sustainable alternative products would be lower in comparison, leading to a decrease in consumption of LBF products38,42,41,43,44. There is a research gap with regard to accurate calculation methods for all externalities16. However, countries can begin by levying taxes on the environmental externalities, for which the calculation methods are most developed38,45.

Levying taxes on LBF products, the output of the livestock sector, on consumer-level, is both suitable and cost-efficient in internalising environmental externalities38,42,41,43,44. Output taxes on LBF are more optimal than emission-based taxes (per unit emission of GHGs) as GHGs are an intrinsic characteristic of the agricultural system and hard to measure on a single farm level. There is a considerable number of alternative plant-based food substitution possibilities38,42,41,43. Furthermore, output taxes should be differentiated by GHG emission-levels per food category, in order to get the most accurate pricing of the different environmental externalities of each food category41,45.

Eventually, the TC should incorporate not only environmental, but also economic, social and health externalities, and should be

applied to every food product. A revisioning of the entire tax and subsidy system is necessary for a truly integrated market system in which TC is incorporated. This would ensure that low-income groups are not disadvantaged through TC implementation measures44. In order to facilitate choices related to healthy and sustainable diets, the revenues of TC taxes could be used to stimulate sustainable diet initiatives3,44,46. The availability of alternative products is vital to this. Therefore, this science-policy brief suggests an innovation fund for the development of more plant-based products, which is explained in the next section.

3. Innovation fund In addition to taxation on LBF, this brief suggests the introduction of national innovation funds financed by national contributions and true cost tax revenues. These funds would support: 1) production of sustainable protein alternatives through the stimulation of new initiatives13 (such as ‘The Vegetarian Butcher’, which creates and produces innovative meat substitutes47, 2) research on innovative techniques for the replacement of meat by sustainable substitutes12,39, such as lab-based cultured meat13 and 3) the restructuring of producer practices towards more sustainable production systems13,48.

United Nations Framework on Sustainable Diets An international framework that commits signatories to the essential global transformation towards sustainable diets should be drafted12,49,50. A United Nations Framework on Sustainable Diets (UNFSD), similar to UNFCCC, should be established to host summits on sustainable diets. By advocating for a transition towards sustainable diets, the framework would support SDGs 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15. A feasibility study on the connection of the framework to existing UN bodies, such as the FAO and WHO, should be completed. Figure 2 visualises the UNFSD’s organs and further elaborates on the implementation of policy recommendations. The UNFSD would have a secretariat that facilitates summits on sustainable diets. Here, best practices on the three proposed strategies can be exchanged. By tying into existing UN research bodies, such as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), the framework would be able to provide advice on scientific matters related to international dietary guidelines and further calculation of true cost. Scientific consensus on the urgency of sustainable diets12,13,28,51 should support and encourage the political viability of the UNFSD. Given that the SDGs are representative of each nation’s commitment to sustainable development, and imply the need for sustainable and healthy diets, the creation of the UNFSD should align with member states’ interests.

National Action Now . In addition to the aforementioned framework and policy interventions it is essential that a transition towards sustainable diets is promoted in domestic policy by national governments. This domestic policy should focus on obtaining political and public support, thereby facilitating the execution and implementation of more sustainable diets. On an international level, this fosters an environment that promotes a shift and action towards sustainable diets. Table 1 illustrates potential policy interventions for national governments to implement.

United Nations Framework on Sustainable Diets

(UNFSD)

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)

True Cost calculations

International Sustainable

Dietary Guidelines

Innovation Funds: Best Practices

• Construct sustainable dietary guidelines based on the latest studies, involving an independent, interdisciplinary expert panel, representing different regions21.

• Consult civil society organisations and the food industry21.

• National governments must adopt the guidelines and adapt them to their local contexts12,21.

• Create international consensus on the shift towards sustainable diets and set clear goals for the future

• Respective implementations are left up to national policy makers allowing for a level playing field in the taxation of LBF and reduced emission leakage42.

• The UNFSD must promote and suggest methods for the implementation of TC.

• The secretariat of the UNFSD coordinates the exchange of best practices of innovations and funding methods.

• The innovation funds themselves are organised on a national level and potentially financed by revenues raised from true cost taxation41.

• Funds support innovations of sustainable alternative protein products to replace LBF products.

Secretariat

Summits: Agreements

and Protocols

Table 1: Policy intervention options encouraging dietary change

Julie Bos, Sanne Kruid, Thom van Stralen and Machteld Vergouw Figure 2: Overview UNFSD 45

Enabling Conditions . Fundamental changes in food systems, as suggested in this science-policy brief, are constrained by institutional and system ‘lock-in’, meaning resistance to change12,21. Scientific studies show that, although consumers are prepared to change their meat consumption habits, there is a cycle of inertia at the policy and governance level that hinders implementation of transformative possibilities10,21. In pursuing the development and implementation of true cost there are several conditions that food systems must meet: • Within the food system there should be a new paradigm that

focuses on wellbeing and sustainability and that takes environmental, social, and health considerations into account. This new paradigm should replace the productivist

paradigm that is primarily focussed on agricultural production and economic interests48,53,54.

• The power of governments and corporations in the food system should be balanced. At this moment, the power imbalance provides corporate entities with many benefits but prevents effective government regulation and public participation. Relationships between governments and corporations should encourage transparent participation and responsibility for global environmental and social issues53,55–61.

• The provision of information on sustainable dietary practices must facilitate responsible consumption. For example, information on emissions from food production should be openly available62.

• Governments and academic institutions should promote the importance of reliable information flows regarding nutritious and sustainable diets12.

• There is strong evidence that transparent and strong institutions are connected to sustainable development63. Therefore the development and enhancement of unambiguous, transparent institutions should be promoted6.

Key Recommendations • Implement the true cost of livestock based foods to

internalise externalities, to promote sustainable and healthy diets.

• International research is needed to further develop calculation methods to internalise environmental, social, health, and economic externalities.

• Establish evidence-based sustainable dietary guidelines as broad principles for consumers, producers, and policy makers.

• Review fiscal measurements to implement true cost, to stimulate the production and consumption of sustainable and healthy food products.

• Establish innovation funds to stimulate the production and availability of tasty and affordable alternatives to animal proteins.

• Establish the United Nations Framework on Sustainable Diets to achieve international consensus and begin the transition towards sustainable diets.

Table 1 Why Policy intervention options

Inform and empower public on sustainable diets

It is important to create public awareness about the health and environmental consequences of dietary choices. This will help foster public support and understanding for governmental action and will facilitate the mainstreaming of plant-based diets12,39,52.

• National sustainable dietary guidelines12,13,21,29,39

• Public education campaigns29,39

• Labelling and advertising regulation10,12,13

Influence the

adoption of more plant-based diets

Solely creating public awareness is not sufficient to change behaviour.

Therefore, sustainable alternatives must be available to ensure lasting change12,13,39.

• Public procurement (e.g. at school, hospital, and government)10,12,

13,33,43 • Expand the supply and

choice of plant- based alternatives12

• Support food-based industries and innovations that focus on sustainability12

Hard policies incentivizing sustainable diets

Influencing behaviour through choice adjustments and manipulation of pricing is the most effective and farthest reaching option. However, it is also the hardest to implement12,42.

• Set standards for sustainable diets 29

• Implement taxes on LBF10,12,13,29

• Review agricultural subsidies10

46

Bibliography

1. Allievi, F., Vinnari, M. & Luukkanen, J. Meat consumption and production - Analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends. J. Clean. Prod. 92, 142–151 (2015).

2. Carvalho, A. M. de, César, C. L. G., Fisberg, R. M. & Marchioni, D. M. L. Excessive meat consumption in Brazil: diet quality and environmental impacts. Public Health Nutr. 16, 1893–1899 (2013).

3. Fitzpatric, I., Youngh, R., Perry, M. & Rose, E. The Hidden Cost of UK Food. (2017).

4. FAO. Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture. 4, (2014).

5. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

6. Garnett, T. Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 72, 29–39 (2013).

7. Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F. & Campbell, J. Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 96, 487–493 (2016).

8. McKenzie, F. C. & Williams, J. Sustainable food production: constraints, challenges and choices by 2050. Food Secur. 7, 221–233 (2015).

9. Muller, A. & Schader, C. Efficiency, sufficiency, and consistency for sustainable healthy food. Lancet Planet. Heal. 1, e13–e14 (2017).

10. De Schutter, O. The transformative potential of the right to food. New York 56350, 1–27 (2014).

11. Vinnari, M. & Tapio, P. Sustainability of diets: From concepts to governance. Ecol. Econ. 74, 46–54 (2012).

12. Wellesley, L., Happer, C. & Froggatt, A. Changing Climate, Changing Diets Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption. Chatham House Report (2015).

13. World Resources Institute. Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Future. Creating a Sustainable Food Future 11, (2016).

14. Burlingame, B. Priority Agriculture- Linkages for Sustainable Diets. IOM Sustainable Diets (2013).

15. Mathijs, E. Exploring future patterns of meat consumption. Meat Sci. 109, 112–116 (2015).

16. Pretty, J. et al. Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 44, 263–283 (2001).

17. Gerber, P.J., S. et al. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO 14, (2013).

18. Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resour. Ind. 1–2, 25–36 (2013).

19. Allen, N. E. et al. Animal foods, protein, calcium and prostate cancer risk: The European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Br. J. Cancer 98, 1574–1581 (2008).

20. Larsson, S. C. & Wolk, A. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Cancer 119, 2657–2664 (2006).

21. Mason, P. & Lang, T. Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition Can Transform Consumption and the Food System. (Taylor and Francis, 2017).

22. Deckers, J. What policy should be adopted to curtail the negative global health impacts associated with the consumption of farmed animal products? Res Publica 16, 57–72 (2010).

23. UNEP. Frontiers 2017: Emerging Issues of Environmental Concern. (2017).

24. Vergnaud, A. et al. Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 92, 398–407 (2010).

25. Sansoucy, R. Livestock - a driving force for food security and sustainable development. World 3074(5389), 1035. (1995).

26. FAO. Sustainable Agriculture for Biodiversity - Biodiversity for Sustainable Agriculture. 105, (2013).

27. Stoll-Kleemann, S. & Schmidt, U. J. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Reg. Environ. Chang. 17, 1261–1277 (2017).

28. Garnett, T. What is a sustainable healthy diet? FCRN Discuss. Pap. (2014).

29. Vinnari, M. & Vinnari, E. A Framework for Sustainability Transition: The Case of Plant-Based Diets. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 27, 369–396 (2014).

30. Fuchs, D. et al. Power: the missing element in sustainable consumption and absolute reductions research and action. J. Clean. Prod. 132, 298–307 (2016).

31. Cullen, S. et al. The Real Cost of Food: Examining the Social, Environmental, and Health Impacts of Producing Food. (2015).

32. Barley, D., Holmes, L. & McMahon, P. What Price Resilience? towards sustainable and Secure Food Systems. Prince’s Charities Int. Sustain. Unit 70 (2011).

33. Briggs, A. D. M. et al. Assessing the impact on chronic disease of incorporating the societal cost of greenhouse gases into the price of food: an econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ Open 3, 12 (2013).

34. Säll, S. & Gren, I. M. Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden. Food Policy 55, 41–53 (2015).

35. Thi, T. L. N., Laratte, B., Guillaume, B. & Hua, A. Quantifying environmental externalities with a view to internalizing them in the price of products, using different monetization models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109, 13–23 (2016).

36. Tegtmeier, E. M. & Duffy, M. D. External Costs of Agricultural Production in the United States. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2, 1–20 (2004).

37. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contrib. Work. Groups I, II III to Fifth Assess. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang. Core Writ. Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 p. 1–112 (2014). doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324

38. Springmann, M. et al. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 69–74 (2017).

39. Beverland, M. B. Sustainable Eating: Mainstreaming Plant-Based Diets In Developed Economies. J. Macromarketing 34, 369–382 (2014).

40. Reisch, L., Eberle, U. & Lorek, S. Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 9, 7–25 (2013).

47

41. Edjabou, L. D. & Smed, S. The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets - The case of Denmark. Food Policy 39, 84–96 (2013).

42. Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F. & Mohlin, K. Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: Rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Clim. Change 108, 159–184 (2010).

43. Schmutzler, A. & Goulder, L. H. The choice between emission taxes and output taxes under imperfect monitoring: A comment. Econ. Bull. 17, 51–64 (1997).

44. Smed, S. Financial penalties on foods: The fat tax in Denmark. Nutr. Bull. 37, 142–147 (2012).

45. Goodland, R. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecol. Econ. 23, 189–200 (1997).

46. Bailey, R. & Harper, D. R. Reviewing Interventions for Healthy and Sustainable Diets. 24 (2015).

47. De Vegetarische Slager. De Vegetarische Slager. 1 (2017). Available at: https://www.devegetarischeslager.nl/. (Accessed: 15th December 2017)

48. Maxwell, S. & Slater, R. Food policy old and new. Dev. Policy Rev. 21, 531–553 (2003).

49. Porritt, J. & McCarthy, M. The Global Protein Challenge. (2016).

50. Stice, C., Olson, S. & Sheldon, S. De-risking Protein Strategies Using a Systems Approach : A Novel Analytical Framework. Luxresearch 5–7 (2015).

51. Westhoek, H. et al. The Protein Puzzle. The protein puzzle (PBL: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2011).

52. Tara Garnett, Sophie Mathewson, Angelides, P. & Borthwick, F. Policies and actions to shift eating patterns: What works? FCRN/Chatham House 85 (2015).

53. Hospes, O. & Brons, A. Food system governance: a systematic literature review. in Food Systems Governance: Challenges for justice, equality and human rights Edited (eds. Kennedy, A. & Liljeblad, J.) 13–42 (Routledge, 2016).

54. Lang, T., Barling, D. & Caraher, M. Food, Social Policy and the Environment: Towards a New Model. Soc. Policy Adm. 35, 538–558 (2001).

55. Challies, E. The Limits to Voluntary Private Social Standards in Global Agri-food System Governance. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 20, 175–195 (2012).

56. Friedmann, H. The International Political Economy of Food: A Global Crisis. Int. J. Heal. Serv. 25, 511–538 (2004).

57. Henson, S. Private agrifood governance: conclusions, observations and provocations. Agric. Human Values 28, 443–451 (2011).

58. Konefal, J., Mascarenhas, M. & Hatanaka, M. Governance in the global agro-food system: Backlighting the role of transnational supermarket chains. Agric. Human Values 22, 291–302 (2005).

59. Oosterveer, P., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. Food, globalization and sustainability. (Routledge, 2012).

60. Sommerville, M., Essex, J. & Le Billon, P. The ‘Global Food Crisis’ and the Geopolitics of Food Security. Geopolitics 19, 239–265 (2014).

61. Vivero Pol, J. L. The Food Commons Transition: Collective actions for food and nutrition security. Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue (International Institute of Social Studies., 2014).

62. Meadows, D. & Sustainability Institute. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. World 1–12 (1999). doi:10.1080/02604020600912897

63. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A. & Trebbi, F. Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development. J. Econ. Growth 9, 131–165 (2004).

64. World Cancer Research Fund & American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Amer Inst Cancer Res. 1, (2007).

65. Micha, R., Wallace, S. K. & Mozaffarian, D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121, 2271–2283 (2010).

66. Burlingame, B. & Dernini, S. Sustainable diets and biodiversity : directions and solutions for policy, research and action. (FAO, 2012). P.7

67. Sans, P. & Combris, P. World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961-2011). Meat Sci. 109, 106–111 (2015).

48

Appendix 2A: Organisations Working on True Cost Accounting

Organisation Founded Located Link to website

Compassion in World Farming (CiWF) 1967 The Netherlands https://www.ciwf.org.uk

Eosta – Nature & More 2013 The Netherlands http://www.eosta.com/en

Food Tank 2013 - https://foodtank.com

Global Alliance for the Future of Food (GAFF)

2012 - https://futureoffood.org

IAP Interacademy Partnership 2005 Italy http://www.interacademies.net

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)

1972 Globally, but headquartered in Germany

https://www.ifoam.bio

International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES)

2015 - http://www.ipes-food.org

Natural Capital Coalition 2014 UK https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org

Sustainable Food Trust – UK True Cost Accounting Working Group

2011 UK http://sustainablefoodtrust.org/key-issues/true-cost-accounting/

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)

March 2007

Switzerland http://www.teebweb.org

Trucost 2000 Globally, but headquartered in UK

https://www.trucost.com

True Price - The Netherlands http://trueprice.org

49

Appendix 2B: Expert List

Experts from different fields and sectors were interviewed through open and semi-structured interviews. in the first weeks of the projects the interviews were broad and explorative. Later in the process, the interviews became more in-depth and semi-structured, based on topics and aspects listed by the specific subgroups. Besides providing expert knowledge through interviews, some experts were also consulted for feedback on the policy briefs. A full list of consulted experts can be found in the table below.

Name Organisation/ Institution/ Company Country Validation

Huub Reinaarts Wageningen University and Research The Netherlands

Thom Achterbosch Wageningen University and Research The Netherlands

Mia MacDonald Brighter Green The United States of America Yes

Hans Dagevos Wageningen University and Research The Netherlands

Louise Fresco Wageningen University and Research The Netherlands

Jaap Korteweg Vegetarische slager The Netherlands

Krijn Poppe Wageningen Economic Research The Netherlands Yes

Jessica Duncan Wageningen University and Research The Netherlands Yes

Markus Vinnari Tampere University Finland Finland

Jeroen Candel Wageningen University and Research The Netherlands

Willy Baltussen Wageningen University and Research The Netherlands

Koen Boone Wageningen Economic Research The Netherlands Yes

Packaging Industry Waste Management

Industry

Input Differentiated taxes & Representatives

Input Representatives

Output Financial benefits for

use of sustainable packaging

Output Compensation for activities & investment in waste management

Innovations in recycling technologies

70% of all plastic waste ends up in landfills, oceans

and nature

Governments

Regulations that enable the establishment of a National Resource Fund

Research Institutions

Investing in research and development

Smart design

This science -policy brief addresses SDGs 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 17

From waste to resource…

…through a National Resource Fund

ZERO PLASTIC WASTE

51

Key Messages

Resource systems need to become circular. This involves a shift to treating used plastics as a resource rather than as waste.

To overcome the lack of coherent investment and research in innovative recycling technologies and sustainable packaging design, coordination is needed.

A National Resource Fund must be established, which instates Extended Producer Responsibility of the packaging industry through financial measures and convenes representatives of relevant sectors. This National Resource Fund can perform the coordination of, and investment, in circular plastic resource systems.

Moving towards a zero plastic waste society, creates business opportunities in both sustainable packaging and integrated waste management.

Introduction

70% of all plastic waste currently ends up in landfills, oceans, and natural ecosystems. Decomposition is slow, releasing harmful substances that endanger terrestrial and aquatic life and impede ecosystem functioning1,2. Nowadays, 90% of all seabirds are found with plastic in their stomachs, and this number is expected to rise to 99% by 20502,3. Over the last fifty years, the production of plastic has increased twenty-fold, due to an enormous increase in single-use plastics within the packaging industry*. This is expected to continue to grow exponentially due to trends of global economic growth3,4,5. Packaging constitutes the largest segment of plastic production and therefore contributes substantially to the detrimental environmental effects of plastic pollution, of which the ‘plastic soup’ is a devastating example6,7. Plastic waste also has toxic effects on the environment and the organisms living in it. This toxicity moves up the food chain, where it has potential harmful effects for human health via bioaccumulation8,9.

Nonetheless, plastic is a versatile resource that can be recycled. Recycling* all global plastic solid waste could save 176 billion USD annually10. Landfills can therefore be seen as ‘resource graveyards’. Additionally, plastic that does not end up in landfills or in the natural environment is often incinerated, the least efficient waste treatment* method after landfilling11.

Focus: In a transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies, reduced waste streams, closed resource cycles and the smart use of renewable resources are key12. In order to reduce resource waste and to decouple economic growth from increased waste generation3,5,13, the focus of this science-policy brief is on two key developments: 1) Designing efficient waste management systems*. To accomplish this, it is essential to bring relevant actors together and make them aware of the importance of waste management3.

Furthermore, it is important to create or improve waste management infrastructure, expand plastic recycling, introduce Extended Producer Responsibility*, and reduce the production and use of single-use plastics3,4,14. 2) Sustainable design of packaging. It is important that packaging is designed in such a way that it is easy to separate and treat, as this is essential in the recycling or composting process15. Furthermore, investments in Research and Development (R&D) of bio-consistent* plastics need to be increased or supplemented,1,5. Increasing the recycling rate, and promoting the use of bio-consistent plastics provides acknowledged economic opportunities1,5,16,. Such transformations can lead to responsible production, and therefore responsible consumption, of plastic packaging. However, several challenges have been identified:

Challenges: The main challenge for achieving the goal of transforming plastic waste streams into valuable resources, is that plastic waste is currently seen as a costly burden, instead of a valuable resource17,24. This challenge is complicated by the following obstacles. There is an inadequate supply of high-quality, recyclable, cheap, and functional sustainable packaging* available:

Most plastic packaging products are not ‘designed for recycling’, meaning that they cannot be separated and recycled into clean resource streams*5,15,18,19,20,21;

Most governmental policy regarding waste, is focused on maximising collection, rather than improving the quality of the output of the recycling process21,22,23;

Investments from public and private actors into new technologies in plastic separation*, recycling and bioplastics are fragmented18 ,48;

Developing bio-consistent plastics is a relatively new field of science and needs more research & development in order to become competitive in the

current packaging market18,24,34,35,52. There is a lack of demand and incentive to use sustainable plastic in the packaging industry:

At the moment, producing and using virgin plastic is more cost-efficient than recycling

plastic or using bio-consistent plastic. This reduces the incentive to switch to sustainable plastics19,20 52;

Plastic packaging is a by-product, not the main product being sold. By-products are

not a key concern for producers and therefore need to be cheap20,24,25.

However, shifting from packaging waste to resource also involves a challenge for successful sustainable development. Even though the desired shift increases the efficiency* and consistency* in resource use for packaging, there is a risk of inducing a ‘rebound effect'. The rebound effect can be described as “a behavioural or other systemic response to a measure taken to reduce environmental impacts that offsets the effect of the measure”26(p.86). This means that if plastic can be produced more efficiently, there is a risk of increasing the absolute amount of plastic that is produced27.

ZERO PLASTIC WASTE

$176 billion

can be saved each

year by recycling all global plastic solid

waste

52

Overcoming the challenges: This science-policy brief proposes the establishment of National Plastic Resource funds. The fund is based on Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging-using companies, which is in line with the principles of Polluter Pays and Internalising Externalities28,29. The main aim of such a national fund is to steer waste management and product development towards circular resource loops. For this, the fund brings relevant actors together to participate in the design of sustainable waste management systems and implements differentiated tax regulations and subsidies that promote sustainable practices. One of its goals is the streamlining of investments, research into plastic recycling and the development of bio-consistent plastics. When the use of sustainable plastics becomes more cost-efficient than the use of virgin plastics, business opportunities are created in sustainable practices.

Innovative Recycling Technologies The creation of a functioning waste management system requires the fulfilment of certain steps. Plastics have to be collected, separated from other waste streams, further separated into clean plastic streams, and eventually treated30. In this section, the focus lies on the latter two steps.

Current plastic separation and recycling technologies are not equipped to turn discarded plastics into clean streams that can be used for high quality applications, such as packaging. Neither are current waste management systems equipped for the efficient composting* or recycling of bioplastics18. Technological improvements must be made on plastic separation and treatment. These technologies must align with sustainable design innovations19. This will make a greater proportion of plastic waste streams available for separation and treatment, which in return creates business opportunities in recycling plastics and increases the demand for used plastics. This can encourage collection practices, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where waste management systems are often absent31. The effectiveness of expanding collection has limits, it can only lead to stabilisation, and not a decrease, of plastic pollution22. Creating valuable resource flows from plastic can become a pull-factor for improving collection, as it becomes economically attractive22. The science-policy brief therefore focusses on enabling an increased demand and treats collection as a potential positive externality.

The challenge of separation lies in the fact that current technologies are only able to separate four to five different polymer groups, although there are around 250 different types of polymer18, including various bio-based polymers. The 250 polymers differ in viscosity, colour, additives and other characteristics32. To repurpose plastic waste streams, clean and pure plastic streams with identical characteristics are required, as blended plastics are difficult to recycle and thus have a lower value than monomaterials19. In order to separate all types of plastics, new advanced technologies such as logarithmic separation18 and marking technologies22 have to be developed and scaled up. The challenge related to treatment is that the usual mechanical recycling process (melting down), cannot be continuously applied because plastic quality decreases slightly through each iteration of the process10. Furthermore, some fossil-based and bio-consistent plastics are not suitable for melting down practices, since the substance is not able to melt5. Because of the previously mentioned reasons, other methods of plastic

treatment should be considered, such as chemical recycling for fossil-based plastics or composting for bio-consistent plastics. Several innovative separation and treatment technologies are listed and explained in Appendix 3D.

Sustainable Packaging Design Although improving separation and treatment technologies offers great opportunities, sustainable design is indispensable for closing the resource cycle15. This means that packaging has to be designed for recycling and should consist of sustainable materials. These two concepts are described below, while technical details and elaborations can be found in Appendices 3D and 3E. 1. Designing for recycling. Although innovative separation and

treatment methods of plastic waste can improve the recyclability of plastics, it is vital that packaging is designed to fit these technologies. One way to design for recycling is modular packaging, which allows different materials within one package to be easily separated. Another method to reduce the amount of plastics to be separated is using fewer types of polymers in general. It is also important to phase out non-separable/recyclable plastic streams. In packaging consisting bio-consistent materials, blends (with fossil-based plastics) are often used to increase the functionality of bioplastics33. As this is problematic for recycling or composting, sustainable design should aim at designing products with either good separation possibilities or similar biodegradability of all used blends24,34. Furthermore, since bio-consistent materials are often not suitable for 100% harmless biodegradation in natural systems (before full decomposition it can, for example, obstruct water ways or get stuck in animal guts35), it is important to emphasise that these materials should therefore not be disposed of in nature36. This should be clearly communicated to consumers.

2. Using sustainable materials. Recycled plastics. In order to make plastic recycling and sustainable design worthwhile, it is essential that packaging-producers are also willing to use these recycled streams in their production processes19. Therefore, recycled plastic streams have to become more cost efficient than virgin materials, and the supply of clean recycled plastic streams must increase37. Bio-consistent plastics. Bio-consistent plastics can be produced from a variety of bio-materials. It is important however, that the production of bio-consistent materials does not compete with food, energy, and water resources, or lead to soil degradation38,33. Currently, bio-consistent plastics are undergoing exciting developments in efficient and sustainable resource use, using for example residual streams in food production35,39. In this way, resources can be used in full extent for multiple, non-competing ends. Hence, food and bio-consistent plastics can be produced simultaneously34,40. Sustainable design should aim at bio-consistent plastics with the lowest environmental footprint* possible, while providing most co-benefits in terms of resource use (see Appendix 3E)34,35,41.

The following section suggests the introduction of National Resource Funds.

53

Where the idea comes from... There are already examples of (inter)national waste platforms or funds, such as ‘Afvalfonds’42 in the Netherlands, ‘Der Grüne Punkt’43 in Germany, or ‘Cempre44’ in Colombia. These funds were set up by packaging producers and importers, in response to the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility by their respective governments. The objective of, for example, Afvalfonds, is to increase the rate and development of plastic recycling, aiming for a circular economy. This is attempted by setting a mandatory contribution (tax) for packaging producers, users and importers. With this money, Afvalfonds finances and improves the waste management system in the Netherlands through subsidies and investment in research and technology. Since its introduction in the Netherlands, recycling rates have significantly increased45. However, the increased recycling rates have not yet caused large environmental benefits. The reason for this is that Afvalfonds mainly incentivises the collection and recycling of large amounts of plastic waste, rather than encouraging high quality recycling*46. However, as identified above, it is the high quality of recycled materials combined with financial benefits for adopting sustainable packaging design, that can increase the demand for used plastics and can consequently lead to closed plastic resource systems. Hence the National Resource Fund aims to build on the concept of the existing waste funds (like Afvalfonds), while adding several features that are explained on this page. (See Appendix 3C for further details).

Tax and subsidy regulations

Due to the increasing influence of corporations, involving companies in large-scale societal change is essential47,48. Based on the principles of Extended Producer Responsibility and the ‘Polluter Pays’, the respective national government enforces a differentiated tax on produced and imported packaging. The differentiation is based on the design and amount of packaging. Packaging impeding efficient recycling or produced from unsustainable materials – as explained in the previous sections – are discouraged by higher taxes. Tax reduction or exemption can occur when new innovations in sustainable packaging or practices that enable improved waste management are adopted. The Fund subsequently distributes the earned tax revenues over several finance streams: 1) subsidies for the waste management industry as compensation for their waste management activities; 2) investments in implementing new innovations in recycling technologies and sustainable packaging design; 3) funding for research in improving the waste management systems and the production and design of sustainable packaging. The research must take into account the pertinent importance of coherence between the waste management system and packaging industry, as well as the functionality and implement-ability of the innovations.

Roundtable of actors The National Resource Fund will be set up by packaging producers and importers, and waste management companies in response to the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility.

To facilitate cooperation, the National Resource Fund needs to bring together representatives of the most relevant actors from the waste and packaging industries. A collaboration between these actors, and if needed other stakeholders such as NGO’s or research institutes, is essential to make coherent and comprehensive steps in creating sustainable packaging and to implement proper plastic waste management. These actors must come together in order to determine the main gaps that inhibit the transition towards a circular plastic system and set out common goals and standards for sustainable packaging and waste practices. To make efficient use of existing knowledge and connections, existing platforms such as Ceflex49, PetCore50 and Recoup51 (industry initiated platforms for circular economy practices in waste), should be involved. In countries where waste funds already exist – such as Afvalfonds in the Netherlands – the existing organisation should form the basis of the National Resource Fund in order to avoid repetition and complexity. In other countries, the first step would be to establish such a fund.

Investment in Research & Development As mentioned earlier coherent investment is needed in research on sustainable packaging design and recycling technologies (R) and in the implementation of these innovations (D)24,34,48,52. Especially the gap between R&D needs to be addressed. This is where the National Resource Fund can play an important role. First, it should invest in research on the functionality of innovations and especially the applicability of a coherent packaging and waste management system. Second, packaging and waste management companies face difficulties in assessing which innovations meet their needs and are environmentally sustainable and cost-effective24,34. The disparities in assessment tools result in ineffective, fragmented or an overall lack of, investments48. However, collaborative, large-scale investment in innovations is needed for a shift towards circular plastic resource systems22. The investments must be coordinated to assure an efficient waste management system with high quality recycled plastic streams and sustainable upscaling of bio-consistent plastics. The fund can stimulate this by developing assessment tools for innovation investments and standards for sustainable practices34,48. The fund can also invest in R&D directly.

Inspiring a waste to resource movement The National Resource Fund can play a role in propagating sustainable design and waste management to the public by, for example, promoting innovations like mycelium plastic35 (from fungal threats) or plastic from micro-algae34 (see Appendix 3E) to the general public. Elsewhere, it can support societal initiatives, like the Amsterdam WASTED53 initiative - which has created a successful reward system to encourage separation of household waste using discount coupons, or the ‘Living Lab’54 - a lab where designers can come and test ideas for using recycled materials, that promote the shift towards zero plastic waste.

The National Resource Fund aims to create a circular plastic resource system* in which waste management practices are aligned with sustainable design.

National Resource Fund

Bring relevant actors together Introduce differentiated

taxation and subsidy system Invest coherently in Research

& Development

54

Governance

National Implementation In order to make the National Resource Fund function successfully, the whole packaging industry should ideally contribute to the fund. This is most likely to occur when the taxes are mandatory. However, the fund is about more than coordinating finance flows. In order to engage all relevant actors around the table, it is necessary to create a feeling of urgency amongst them55,56. The actors should realise that putting effort into innovation is beneficial. This feeling of urgency can, for example, be established by the following policy tools:

- Setting time-bound, measurable goals that show that the path towards a circular economy is inevitable.

- Implementing strict measures, such as banning certain packaging materials24,56.

Least-developed countries (LDCs) Because of the high degree of organisational structures required, high costs and dependence on a strong government and tax system, the National Resource Fund model is not directly applicable to all countries57,58. However, even in less organised countries or countries where corruption is an obstacle, a fund that brings together all relevant actors can be very valuable in designing a sustainable waste management system. The fund can be effective even without the underlying compensation system, as it can identify where investments are most needed in the specific host country. Developed countries can financially support LDCs through development aid or can invest in R&D suitable for LDCs. Another challenge that developed countries can help tackle is that of international property rights, such as patents, which can currently prevent governments and companies from using new innovations and technologies59.

International coordination The role of the UN in realising National Resource Funds is to promote the concept at the 2018 High Level Political Forum and to encourage as many countries as possible to join this movement. At the meeting, the UN can arrange agreements and partnerships with interested governments. In order to coordinate international investments, track progress, and define international standards, the World Resource Forum (WRF) can be used as an international coordination vehicle to govern and coordinate National Resource Funds. In this way, fragmentation between countries can be prevented.

Key Recommendations:

United Nations Division on Sustainable Development Advocate the concept at the High Level Political Forum

2018;

Ensure international coordination through a governing organisation, such as the World Resources Forum.

National governments

Establish a national fund with representatives from the plastic packaging and waste industry;

Instate extended producer responsibility of packaging companies by implementing differentiated tax regulations on packaging. The tax revenues are collected by the National Resource Fund.

National resource fund

Streamline investments in high quality recycling, alternative materials and waste management systems, as well as research and innovations;

Coordinate foreign investment in waste management systems in the Least Developed Countries;

Facilitate a shift in the perception of plastic packaging: from Waste to Resource.

Looking Forward Opportunities: The proposed plastic fund can improve plastic recycling and catalyse an increase in the use of bio-consistent plastics. However, several fossil-based plastic and non-biodegradable bioplastics currently demonstrate favourable characteristics (especially with regards to food packaging). For those, an efficient recycling system is needed which can facilitate the re-use of already existing plastics that now remain in landfills and the natural environment. This can save billions of dollars, restore natural ecosystems, and make plastic recycling a business case, rather than a burden. It offers significant economic opportunities, especially for low income countries.

Considerations: In all cases, one must be aware of unintended consequences of new technologies and activities, such as the rebound effect. It is desirable to reduce the use of plastic packaging to the minimum level that is needed for an efficient economy. Apart from unintended consequences, geographical differences in needs and capacities must be taken into account. Investment opportunities must not solely be judged on what is best, but also on what is needed locally. Further research should focus on assessment tools for innovative investments and clear overviews of innovations and their requirements and trade-offs.

Broadening the scope: In this science-policy brief, the focus has been on plastic packaging. However, when establishing the resource funds, this focus can be expanded to other waste streams as well. The fund can serve as a continuous tool to move in the direction of a circular packaging system, and ultimately a completely circular resource system. The aim is to transform towards a sustainable and resilient society that has no Waste, only Resources.

Lise Alkema, Janna Fleuren, Ivo Meijer, Keithya Oung Ty, Sri Vaishnavi Ramesh, Eline Schothorst

55

Bibliography

1 Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., Law, L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), 1-5.

2 Wilcox, C., Van Sebille, E., & Hardesty, B. D. (2015). Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(38), 11899-11904.

3 Worm, B. (2015). Silent spring in the ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(38), 11752-11753.

4 Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., ... & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768-771.

5 Carey, J. (2017). News Feature: On the brink of a recycling revolution?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(4), 612-616.

6 Borrelle, S. B., Rochman, C. M., Liboiron, M., Bond, A. L., Lusher, A., Bradshaw, H., & Provencher, J. F. (2017). Opinion: Why we need an international agreement on marine plastic pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(38), 9994-9997 7 Marks, K., & Howden, D. (2008). The world's rubbish dump: a garbage tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan. The Independent, 25, 2008. 8 Zarfl, C., Fleet, D., Fries, E., Galgani, F., Gerdts, G., Hanke, G., & Matthies, M. (2011). Microplastics in oceans. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 1589-1591. 9 Galloway, T. S., & Lewis, C. N. (2016). Marine microplastics spell big problems for future generations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(9), 2331-2333. 10 Garcia, M.,J., Robertson, M.L. (2017). The future of plastics recycling. Science, 358(6365), 870 - 872. 11 Recycling.nl. (2017). Ladder van Lansink - De Afvalhiërarchie. Retrieved 12 13, 2017, from Recycling.nl: http://www.recycling.nl/ladder-van-lansink.html 12 Peters, W., E.J. Goedvolk, M. Westerhoff, E.Petersen, T. van Velzen (28-11-2017). Symposium Toekomst van Plastic. Enschede: Circles Saxion 13 Braungart, M. (2013). Upcycle to eliminate waste: The chemist recasts materials in an endless loop. Nature, 494(7436), 174-175.

14 E.J.. Goedvolk, T. van Velzen (28-11-2017). Symposium Toekomst van Plastic. Enschede: Circles Saxion 15 E.J.. Goedvolk, E. Petersen, T. van Velzen (28-11-2017). Symposium Toekomst van Plastic. Enschede: Circles Saxion

16 Duu-Hwa, L (2016) ‘biobased economies in Asia: Economic analysis of development of bio-based industry in China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. International Journey of Hydrogen Energy, 41 (7), pp. 4333-4346. 17 T. van Velzen, E.Petersen (28-11-2017). Symposium Toekomst van Plastic. Enschede: Circles Saxion 18 Rem, P. Personal communication, Delft University, 6 12 2017 19 Peters, E. Personal communication, Scherpenzeel, 4 12 2017 20 ten Klooster, R. Personal communication, University Twente, 28-11-2017 21 Rem, P. (2017). Beloon hoogwaardige recycling. Retrieved 13 12, 2017, from de Ingenieur: https://www.deingenieur.nl/artikel/beloon-hoogwaardige-recycling 22 World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company. (2016). The New Plastics Economy — Rethinking the future of plastics 23 M. Westerhoff (28-11-2017). Symposium Toekomst van Plastic. Enschede: Circles Saxion 24 Schroen, K. Personal communication, Wageningen University, 30 11 2017 25 Anonymous, Personal communication, Company from food and beverage industry, 1 12 2017 26 Hertwich, E. G. (2005). Consumption and the rebound effect: An industrial ecology perspective. Journal of industrial ecology, 9(1‐2), 85-98. 27 Berkhout, P. H., Muskens, J. C., & Velthuijsen, J. W. (2000). Defining the rebound effect. Energy policy, 28(6), 425-432.

28Beyerlin, U., & Marauhn, T. (2011). International environmental law. Bloomsbury Publishing.

29 Tempels, T. Personal communication, Wageningen UR, 28 11 2017 30 Rigamonti, L., Grosso, M., Magnani, S., Møller, J., Martinez Sanchez, V., Christensen, T. H. (2014). Environmental evaluation of plastic waste management scenarios. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 58, 42-53. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.012

31 Khatib, I, A. (2011) Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries: Future Challenges and Possible

56

Opportunities. In S. Kumar (Red), Integrated Waste Management (volume II) (pp. 36-48). Hebron, Palestine: Palestine Polytechnic University 32 Van der Oever, M., Molenveld, K., van der Zee, M., Bos, H. (2017). Bio-based Biodegradable Plastics- Facts and Figures.

33 Odegard, I., S. Nusselder, E.R. Lindgreen, G. Bergsma, L. de Graaff (2017). Biobased Plastics in a Circular Economy. CE Delft: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment.

34 Wijffels, R. Personal communication, Algaeparc, 29 11 2017

35 Wosten, H. Personal communication, Utrecht University, 5 12 2017 36 Molenveld, K., M. van den Oever., H. Bos. Biobased Packaging Catalogue. Groene Grondstoffen. Wageningen: Wageningen University

37 PCE. (2017). The Usage of Recycled Plastics Materials by Plastic Converters in Europe. Polymer Comply Europe. EuPC.

38 Kawaguchi, H., C. Ogino, A. Kondo (2017). Microbial conversion of biomass into bio-based polymers Bioresource Technology. 245, 1664-1673

39 Bluemink, E.D., F. van Nieuwenhuijzen, E. Wypkema, C.A. Uiterlinde. Bio-plastic (poly-hydroxy-alkanoate) production from municipal sewage sludge in the Netherlands: a technology push or a demand driven process? Water Science & Technology. 74 (2): 353-358

40 Snell, K.D., O.P. Peoples (2009) PHA bioplastic: A value-added coproduct for biomass biorefineries. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 3, 456-467

41 Checchini, C (2017). Bioplastics made from upcycled food waste. Prospects for their use in the field of design. TheDesign Journal. 20 (1): S1596-S1610

42 Afvalfonds Verpakkingen. (2017). Home. Retrieved 12 2017, from Afvalfonds Verpakkingen: https://afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl

43 Der Grüne Punkt. (2017). Company. Retrieved 12 2017, from Der Grüne Punkt: https://www.gruener-punkt.de/en/company/der-gruene-punkt.html

44 Cempre. (2017). Inicio. Retrieved 12 2017, from Cempre - Compromiso Empresarial para el Reciclaje: https://cempre.org.co

45 Afvalfonds Verpakkingen. (2015). Van verpakking naar grondstof. Leidschendam: Afvalfonds Verpakkingen.

46 CPB Communication. (2017). The circular economy of plastics: from raw materials to waste. The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis 47 Tempels, T., M. Verweij. (2017). Understanding political responsibility in corporate citizenship: towards a shared responsibility for the common good. Journal of Global Ethics, 13 (1), 90-108 48 Alkema, B. Personal communication, Eluced, 21 11 2017 49 Ceflex. (2017). Driving towards Circular Economy. Retrieved 12 2017, from Ceflex: https://ceflex.eu/ 50 Petcore Europe (2017). Petcore Europe Activities. Retrieved 12 2017, from Petcore Europe: http://www.petcore-europe.org/petcore-europe-activities 51 Recoup RECycling Of Used Plastics Limited. (2017). Welcome to RECOUP. Retrieved 12 2017, from Recoup: http://www.recoup.org/ 52 Moeliana, H., Personal communication, Enviplast. 5 12 2017 53 WASTED. (2017). Home. Retrieved 14 12 2017, from Wasted Lab: https://wastedlab.nl/en/#home 54 Searious Business. (2017). About. Retrieved 14 12 2017, from Searious Business: https://www.seariousbusiness.com/about-1/ 55 de Groot, F.H., Personal communication, Dutch Ministry of Defence, 16 12 2017 56 Alkema, H., Personal communication, Dutch Mininstry of Defence, 20 12 2017 57 Asher, M. G. (2001, May). Design of tax systems and corruption. In Conference on “Fighting Corruption: Common Challenges and Shared Experiences”, Singapore (pp. 10-11).

58 Van den Berg, S. Personal communication, Waste, 27 11 2017 59 WTO. (2017). Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Retrieved 12 12, 2017, from World Trade Organisation: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm#WhatAre

57

Appendix 3A: Glossary

This glossary explains some of the terminology used in the science-policy brief. The definitions are formulations of authors of the brief, unless referenced as otherwise.

Bio-consistent plastics: Bioplastics that are bio-based (made from renewable biological resources) and biodegradable (decomposable by micro-organisms such as bacteria or fungi, into water and carbon dioxide).

Clean resource streams are resource streams that are not polluted by other materials. This makes a resource stream easier to recycle in a high quality way.

Composting is an end-of-lfe treatment for bio-consistent plastics in which the material is turned into fertiliser. This mostly happens under controlled circumstances in special composting factories12.

Consistency: This strategy aims to align production processes and material flows with natural resource cycles in order to avoid the production of harmful waste1,2. Therefore, renewable resources are preferred, under the condition that they are used within their limits of regeneration. When using non-natural materials, the resources should be recycled in a closed loop system. Like efficiency, this requires technological innovations and focuses on decoupling natural resource use from economic growth3,1,5 Efficiency is directed at using resources in such a way as to generate a higher output with the same or lower input, in order to achieve the highest possible resource productivity4. It focuses on decoupling resource use from economic growth5. Environmental footprint is the effect that a person, company, product, etc. has on the environment, for example the amount of natural resources that they use and the amount of harmful gases that they produce 6. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach “under which producers are given a significant responsibility – financial and/or physical – for the end-of-life treatment of post-consumer products”7. High quality recycling is recycling that preserves the materials’ functional and economic values and does not “downgrade” the material. Packaging industry: The term ‘packaging industry’ implies companies that use, produce and/or import plastic packaging. Recycling: In this report, recycling includes both the proces of plastic separation and treatment. (Circular) Resource Systems: Resource systems include networks of resource flows and actors that constitute the exploitation and subsequent trading and use of resources. A resource systems is 100 % circular when the flow of resources is closed-looped, which means that the value of materials is preserved and nothing is wasted8 Separation: In this report, separation relates to the separation of different types of plastics into “clean” plastic (mono-)streams that have smilar characteristics. Sustainable packaging/plastics: In this policy brief, the term ‘sustainable plastic’ or ‘sustainable packaging’ refers to plastics and materials that are designed for after-life treatment (recycling or composting), and consist of recycled plastic and/or bio-consistent plastic. Treatment is the process in which the separated plastics waste streams are turned into new plastics again. Waste management system: Waste management encompasses all processes and resources that are needed for the collection, transportation, and processing of garbage, sewage, and other waste products9.

APPENDICES ZERO PLASTIC WASTE

58

Appendix 3B: List of Consulted Experts

Experts from different fields and sectors were interviewed through open and semi-structured interviews. in the first weeks of the projects the interviews were broad and explorative. Later in the process, the interviews became more in-depth and semi-structured, based on topics and aspects listed by the specific subgroups. Besides providing expert knowledge through interviews, some experts were also consulted for feedback on the policy briefs. A full list of consulted experts can be found in the table below. Apart from these experts, a symposium has been attended where several lectures were given on ‘the future of plastics’.

Name Organisation/ Institution Country Feedback

Anonymous Food Company The Netherlands

Bram Alkema Eluced The Netherlands Yes

Eric Peters Scherpenzeel The Netherlands

Frits Herman de Groot Dutch Ministry of Defence The Netherlands Yes

Han Wosten Utrecht University The Netherlands

Harmen Alkema Defence Material Organisation The Netherlands Yes

Herman Moeliana Enviplast Indonesia

Rene Wijffels Algeaparc The Netherlands

Karin Schroen Wageningen University The Netherlands

Peter Rem Delft University The Netherlands Yes

Roland ten Klooster University of Twente The Netherlands Yes

Sophie van de Berg WASTE The Netherlands

Tjidde Tempels Wageningen University The Netherlands

Ulphard T. van Velzen Wageningen University The Netherlands Yes

Symposium Toekomst van Plastic

Circles Saxion The Netherlands

59

Appendix 3C: Business Model Canvas of National Resource Fund

Figure 1: 'Business Model Canvas' of the National Resource Fund

60

Appendix 3D: Innovations in Separation and Treatment Technologies

An overview of innovations in separation and treatment technologies

As explained in the policy brief, technology plays a very important role in increasing recycling rates of plastic packaging waste and to use plastic waste as a resource. At this moment, it is not possible to close the plastic packaging loop because the separation and treatment technologies are not able to separate and recycle all different types of plastic. Furthermore, many plastic packaging products are not designed for recycling. Therefore, new technologies have to be developed and existing technologies have to be improved and scaled up.

In this appendix, there will be given an overview of the current situation and examples of new and emerging technologies on plastic separation, treatment and design for recycling. This overview is far from complete, but is meant to give an idea of what sort of solutions are worked on at this moment.

61

Step in cycle Current situation: Gap New Technology What is it? Stage of innovation

Plastic

Separation

Current technologies do not create

pure and clean plastic streams that

can be used in new packaging.

Furthermore, often different

sorting techniques are applied in

combination. This requires big-

scale separation plants that are

expensive10

Optical sorting (NIR) Optical sorting machines are able to sort plastics

based on deviations that cannot be seen by the

naked eye11

NIR is already implemented in separation plants. In theory,

NIR-technologies are able to recognise all different types of

plastics (except for black plastic)12. However, large scale

usage is limited because of a lack of demand11

Smarter use of

optical sorting:

Logarithmic

Separation (Using

NIR)

A system based on optical sorting that can

separate hundreds of different types of plastics in

a very fast and precise way. This is done by an

electronic logarithmic system that splits plastic

streams in two based on a lot of different

characteristics10

It starts with separating one stream of 100 plastics

into two streams of 50, then four streams of 25 et

cetera13

It has already proofed itself on a lab-scale and has been a

theoretical concept for several years14. The first industrial

pilot is scheduled for next summer. The research program

takes place at the Delft University of Technology (TU

Delft)13.

Plastic

Treatment

Plastic can only be remelted

(mechanically recycled) a limited

amount of times and not all plastics

are remeltable11

Depolymerisation

(chemical recycling)

With the help of reagents or catalysts, polymers

are broken down to their constituents:

monomers. These monomers can be rebuilt into

new (virgin-quality) plastics15.

It had been applied on an industrial scale. However,

current technologies are energy intensive and therefore

expensive. Currently, promising research is done on finding

new catalysts and processes that require less energy15.

Dutch company Ioniqa Technologies claims to have found

such a process for PET depolymerisation, that operates

with lower temperature and magnetic fluid technology16

Compatibilisers Additives that can be used to blend normally incompatible resins. This can be used for packaging’s with inseparable materials17

Already applied on an industrial scale11

Design for

Recycling

Currently packaging is often not

designed for recycling and is for

example coated or blended with

other materials, which means that

it is impossible to separate them

properly18. Also, currently around

250 different types of polymers are

used in packaging which makes

separation costly and complex13

Chemical marking Facilitating separation systems by using a marker

such as ink that can be detected by sorting

technologies19,20

Pilot phase: the European Union’s Polymark project is

working on reliably detecting and sorting food-contact-

PET11. WRAP is working on optimising the use of machine

readable inks for food packaging sorting20

Reversible adhesives Reversible adhesives allow

triggered separation of different material

layers21.

Research phase, more innovation is needed to make the current reversible adhesives cost-competitive11

Using mono

materials to find

new ‘super-

polymers’

A ‘super-polymer’ is a polymer that has the

functionality of current polymers, but is easier to

recycle and does not need to be blended with

other materials11

Research phase, more innovation is needed11

62

Appendix 3E: Overview of Innovations in Bio-consistent Packaging

Bio-consistency Many different bioplastics exist, but not all bioplastics are bio-consistent. In this research, the term bio-consistent has been defined as:

Bioplastics that are bio-based (made from renewable biological resources), and biodegradable (decomposable by micro-organisms (bacteria or fungi) into water and carbon dioxide)22,23 . This definition excludes commonly known bioplastics that are not entirely bio-based24– (due to blending with fossil - based plastics), or bioplastics that are not biodegradable under natural circumstances25. An example of such a bioplastic is Bio-PET, which is used by The Coca Cola Company for their plant bottle™, which is neither 100% bio-based nor biodegradable to water and carbon dioxide under natural circumstances26.

An overview of several researched developments in bio-consistent plastics and technologies, is given in the table below. The table portrays three generations of development in bio-consistent plastics25. Some bio-consistent plastics are part of more than one generation of research development. This is due to new scientific innovations that enable the use of other (more sustainable) feedstock for production27,28,29,25. The three generations of bio-consistent plastics are: 1) Bio-consistent plastics made directly from agricultural feedstock, 2) Bio-consistent plastics made from agricultural waste 3) bio-consistent plastics that move beyond the use of agricultural feedstock25. Every generation has its own opportunity and challenges. For example, the first generation faces challenges regarding competition with food resources when upscaling production25,,30,31. The second generation provides a partial solution to this problem but can in turn face challenges with availability and cost-effectiveness of waste streams25,29,32. The third generation provides solutions for the challenges of the first and second generation33, however most innovations are only in pilot phase and issues regarding competition with food production and environmental effects are not yet clear25. The goal of the table is to provide an overview of the trade-offs between the different biomaterials regarding resource use, biodegradability and functionality by stating the challenges and opportunities of each bio-consistent related developments. These trade-offs are especially important when investment strategies are formulated34,35.

Resource use Because bioplastics are made from renewable resources, sustainable production is important. It is essential that the production of bioplastic does not compete with food production or depletes natural resources30,25. Therefore, the term bio-consistency additionally refers to the production of bioplastics within the earth’s carrying capacity36. Because of the current small-scale production of bioplastics, the production of all bio-based and biodegradable plastics is still sustainable37. However, in upscaling it is essential to consider the earth’s carrying capacity30,32. Additionally, bio-consistency refers to exploiting opportunities for resource recovery (recycling, composting, energy recovery37) in the application of bioplastics38,31,39.

Biodegradability It is important to note that the term biodegradability is contested25,30. Biodegradability is dependent on temperature, presence of micro-organisms, oxygen and water and differs between different bioplastics22,23,24,25,30. Therefore, the term biodegradable is dependent on the circumstances. In all cases, bioplastics should not be disposed of in nature, as biodegradability in nature is generally slow and toxic effects have not yet been well-researched30,39. It is paramount that bio-consistent plastics are developed together with efficient waste management systems30,38,39,31.

Functionality For the commercial application of many bio-consistent plastics blending with (non-biodegradable blends) is required because of the functional characteristics of these materials24,25,40. However, blending with solely biodegradable materials has to be explored, and a specific focus on blending for efficient recycling/composting is recommended31,41,40. For example, PLA is often blended with fossil-based blends, but could potentially also be blended with new biodegradables40. PLA itself can also serve as blending material (coating)42,2425 or could potentially be used as blend for mycoplastic (from mycelium)32. Additionally, different bio-consistent plastics have different functionality, which must be taken into account when designing a product24,32.

Final remarks The following remarks should be given when looking at bio-consistency of bioplastics. In general, there is no ‘best’ bio-consistent plastic. Rather, the best solution is to exploit the opportunities of all available innovations43,44 by:

- Optimizing efficiency - Essential for sustainable practices of both resource use and functionality is the optimisation of co-benefits. Optimal utilization of biomaterial should be targetted, as well as opportunities for resource recovery (recycling, composting, energy)30,44,32

- Adaptation to local production possibilities – Certain innovations fit local biophysical, economic and social features of the country of production better than others44. For example, plastics from micro-algae could be more interesting for island nations then for large mainlands44 and lignocellulose can be used in upscaling production of PLA more efficiently while using waste rather than agricultural resources29,45,46.

63

1 Some bio-consistent plastics are part of more than one generation of research development. This is due to new scientific innovations that enable the use of other (more sustainable) feedstock for production. For this reason, the materials/technologies are not strictly subdivided per generation.

Generation1

Material or technology

Resource use Opportunities Challenges Step on innovation ladder

First generation Agricultural biomass Note: avoid competition with food resources Second generation Bioplastics from agricultural waste products Third generation Moving beyond agriculture

PLA Sugar beet, sugarcane, corn42

Good breathing properties for packaging lettuce and bread. Could help to extend freshness of products24,25,42. Could be used as coating. Good recycling opportunities23.

Brittle material without the use of additives2447. Fragmented PLA in composting has to be researched on toxicity25. Hardly biodegrades and is compostable and biodegradable only under specific conditions25. Recycling preferred23. Mechanical recycling could be considered48.

Already commercially applied24. Demand is there. Significant market growth

expected31Error!

Bookmark not defined..

starch (+ Nano- technology)

Cassava, wheat, yam, corn, potato37 49

Made from inexpensive bio-feedstock. Has low CO2 footprint25,30. Opportunities for reclaiming starch from waste products, increasing sustainable resource use27.

Needs chemical modification for application in packaging24, losing its biodegradability25. Innovations in new blends such as nanotechnology could change this25,50.

Commercially applied25,24,30,37

PHA

Renewable carbon sources: (oils, including waste from soya, malt and frying oil)51

High degree of biodegradability by micro-organisms in the environment25. New developments in producing PHA from (municipal) waste (water)29.

Low thermal stability. Adding (biodegradable) plasticisers can improve thermal stability25.

Partially applied. Between pilot and commercial stage25,28,29,52.

Lignocellulose (technology) variety of bio-polymers53

Wood, straw, pectins, chitosan

Municipal solid waste can be used as feedstock for lignocellulosic fibre45. Improved functionality of bio-polymers produced from lignocellulose and improved efficiency in resource use30,53,45.

Proportions of lignin and cellulose are important. Cellulose can breakdown more rapidly than lignin. Actinobacteria, found commonly in soil is one of the few bacteria able to consume lignocellulose54.

When commercially applied, can reduce costs of production of several bioplastics55.

Mycelium (fungal threats)

Agricultural waste material32

Co-benefits in terms of resource use and end-of-life options. Cheap production through the use of cheap low-quality waste32. Fire-resistant and very strong56. Applicable for many products as alternative for fillers/solid plastic57. Compostable. Recycling is a viable option32.

No viable applications for flexible packaging available yet32.

Small-scale commercial application56. Needs to develop new products for market32

Micro-algae Water No agricultural land needed, co-benefits extracting simultaneously protein, valuable chemicals and bio-consistent plastics58.44 Micro-algae can also filter drinking water. Promising application for fillers and reinforcing fibres25. Water for production can be re-used44.

Plastic from 100% micro-algae (chlorella) is possible, but performance can be enhanced by (biodegradable) plasticizers25.

Still in pilot stage, ready for upscaling and designing products for commercial use25,58,44.

Nanotechnology Other (bio) plastics Can improve weight reduction, mechanical strength, barrier properties, microbial activity for bioplastics33,59,60. Nano-censors for monitoring food conditions during storage25,61.

Potential to decrease biodegradability of bioplastics when improving functionality. Not yet clear what the implications are25.

Newest Nano-innovations in production phase, commercial interest is extremely high25,61.

64

Bibliography

1 Huber, J. (1995): Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Strategien für eine ökologische und soziale Erdpolitik. Berlin: Ed. Sigma. 2 Linz, M. (2004). Weder Mangel Noch Übermaß: Über Suffizienz Und Suffizienzforschung, Wuppertal Institut Fur Klima, Umwelt, Energie. 3 Gerlach, A. (2003). Sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Conference, June pp. 38-49. 4 Allievi, F., Vinnari, M. and Luukkanen, J. (2014). Meat consumption and production -- analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends. Journal of Cleaner Production. 5 Schneidewind, U. and Zahrnt, A. (2014). The institutional framework for a sufficiency driven economy. Ökologisches Wirtschaften, 29 (3), pp. 30-33. 6 Evironmental footprint. (2017). In Cambridge Business English Dictionary. Retrieved 20, 12 2017, from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/environmental-footprint 7 OECD. (n.d.). Extended producer responsibility. Retrieved 20 12, 2017, from: http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/extendedproducerresponsibility.htm 8 Ellen Macarthur Foundation. (n.d.). Circular Economy Overview. Retrieved 20 12, 2017, from: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/overview/concept 9 Waste Management. (2017). In BusinessDictionary. Retrieved 20 12, 2017, from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/waste-management.html 10 Wassink, J. (2017). ‘Gescheiden inzameling van plastic is zinloos’. Retrieved 14 12, 2017, from https://www.delta.tudelft.nl/article/gescheiden-inzameling-van-plastic-zinloos 11 MacArthur, D. E., Waughray, D., & Stuchtey, M. R. (2016). The New Plastics Economy, Rethinking the Future of Plastics. In World Economic Forum. 12 Van der Oever, M., Molenveld, K., van der Zee, M., Bos, H. (2017). Bio-based Biodegradable Plastics- Facts and Figures. 13 Rem, P. Personal communication, Delft University, 6 12 2017 14 Dahmus, J., Gutowski, T. (2007). What Gets Recycled: An Information Theory Based Model for Product Recycling. Environmental Science Technology, 41, 7543 – 7550 15 Garcia, J. (2017, June 15). From garbage to gold: How advances in plastic recycling can help save the environment. Retrieved from:

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/06/advances-recycling-save-environment/ 16 Ioniqa (2013). PET Cradle-to-Cradle solution ‘…a game changer…’. Retrieved 9 12, 2013, from: www.ioniqa.com/pet-recycling/ 17 SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association, Compatibilizers: Creating New Opportunity for Mixed Plastics (2015). 18 Brouwer, M., Thoden van Velzen, E., Predictive model for the Dutch post-consumer plastic packaging recycling system and implications for the circular economy 19 Investigación y Desarrollo. (2014). Chemical marker facilitates plastic recycling. Retrieved 14 12, 2017, from: https://phys.org/news/2014-04-chemical-marker-plastic-recycling.html 20 WRAP. (2014). Optimising the use of machine readable inks for food packaging sorting. Retrieved 14 12, 2017, from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Optimising_the_use_of_machine_readable_inks_for_food_packaging_sorting.pdf 21 Ye, Z., Lum, G,m Song, S., Rich, S., Sitti, M. (2016). Phase Change of Gallium Enables Highly Reversible and Switchable Adhesion. Advanced materials, 28(25), 5088–5092. doi: 10.1002/adma.201505754 22 Scott, G (2002). Science and Standards. In Chiellini, E., R. Solaro (ed.) Biodegradable Polymers and Plastics. New York: Springer Science + Business Media 23 Soroudi, A. & I. Jakubowicz (2013). Recycling of bioplastics, their blends and biocomposites: A review. European Polymer Journal, 49 (10), 2839-2858 24 Molenveld, K., M. van den Oever, H. Bos (2015). Catalogus Biobased verpakkingen. Groene Grondstoffen Series. Wageningen: Wageningen University & Research 25 Lambert, S., M. Wagner (2017). Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable plastics: the road ahead. Chem. Soc. Rev, 46, 6855 26 Ren, H, Q. Fangqing, Y. Shi, M.W. Knutzen, Z. Wang, H. Du, H. Zhang (2015). PlantBottle Packaging program is continuing its journey to pursue bio0mono-ethylene glycol using agricultural waste. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 27 Broeren, L.M., L. Kulling, E. Worrell, L. Shen (2017). Environmental impact assessmment of six starch plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and additives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 246-255 28 Chee, J.Y., S. Yoga, N. Lau, S. Ling, R. M. M. Abed, K. Sudesh (2010). Bacterially Produced Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA): Converting Renewable Resources into Bioplastics. In A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed.) Current Research, Technology and Eduction Topics in

65

Applied Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology. Badajoz: Formatex Research Center 29 Bluemink, E.D., A.F. van Nieuwenhuijzen, E. Wypkema, C.A. Uijterlinde (2016). Water Science & Technology, 74 (2), 353-358 30 Odegard, I., S. Nusselder, E.R. Lindgreen, G. Bergsma, L. de Graaff (2017). Biobased Plastics in a Circular Economy. CE Delft: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. 31 Prieto, A. (2016). To be, or not to be biodegradable… that is the question for the bio-based plastics. Microbial biotechnology, 9 (5), 652-657 32 Wosten, H. (2017). Personal communication. Utrecht University 05 12 2017 33 Silvestre, C., D. Duraccia, S. Cimmino (2011). Food packaging based on polymer nanomaterials. Progress in Polymer Science. 36 (2011), 1766-1782 34 Khalil, A.H.P.S., Y, Davoudour, C, Saurabh, Md. S. Hossain, A.S. Adnan, R.Dungani, M.T. Paridah, Md. Z. Islam Sarker, M.R. Nurul Fazita, M.I. Syakir, M.K.M. Haafiz (2017). A review on nanocellulosic fibres as new material for sustainable packaging: Process and applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Volume 64, 823-836 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.072 35 Xuezi, M., J. Moultry (2017). What Stops Designers from Designing Sustainable Packaging? – A review of Eco-design Tools with Regard to Packaging Design. Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2017. Cham: Springer, 127 – 139 36 Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Constanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C.S. Holling, B. Jansson, S. Levin, K. Maler, C. Perrings, D. Pimentel (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Economics, 15 (2), 91-95 37 Moeliana, H. Personal communication, Ecoplast, 5 12 2017 38 Kubowicz, S., A. M. Booth (2017). Biodegradability of Plastics: challenges and misconceptions. Environmental Science & Technology. 51, 12058-12060 39 European Biolsatics (2017). Waste management and recovery options for bioplastics. Retrieved 12 2017 from: http://www.european-bioplastics.org/bioplastics/waste-management/ 40 Schroen, K. Personal communication, Wageningen University, 30 11 2017 41 Oever, van den M., K. Molenveld, M. van der Zee, H. Bos (2017) Bio-based and biodegradable plastics – Facts and Figures. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research number 1722.Wageningen: Wageningen Food & Biobased Research 42 Murariu, M. & P. Dubois (2016). PLA composites: From production to properties. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 107, 17-46 43 Alkema, B. Personal communication. Eluced, 21 11 2017

44 Wijffels, R. Personal communication. Wageningen University, 29 11 2017 45 Ashori, A., (2008). Municipal Solid Waste as a Source of Lignocellulosic Fiber and Plastic for Composite Industries. Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering, Vol. 47 , Iss. 8, 2008 46 Kawaguchi, H., C. Ogino, A. Kondo (2017). Microbial conversion of biomass into bio-based polymers Bioresource Technology 245, 1664-1673 47 Shi, J., W. Xu, D. Li, R. Liao, L. Zhang (2016). The Innovation Research of Biodegradable Polymers for Sustainable Packaging. International Conference on Power Engineering & Energy, Environment (PEEE 2016). Environmental Energy and Earth Sciences. 48 Beltrán, F.R., V. Lorenzo, J. Acosta, M.U. de la Orden, J. Marínez Urreaga (2017). Effect of simulated mechanical recycling processes on the structure and properties of poly (lactic acid). Journal of Environmental Mangement. Available online 12 May 2017 49 Gonzalez-Gutierrez, P., M. Garcia-Morales, C. Gallegos (2009). Development of highly-transparent protein/starch-based bioplastics. Bioresource Technology, 101 (2010) 2007-2013 50 Neethirajan, S., D.S. Jayas (2011). Nanotechnology for the Food and Bioprocessing Industries. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 4 (1), 39-47 51 Chee, J.Y., S. Yoga, N. Lau, S. Ling, R. M. M. Abed, K. Sudesh (2010). Bacterially Produced Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA): Converting Renewable Resources into Bioplastics. In A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed.) Current Research, Technology and Eduction Topics in Applied Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology. Badajoz: Formatex Research Center 52 Gonzalez-Gutierrez, P., M. Garcia-Morales, C. Gallegos (2009). Development of highly-transparent protein/starch-based bioplastics. Bioresource Technology, 101 (2010) 2007-2013 53 FitzPatrick, M., P. Champagne, M. F. Cunningham, R.A. Whitney (2010). A biorefinery processing perspective: Treatment of lignocellulosic materials for the production of value-added products. Bioresource Technology, 101 (23), 8915-8922 54 Preliminary Review of the Degradation of Cellulosic, Plastic, and Rubber Materials in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and Possible Effects on Magnesium Oxide Safety Factor Calculations Contract Number EP-D-05-002 Work Assignment No. 2-09. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/epa_mgo_report_91107.pdf 55 Eerhart, A. J.J.E., Patel, M. K. and Faaij, A. P.C. (2015), Fuels and plastics from lignocellulosic biomass via the furan pathway:

66

an economic analysis. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref, 9, 307–325. doi:10.1002/bbb.1537 56 Ecovative (2017). How it works. Retrieved 12 2017, from: https://www.ecovativedesign.com/how-it-works 57 Jiang, L., Walczyk, D., Mooney, L., & Putney, S. (2013). Manufacturing of mycelium-based biocomposites. In SAMPE Conference, Long Beach, CA, May, pp. 6-9. 58 EABA (2016). EU ALGAE STAKEHOLDERS RELEASE GROUND-BREAKING AGENDA TO DEVELOP INDUSTRY (press release). Olhao: EABA

59 Arrieta, M. P., L. Peponi, D. López, J. López, J. M. Kenny (2017) 12 – An overview of nanoparticles role in improvement of barrier properties of bioplastics for food packaging applications. In A. M. Grumezescu (ed.) Food Packaging. London: Elsevier. 60 C. Zhao (2017). “Food Packaging”. Johnson Matthey Technology Review, 62 (1), 74-80 61 Davarcioglu B. (2017) Nanotechnology Applications in Food Packaging Industry. In: Prasad R., Kumar V., Kumar M. (eds) Nanotechnology. Springer, Singapore

BIOPHILIC CITIES

of the global population are estimatedto live in cities by 2050

70%

CommunityReduced crime rates

Stronger sense ofCommuntity

Mental and PhysicalHealth benefits

Environmental

Increased Property Value

Reduced Infrastructure Spending

Increased worker efficiency

Economic

Climate Change Mitigation and

adaptation

IncreasedBiodiversity

Benefits

Biophilic Cities are cities that prominently integrate elements of nature in order to enhance human wellbeing, reinforce urban ecosystem services and promote the functioning of native ecosystems within urban space.

Policy Framework

National Context and the New Urban Charter (NUC)

Stakeholder Engagement

Goal Formulation and NUC CreationInitiative Identification and Choice

Implementation

Monitoring and Assessment

Assigning Points

Policy Framework

National Development Plans

Habitat 3 ReportsIntegrated Valuation Framework

Citizen WorksEIAs, IEAs Public-Private

Partnership

Citizen Science

Relational, NVM, Monetary Valuation

Adaptation Support Tool, MDD Health-check

Deliberative Councils

Survey Dynamic FacilitationCollaborative Choice Diverse Representation

SDG Linkages

This brief directly addresses SDG 11, 15, 3, 13, 9

It additionally relates to SDG10, 16, 12, 6, 7, 17, 14

HICs: Biophilic design helps trigger a value shift towards decoupling economic use fromoveruse of resources and from wellbeing.M/LICs: Biophilic elements can serve subsistence purposes. Biophilic design principles guidethe sustainable development of cities to avoid pitfalls encountered by developed countries(eg. environmental degradation, stagnating wellbeing).

High – Middle – Low Income Specific Context

68

Key Messages ● Biophilic design* and concepts address human and

ecosystem wellbeing1. ● Cities can and should be constructed as proxies for, or

extensions of, naturally occurring ecosystems. Biodiversity must be paramount, with special attention given to native and threatened species in order to ensure the healthy functioning of ecosystems2.

● Equitable community engagement in planning processes improves wellbeing3. Meaningful participation requires both the representation of the diversity present in relevant communities and addressing and accounting for existing power structures.

● Investing in nature assures good prospects for high investment returns due to enhanced efficiency through nature-based solutions4.

Introduction It is estimated that, by 2050, more than two thirds of the world’s population will live in cities5 as people seek to improve their quality of life6. However, this urbanisation typically occurs in an unsustainable manner that creates conditions detrimental to the wellbeing of biodiverse ecosystems and human health7. As policy makers and urban planners begin to chart out plans and goals for creating sustainable and resilient cities* (see glossary for asterisked terms) for their populace, it is imperative to adopt urban planning strategies that account for issues of environmental and social sustainability*. Biophilic cities overcome obstacles arising from increasing urbanisation and environmental degradation by implementing novel city planning initiatives*3. To facilitate this transition, this brief describes a method of implementing biophilic design in developed and developing cities through the incorporation of the natural systems into the built environment and the engagement of the citizenry. Biophilic cities*(Cover; Box 1) present an opportunity to equitably address environmental, health, and social concerns that improve the sustainability and resilience of a city. By considering the interlinkage of society and the environment, biophilic planning promotes the ecological sustainability of the city while working to improve the wellbeing of its citizens. Cities should be seen as extensions of, and proxies for, naturally-occurring ecosystems in which biodiversity and native species are conserved for their own sake, as well as to enhance the functioning of ecosystem services2. Through the explicit display of such ecosystem services a value shift towards increased respect for nature is catalysed1, while enhancing psychological wellbeing8. This shift away from the consumerist values of contemporary society, towards relational and non-monetary values*, can help improve the equity and sustainability of policy approaches, while promoting the involvement of the public and its diversity9. There are numerous economic, community, and

environmental benefits (Box 2) that can be gained through the use of biophilic planning and design (Appendix D). Biophilic cities are an improvement on the concepts of green- *or eco-cities,* which focus on the need to reduce energy consumption and ecological footprints. They provide added value by focusing on: 1) the specific wellbeing and health benefits nature can provide, 2) the need to enhance, conserve, and connect with nature, and, 3) emphasising the benefits of ecosystem services that can be enhanced and incorporated into cities. In this sense, a biophilic city goes beyond physical constructions, ecological footprint benchmarks, and aesthetic preferences to promote the wellbeing of citizens and care for nature. Therefore, biophilic elements must not just be aesthetically pleasing, but also functional1.

Community Engagement Despite a growing awareness of the need for more collaborative decision-making processes, many traditional urban planning practices fail to deal with unequal power structures, social trade-offs, anti-social behaviour, and a lack of sense of community3. It is essential that the general public play a significant, formative role in urban planning, as they will be affected by the resulting actions10. Ensuring the diverse representation of marginalised communities throughout the planning process can help maintain informative feedback loops that are essential for system learning, address unequal distribution of ecosystem benefits, and produce equitable policy outcomes11. Moreover, the inclusion of the general public in different stages of the planning process can enhance social cohesion, community empowerment, a sense of connection, and the creation of new

social capital, all of which contribute to social sustainability3,12. This requires a shift in values towards a bottom-up,

participatory planning culture that actively seeks out public engagement3 towards sustainability and aims to institutionalise this value shift7. Methods of community engagement are outlined in Appendix C. Scales This policy brief adopts a multi-governance and -scale

approach that focuses on the importance of city level governance in pioneering new urban planning

techniques. This approach is key, as it can be used to advance and disseminate ideas beyond the neighbourhood, district, or city scale. The benefit of a focus on cities allows

additional attention to be paid to individual or neighbourhood-scale action. The guiding role of the state as the body shaping decisions made at lower governance levels is also recognised13,3. This is essential because biophilic urbanism greatly benefits from a combination of top-down and bottom-up initiatives, a fact that has guided this policy framework1. This brief proposes an iterative, modular policy framework to guide the transformation towards sustainable, resilient and biophilic cities, with an emphasis on community engagement. The framework incorporates an integrated valuation framework, methods of stakeholder* consultation, an initiative implementation tracking system, and a review process.

BIOPHILIC CITIES

Box 1 – Biophilic Cities

Box 2 - Benefits

“There are few

investments in a city, public or

private, that would outperform

investments in nature.”

- Beatley

69

• Increased social cohesion through enhanced sense of place, identity,

and community1

• 10% increase in tree cover associated with 11.8% decrease in crime,

all else equal1

• Improved educational performance in children (5-17% higher test

scores, 20-26% higher learning rates)4

• Greater understanding of natural systems through direct contact with

the natural environment1

• Cultivation of food plants in green space and urban agriculture1

• 8.5% decrease in hospitalisation time, 22% less reliance on analgesic

medication due to exposure to nature4

• Higher levels of physical exercise and improved mental health due to

recreational activities in attractive outdoor environments1

• Increased productivity and efficiency through increased attention,

improved health, reduced stress, and a 15% reduction in absenteeism4

• Increased property value due to proximity to nature1,4

• Reduced spending and pressure on constructed infrastructure by

implementing nature-based infrastructural designs1

• Increased potential for tourism due to appealing surroundings4

• Reduced heat island effects due to increased tree coverage or the

presence of water features1

• Enhanced biodiversity through the creation of wildlife habitats1

• Potential for Climate Change mitigation, adaptation, and resilience through the use of nature-based solutions1

The Policy Framework This framework provides municipalities with a six phase plan to identify beneficial biophilic initiatives, implement those deemed necessary, and subsequently assess their impact. Each phase is completed using city-relevant options, allowing the framework to be implemented in a broad range of contexts, as outlined in Appendix G

1. National Context and the New Urban Charter National governments assess the capability of biophilic design to address current and future issues identified by national reports, such as those submitted to Habitat III*14. Biophilic urban design can provide common solutions to different problems15. A park lake, for example, functions as attractive green space, reservoir, and storm drainage. The sustainable use of resources is a key aspect of biophilic design, which can enhance collective human wellbeing when considered alongside context specific environmental constraints6. In low or middle income countries, biophilic urban design is mainly relevant to reducing strains on resources and improving the basic quality of life in cities16. The integration of the natural and built environment can enhance long-term resilience to, for example, drought and storms while supplementing provisional ecosystem services, such as urban food supply16,17,18. In higher income countries, or in more developed cities, biophilic urban design directly addresses psychological wellbeing from the outset of development through human proximity to nature17,1. The New Urban Charter Where biophilia* is assessed as a relevant solution, the national government mandates the creation of a New Urban Charter (NUC) to municipalities that will implement biophilic design*. The NUC enshrines principles of: engagement with a diverse

representation of the city’s populace and relevant experts*; city-specific goal formulation, and; the reporting of initiative assessments back to the mandating body. The NUC is adapted to lessons learned through successive iteration of the policy framework and by the local planning culture. The national government sets a ‘points’ target that must be achieved by each city. Points are accumulated through the development of new biophilic initiatives, retrofitting of existing developments and by requiring private developments to adhere to standards of biophilic design in a manner similar to current city environmental standards19. The Biophilic Initiative Tracking System (BITS) is used to assign points to biophilic initiatives during stakeholder deliberation sessions, choose feasible options, and report on the progress of current and completed initiatives. ● Creation mandated to municipality by national government

● Requires implementation of a BITS and fulfilment of BITS points

● Requires formulation of goals to address or enhance the

sustainability and resilience of the city

○ Accomplished through the employment of holistic city planning

that focuses on the linkages between the built environment, the

native ecosystem, and the wellbeing of citizens

○ The goals must address the equitable engagement of individual

citizens, communities and districts

● Requires that all operations be universally transparent and that

participating initiatives are submitted to the BITS as reports and

assessments

● Remains a living document, subject to iteration, that informs

creation and identification of initiatives aimed at accomplishing

charter goals

● Maintains a freely accessible online platform with a database of all

participating biophilic initiatives across the city, region or country

● Records a ‘points’ value of each initiative

○ Points are based on the capacity of an initiative to fulfil NUC goals

○ Points are assigned and awarded, in whole or in part, by

deliberation among experts, citizens, and relevant city officials

upon completion of an initiative

● Integrates with existing environmental standards to set targets for

new infrastructure, retrofitting or private development

● Tracks the implementation of initiatives through municipal and

citizen monitoring

● The eventual ‘score’ of a district provides a measure of its success

in implementing biophilic designs

○ Low scoring districts are promoted as potential development

areas and assigned additional resources

○ High scoring areas benefit from increased citizen wellbeing and

showcase successful implementation

Tailoring valuation methods to socio-political contexts An integrated valuation framework, incorporating monetary, non-monetary*, and ecological values accounts for the full spectrum of values of nature to stakeholders20. This increases the quality of, and social support for, decisions and policies relating to biophilic initiatives, while also encompassing values emerging at different levels of societal organisation20,21. Tailoring valuation methods of ecosystem services to specific decision making contexts is necessary because the possible added value of nature is conditional on physical and socio-political contexts, the actors

Co

mm

un

ity

Ec

on

om

ic

Envi

ron

me

nta

l

Box 3 – The New Urban Charter

Box 4 – The Biophilic Initiative Tracking System

70

involved, and project goals22,23. The European Union’s OpenNESS project* has developed an extensive and holistic modular valuation framework. It describes four steps: define the purpose of the valuation and the policy setting; identify relevant value dimensions and information sources; select valuation methods based on the previous steps; examine and communicate the interrelations and possible conflicts among the determined values to the stakeholders involved20. These frameworks come play into during deliberation on the applicability of specific biophilic initiatives to a specific city.

2. Stakeholder Engagement City Information Campaign The municipality identifies in-progress sustainability and resilience initiatives and biophilic elements that can contribute to BITS by using information campaigns as well as the media and public meetings to request submission of relevant initiatives to the system. In this manner, citizens learn of the upcoming opportunity to participate in policy making and the interlinkages of the environment, health, sustainability, and wellbeing. Crowdsourcing approaches to information campaigns would help increase engagement24. Thus, institutions of environmental stewardship and engagement can be created or reinforced8. In informal settlements* workshops (See also Phase 5) must be organised to disseminate relevant information and pave the way towards future formalised citizen deliberative councils*. Community-centric benefits of potential ecosystem services are highlighted by relevant experts. Workshop-participants then pass on workshop-based learning to their communities, thus engendering further support and creating a wider pool of potential future participants16. Where these workshops require more resources than are locally available, funds from the UN Sustainable Development Goal Fund or (international) development, donor, or financial institutions, should be attained.

Citizen Deliberative Councils These councils aim to output a detailed overview of citizen values and their aspirations for their districts, including how cultural concerns affect the use and perception of natural space and resources. Pre-existing databases are used to draw a random sampling of citizens, who are subsequently surveyed to inform the selection of a diverse representation. Participation is incentivised through the opportunity to enhance communities’ environment and wellbeing, have input in policy formulation, and, where necessary, by providing financial aid or support services1,12,17. Brief primers on previously identified issues are then provided for discussion, which is moderated by Dynamic Facilitation*. Expert Panels These panels, organised per city, identify the most pressing current and future urban issues that may be addressed by the implementation of functional biophilia. The output of their review takes the form of reports such as Integrated Environmental Assessments*, Environmental Impact Assessments*, and policy reviews. Engagement with the national or international Academies of Science, as well as familiarity with the city itself, should be an important consideration. External experts, where required, should be sought based on their familiarity with the region and issues faced. Where expert advice

is entirely unavailable, expert task groups operated by international aid or coordination bodies should be made available.

3. Goal Formulation and NUC Creation

In this phase, policy-makers formulate tangible goals for the city and its districts, based on the combined values and conclusions of citizens and experts, that address issues identified by previous national assessments. These goals guide the choice, design, and implementation of initiatives aimed at transformations towards biophilic cities. Discussions using Dynamic Facilitation should be used to mitigate the effect of hierarchies within or between government departments25. Results should be made available for public comment via online public forums* and open meetings*, where Dynamic Facilitation is again necessary to give equitable weight to the opinions of experts, citizens, and policy-makers25. The resulting goals form the basis of the NUC.

4. Populating the BITS database and Choosing Initiatives A database of possible initiatives applicable to the city and relevant to the NUC goals is created through the deliberation of experts and citizens, using Dynamic Facilitation25 and relevant tools. The resulting initiatives are assigned BITS points based on their potential to fulfil the NUC. Experts lead this discussion to prioritise impact over personal aesthetic preference and to avoid undue loading of points on easily achievable initiatives with little impact. National governmental input may be necessary to provide an overview of related initiatives in other regions. Points are ‘awarded’ after implementation. Choice of implementation should prioritise higher BITS point values. Local municipality should prioritise high scoring, city-wide initiatives that require substantial funding or are otherwise difficult to coordinate at more local scales. Otherwise, civil organisations starting or continuing a project use the BITS to contribute toward the NUC goals, and benefit from environmental learning workshops to develop capacity and inform choices. The private sector is required to meet BITS points targets in a similar fashion to existing requirements to meet environmental standards. Other opportunities to engage private sector actors exist where public-private partnerships are created as additional requirements for private development, and where the municipality contracts private aid. Substantial voluntary private sector participation in environmental programmes is also already in progress, and as such these programmes require only registration to be included in the BITS.

5. Implementation Environmental learning workshops coordinated by the municipality engage implementers with relevant experts to provide applicable environmental knowledge and build capacities. As these workshops are prerequisites to the effective undertaking of elements of the implementation plan, they begin pre-initiative choice in Phase 4, and continue as required. Implementation must be planned in adherence to the sustainability and resilience goals set forth in the NUC. An Environmental Impact Assessment or an Integrated Environmental Assessment should be performed to inform the implementation plan. Principles and attributes of Biophilic Design (listed in Appendix C) should also inform plan formulation. Assessments should be widely accessible during report compilation to facilitate municipal coordination efforts,

71

encourage public discussion, and garner feedback. The completed assessments and reports are vital considerations to the subsequent iteration of the framework during Phases 2 and 4.

6. Monitoring and Assessment Both the municipality and citizens must be involved in reporting and monitoring the progress of biophilic initiatives to maintain accurate tracking in the BITS. Established techniques are used to monitor ecosystem services and infrastructural capacity16,26,27,28, while the social and psychological effects of initiatives on human wellbeing must be assessed through relational values*16 and by attitudinal and behavioural assessment. Citizen science* methodologies enable citizens to personally assess initiatives and upload their observations to the online BITS29,30. This encourages continuous participation of diverse actors31,32 while the raising awareness and promoting environmental values33,34. Experts validate citizens’ reports, conduct supplementary assessments, and assign BITS points based on the extent to which the initiative has contributed to NUC goals. Partially successful initiatives receive partial points and are targeted for supplementation. Districts or cities that fail to meet the mandated points score are identified as requiring aid and are promoted by showcasing development opportunities. High scoring areas are exemplified to guide future efforts. Results from all initiatives are transparently available online via the BITS and incorporated into biophysical and valuation assessment tools in future policy iterations. It is also imperative that the community engagement processes are evaluated by both the organisers and the participants using, for example, Rapid Review Worksheets*35.

Challenges and Moving Forward The policy framework, and its suggested tools, were selected based on the ability to be applied to different settings. However, these tools must be used with caution as there is no assessment tool that can take every characteristic of a city into consideration and simultaneously account for all indicators of sustainability36,37. Legitimate and comprehensive data sets are therefore required for the further development of these tools38, as is research on the effectiveness and feasibility of biophilic initiatives with regards to specific socio-political, environmental, and economic contexts39. Considering the opinions and values of citizens, it is necessary to address the potential trade-offs of different initiatives in terms of their environmental, social, and economic impacts38. Therefore, research must go beyond the examination of the benefits of community involvement in the decision-making process to also identify how to make these findings meaningful. Moreover, literature points to structured place-based research programs and communication of the direct benefits of green initiatives to change societies’ perception of nature and their engagement with the urban environment to encourage a societal value shift39,40.

Municipalities and citizens may also face structural challenges that hinder meaningful engagement, including a lack of financial means or human resources for the application of the framework41,42. Unless equity is considered both in terms of cultural diversity and socio-economic background, implementation of initiatives runs the risk of creating gentrified areas to which resources are inequitably assigned3. The framework could thus enhance the wellbeing of certain citizens over others. Municipal governments are responsible for coordinating city-wide efforts to prevent this occurrence, for which further research may be necessary15.

Conclusion Provided above is a framework to address the physical and psychological wellbeing of the citizenry of a city, while making strides towards integrating the physical city into its surrounding ecosystem. The sustainability of the city is increased by biophilic design elements that supplement food production, reduce air pollution, promote the conservation of biodiversity, and foster a shift in societal values1. The resilience of the city is enhanced through the development of biophilic design elements that increase urban adaptive capacity to environmental stress43,1. The principal benefit of the functional biophilic city is its capacity to enhance wellbeing1 through directly engaging citizens in policy making and city design, thereby drawing on the expertise and experience of the population itself to enhance the city in an ecologically sustainable fashion3. ● Encourage communities to engage in urban planning

processes as knowledge resources, decision makers, and stewards of their own environment.

● Adopt urban biophilic design to address human and ecosystem wellbeing.

● Apply lessons from past experiences of planning and community engagement to future initiatives, by iterating upon the policy framework.

● Engage diverse representations of the public through equitable methods of accessibility and distribution of benefits.

● Stimulate environmental learning as a way to improve wellbeing, increase stewardship of nature, and institutionalise environmental values.

● Promote productive competition and exchange of information between settlements through transparency.

Arabella Comyn, Susan S. Ekoh, Nellie Friedrich, Jeremy Sterling & Sebastian Weiss

Box 5 – Key Recommendations

72

Bibliography

1 Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning and design. Washington, DC: Islandpress.

2 Yeang, K. Personal communication, EcoArchitect, 3 12 2017

3 Stein, L. Personal communication, University of Sydney, 5 12 2017

4 Heerwagen, J., Loftness, V., & Painter, S. (Eds.). (2012). The Economics of Biophilia: Why Designing with Nature in Mind makes Financial Sense(Rep.). Terrapin Bright Green.

5 United Nations (2015), Department of Economic and Social Affairs World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. ST/ESA/SER.A/366493 pphttps://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-report.pdf

6 UN Habitat (2016). World Cities Report. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.UN Habitat (2016). World Cities Report. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

7 Antons, D. C., Bai, X., Duraiappah, A., Fragkias, M., Gutscher, F., Munoz, P., & Rogers, D. (2012). A vision for human well-being: transition to social sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,61-73. Retrieved December, 2017, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.013.

8 Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 176(1), 273-291.

9 Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chan, K. M., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., . . . Turner, N. (2017). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. p1464. Post-publication peer review of the biomedical literature,113(6), 1462-1465. doi:10.3410/f.726134549.793538411

10 David R. Godschalk & William E. Mills (1966) A Collaborative Approach to Planning Through Urban Activities, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32:2, 86-95, DOI: 10.1080/01944366608979362

11 Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,19, 134-143. Retrieved December, 2017, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003.

12 Atlee, T. (2012). Empowering Public Wisdom. A Practical Vision of Citizen-Led Politics. Berkeley, California: Evolver Editions

13 Snep, R., & Opdam, P. (n.d.). Integrating nature values in urban planning and design. Urban Ecology,261-286. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511778483.012

14 Habitat III, The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (2016). National Reports. Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/documents/national-reports/

15 Beatley, T. (2017). Biophilic Cities and Healthy Societies. Urban Planning, 2(4), 1-4. doi:10.17645/up.v2i4.1054

16 Snep, R. Personal communication, Alterra, 12 12 2017

17 Douglas I. Personal communication, University of Manschester, 1 12 2017

18 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014). Growing Greener Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

19 Seattle.gov (2010). Seattle Green Factor. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/codes/greenfactor/default.htm

20 Gómez-Baggethun, E., B. Martín-López, D. Barton, L. Braat, H. Saarikoski, Kelemen, M. García-Llorente, E., J. van den Bergh, P. Arias, P. Berry, L., M. Potschin, H. Keene, R. Dunford, C. Schröter-Schlaack, P. Harrison (2014). State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable, 4.

21 Kelemen, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Pataki, G.; Martín-López, B. and E. Gómez-Baggethun (2016): Non-monetary techniques for the valuation of ecosystem service. In: Potschin, M. and K. Jax (eds): OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428.

22 Barton, D.N.; Jacobs, S.; Iniesta, I.; Saarikoski, H.; Termansen, M.; Pérez Soba, M.; Kelemen, E.; (2017). Diverse Valuation and Accounting of Nature. EU FP7 OpenNESS Brief 5.

23 Turkelboom, F.; Leone, M.; Baró, F.; Langemeyer, J.; Garcia-Lloernte, M.; Dick, J.; Barton, D.; Stange, E.; Zulian, G.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Martinez Pastur, G.; Peri, P.; Uleaners, P.; (2017). Local Planning with Ecosystem Services and Stakeholder Participation EU FP7 OpenNESS Brief 7.

24 Atlee, T. (2017, December 12). Comments on first draft of policy brief [E-mail to the author].

25 Asenbaum, H. (2016). Facilitating Inclusion: Austrian Wisdom Councils as Democratic Innovation between Consensus and Diversity. Journal of Public Deliberation,12(2). Retrieved from http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art7

26 Ecosystem Services Assessment Support Tool. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from http://www.guidetoes.eu/

27 Verweij, P. Personal communication, Alterra, 27 11 2017

28 Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., ... & Pritchard, R. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation ecology, 6(1).

29 Sayegh, A., Andreani, S., Kapelonis, C., Polozenko, N., & Stanojevic, S. (2016). Experiencing the built environment: strategies to measure objective and subjective qualities of places. Open Geospatial Data, Software and Standards, 1(1), 11.

73

30 Curtis, V., Holliman, R., Jones, A., & Scanlon, E. (2017). Online citizen science: participation, motivation, and opportunities for informal learning.

31 Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research?. AIBS Bulletin, 58(3), 192-197.

32 Branchini, S., Pensa, F., Neri, P., Tonucci, B. M., Mattielli, L., Collavo, A., ... & Goffredo, S. (2015). Using a citizen science program to monitor coral reef biodiversity through space and time. Biodiversity and conservation, 24(2), 319-336.

33 Bruyere, B., & Rappe, S. (2007). Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 503-516.

34 Wright, D. R., Underhill, L. G., Keene, M., & Knight, A. T. (2015). Understanding the motivations and satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Society & natural resources, 28(9), 1013-1029.

35 Assessing Public Engagement Effectiveness: Rapid Review Worksheets[PDF]. (n.d.). Sacramento: Institute for Local Governance. Retrieved December, 2017, from

36 de Roo, G. (2017). Integrating city planning and environmental improvement: Practicable strategies for sustainable urban development. Routledge.

37 Dawson, R. J. (2011). Potential pitfalls on the transition to more sustainable cities and how they might be avoided. Carbon Management, 2(2), 175-188.

38 Bareis, J., & Droste, E. (2013). Urban Jungle: Green City Planning as an Attractive Concept for Megacities to Face Increasing Social, Economic, and Environmental Challenges. Maastricht University Journal of Sustainability Studies, 1.

39 Artmann, M., Bastian, O., & Grunewald, K. (2017). Using the Concepts of Green Infrastructre and Ecosystem Services to Specify Leitbilder for Compact and Green Cities—The Example of the Landscape Plan of Dresden (Germany). Sustainability, 9(2), 198.

40 Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(2), 196.

41 Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312.

42 Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5-13.

43 Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5(8), 3328-3345.

74

Appendix 4A: Case Studies

Case Study I - Portland, Oregon From green streets to urban parks, eco-districts, green roofs and rain gardens, Portland, Oregon serves as an example of how cities can address biophilia to serve multi-functional purposes while prioritizing community engagement in the transformation to sustainable and resilient cities1,2. With an annual rainfall of about 36 inches3, storm-water management is integral to Portland’s incorporation of nature. These greening initiatives have yielded ecosystem benefits such as drainage peak flow reductions by as much as 80%4.

Portland encourages citizen engagement in these projects through volunteer opportunities, workshops, stewardship programs, and citizen led initiatives. The BMP program is one of such initiatives, involving partnerships with local schools to implement appropriate green infrastructure. In 2006, the Mt. Mount Tabor Middle School won a design award from the American Society of Landscape Architects for incorporating rain gardens in and around the school to manage stormwater. Contributing benefits to the surrounding community while facilitating environmental learning of students at the school5 .

The principles of community involvement are: partnership; early involvement; building relationships and community capacity; good quality process design and accountability; inclusiveness and equity; transparency, and; accountability6.

Case Study II – Kigali, Rwanda A little over two decades after genocide tore the country apart, Rwanda is taking strategic steps towards rebuilding by adopting a “Green Growth and Climate Resilience Strategy (GGCRS)” for sustainable development7.

For cities like Kigali, Rwanda, this approach is particularly essential, as it addresses the pressures and challenges that come with rapid urbanization. Kigali’s current sustainability strategies and future plans aim at creating spaces for nature within the city. These demonstrate the functionality of biophilic city elements as they provide ecosystem benefits and facilitate citizens’ human-nature contact7.

Although mandated at the national level, several greening initiatives and policies have been implemented in Kigali. These range from mandates to incorporate boulevards within city design, to encouraging urban and peri-urban horticulture by eliminating taxes associated with land use and by restricting development in wetlands8,9.

Additionally, plans are in place to develop a district of Kigali into a “model green city”, incorporating biophilic elements such as

urban forests, green infrastructure to harvest rainwater, green buildings, and green belts and zones targeted towards urban gardens and open spaces7.

In conversations around “Rwanda’s current urbanisation and green cities development plans”, experts have highlighted the importance of making these greening strategies people-centric, which is an essential element of a biophilic city10,11.

Thus, there is great potential for Kigali to go beyond being a model green city to becoming a biophilic city, incorporating biophysical elements but also fostering citizen well-being by prioritising engagement. This will be essential to meeting the city’s development and sustainability goals.

Appendix 4B: List of Experts

Organisation / Institution Country Validation

Les Stein University of Sydney Australia

Tom Atlee Co-Intelligence Institute USA Yes

Lydia Fraaije Biomimicry Netherlands

Robert Snep Alterra - Wageningen University

and Research

Netherlands

Peter Verweij Alterra - Wageningen University

and Research

Netherlands

Ian Douglas University of Manchester UK

Ken Yeang EcoArchitect Singapore

Manfred Linz Wuppertal Institute for Climate,

Environment and Energy

Germany

Scott Turner The State University of New York USA

Stewart

Diemont

The State University of New York USA

Lemir Teron The State University of New York USA

APPENDICES BIOPHILIC CITIES

75

Appendix 4C: List of Suggested Tools, Methods, and Resources

21st Century Town Hall Meeting: “Large-scale day-long forums engaging thousands of citizens- both face-to-face and through telecommunications links, integrated with laptop computer- and keypad-polling technologies- to deliberate on public issues and provide input to shape government policies. Decision-makers are often included as regular participants”12(p.217). These are organised by AmericaSpeaks. More information can be found on their website13.

Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: “The foundation of this engagement framework is the presentation of relevant and accessible information, dialog and two–way communication, and deliberative and participative mechanisms. ASERT incorporates several key principles: (1) an inclusive process that engages stakeholders across multiple social dimensions and across the sectoral spectrum; (2) a strong emphasis on surfacing local context and knowledge; (3) integrated engagement where social and cultural factors are integral to the process of engagement; and (4) explicit consideration of change mechanisms, such as structured conversations, deliberative dialogue, and participatory mechanisms”14.

Adaptation Support Tool (AST): A tool to support collaborative planning for adaptation and resilience-building measures. “The AST can be used in design workshops by urban planners, landscape architects, water managers, civil engineers, local stakeholders and other experts to create conceptual designs”.15 The tool provides quantifiable output, enabling “planners, designers and stakeholders to explore which opportunities are (cost)effective and fit in the plan area”.16

Bayesian belief networks (BBN): A tool for modelling and reasoning about uncertainty. A BBN is a directed graph paired with an associated set probability tables. The graph consists of nodes, representing discrete or continuous variables, and arcs, representing causal/influential relationships between the variables. “The BBN forces the assessor to expose all assumptions about the impact of different forms of evidence and hence provides a visible and auditable dependability or safety argument”.17

Charrette: “A hands-on interactive session—often involving subgroup sessions—where professionals and ordinary citizens together generate design solutions to a public issue or architecture/land use problem that integrate the contributions and interests of a variety of stakeholders”12(p.218).

Citizen Consensus Council (CCC): “Diverse citizens are convened to seek, with the help of professional facilitation, shared understandings, solutions, and wisdom about social concerns. Their unanimous conclusions are publicized to their entire community or country. CCCs are citizen deliberative councils that operate by consensus”12(p.219). Wisdom Councils are an example of CCCs12.

Citizen Deliberative Councils (CDC), also known as citizen panels: A group of 12 or more citizens who represent the diversity of the community, state, or country in question form a temporary face-to-face council. They are typically selected at

random with some additional criteria to ensure a diverse representation of citizens is present. They typically last two to 10 days and are convened to consider an issue of public concern. They 1) learn about the issue, 2) reflect on it as a group, usually with the help of a facilitator, and 3) produce a collective statement on the issue to be announced to the public and/or relevant government representatives and groups. Citizen Juries, Consensus Conferences, and Wisdom Councils are examples of CDCs. Denmark have in fact institutionalised CDCs to advise Parliament on controversial technical issues12.

Citizen Science: Engagement of members of the public in different stages of scientific projects, managed by professional scientists18.

Civic Environmental Forum: Public forums of around 500 people convened to relay and expand upon the outcomes of CCCs or CDCs. Members of the initial council present their findings for discussion. Forums typically end with a panel discussion that often include NGOs, economists, and scientists19.

Co-Digital: An online resource and process for clarifying, prioritising, and refining diverse ideas and approaches to problems20. It allows brainstorming to occur at scale and enables the engagement of broader audiences21.

Community benefit agreements: “A legally binding contract negotiated between a developer and a coalition representing broad spectrum of community members impacted by the development. In exchange for community members' support for the project, the developer agrees to provide certain benefits. Existing CBAs include provisions such as funds for affordable housing and open space, card check neutrality for workers who choose to organize unions, and living wage goals for workers employed at the development”22. They provide a way to address equity concerns, but require the private developer to fund and provide resources for the process on its own23.

Creative Insight Council (CIC): An “experimental process in which a diverse microcosm of a community—joined by experts, stakeholders, and/or partisans as participating witnesses—explore a predefined issue in a dynamically facilitated choice-creating conversation designed to generate breakthrough solutions”12(p.223).

Deliberative valuation: A valuation technique that emphasises stakeholder participation in the expression and identification of individual and group values and perceptions. It considers joint and individual preferences as part of the valuation process24. The Deliberative Value Formation model provides a framework for deliberative valuation that effectively incorporates plural values into valuation and decision-making25.

Dynamic Facilitation (DF): A moderation method used for "engagement processes both in businesses as well as government [or community] structures, where a smaller group of randomly chosen representatives creates a microcosm of the larger entity and comes up with a solution for the larger whole”26. “It helps groups wrestle creatively with difficult problems such that they often stumble into truly innovative insights and solutions. DF includes a potent reframing of conflicts as concerns”12(p.224). Conflict is seen as a creative force, but is directed at the moderators, allowing it to be more successfully diffused and therefore creatively used and incorporated.

76

Designed to overcome the exclusionary tendencies and assumption of objective truth in deliberative democracy. This method of facilitation helps prevent the influence of hierarchies and reduces or removes the negative effects of social power structures, something that is essential for equitable and truly participatory discussion27.

Dynamic governance (syn. sociocracy): “An approach to decision-making, organizational and corporate governance, and project management that creates more inclusive and effective organizations. It gives everyone in an organization [or community] an ear, a voice, and informed influence over policy that affects them, while maintaining the efficiency of vertical hierarchy”28. This concept sees organisations and communities as integrated systems. It is a structural approach that builds in feedback loops between different organisational and community levels to ensure policies and practices have their desired effects28.

Environmental Impact Assessment: Assessments that “aim to provide a high level of protection [for] the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation of projects, plans and programmes with a view to reduce their environmental impact. They ensure public participation in decision-making and thereby strengthen the quality of decisions”29.

Future Search: A form of CDC that aims to bring together formerly adversary stakeholders20. “Representative stakeholders are gathered together to review or cocreate the future of their organization, community, or situation. They look at their shared history, the forces currently shaping their shared lives, and the visions they can all buy into—and then they self-organize into ongoing action groups to further the vision(s) they created together”12(p.225).

GuideToES.eu: An online ecosystem service support tool. It provides a decision-tree that helps identify specifically relevant tools for ecosystem valuation30. Note: although this tool is highly useful for policy-makers and planners, it has been inaccessible on the Wageningen University intranet. It should be accessible on private internet servers, or via proxy servers.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI): ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability is a network of over 1,500 cities, towns, and regions, impacting over 25% of the global urban population31. “ICLEI provides technical consulting, training and information services to build capacity, share knowledge and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level”32.

Integrated Environmental Assessment: “The process of producing and communicating future-oriented, policy-relevant information on key interactions between the natural environment and human society”33.

International Association for Public Participation (IAP2): “An international association of members who seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments, institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest in nations throughout the world”34. The association supports knowledge sharing and co-production, promotes result-oriented approaches to research, provides technical assistance for improving public participation, and

advocates for its use around the world34. They developed a set of values that should be incorporated into public participation approaches. These values are:

1. “Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.

2. Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the decision.

3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.

4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.

5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.

6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.

7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision”35.

Living Labs (LL): A “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings. LLs are both practice-driven organisations that facilitate and foster open, collaborative innovation, as well as real-life environments or arenas where both open innovation and user innovation processes can be studied and subject to experiments and where new solutions are developed. LLs operate as intermediaries among citizens, research organisations, companies, cities and regions for joint value co-creation, rapid prototyping or validation to scale up innovation and businesses”36. Living Labs can be performed in a variety of ways, but have five common elements: a real-life setting; a multi-method approach; co-creation, and; active user involvement36.

MDD Healthcheck: The tool provides an overview of nature-based measures, and shows the effect on different health aspects as tool users introduce the measures to their plan area. By doing so, users can quickly explore which urban green options are most (cost)effective37.

National Issue Forums: Forums run by trained moderators and organised around a specific issue that “offer citizens the opportunity to join together to deliberate, to make choices with others about ways to approach difficult issues and to work toward creating reasoned public judgment. Forums range from small or large group gatherings similar to town hall meetings, to study circles held in public places or in people's homes on an ongoing basis”38.

Non-violent communication: “A process through which one person can empathize with the needs underlying another’s reactions and seek ways those needs can be served that satisfy everyone involved”12(p.227). A discussion and deliberation technique that is important for ensuring the equity, respect, and trust required for creative solutions20.

Online Council: An online form of CCs or CDCs. Participants are randomly selected to provide recommendations for actions on a

77

specific topic. The results of the online council are typically addressed in a subsequent online forum27.

Online Public Forum: An online version of a Civic Environmental Forum. The results or suggestions of Online Councils are deepened and expanded upon by any interested member of the public. These are then taken into account in subsequent decision-making processes27.

Open meeting: The working definition used in this brief is a meeting that is open to free participation of all members of the public.

Participatory Social Returns on Investment (PSROI) framework: “A structured framework for multi-stakeholder adaptation planning, with participatory processes at community level informing the selection and valuation of appropriate adaptation strategies and interventions. [It] gives policy-makers important insights into local context, allowing them to direct funding to initiatives identified and valued by local communities as being in line with their needs and capacities”39.

Positive deviance (PD) approach: “A behavioural and social change approach which is premised on the observation that in any context, certain individuals confronting similar challenges, constraints, and resource deprivations to their peers, will nonetheless employ uncommon but successful behaviours or strategies which enable them to find better solutions. Through the study of these individuals... the PD approach suggests that innovative solutions to such challenges may be identified and refined from their outlying behaviour”40. “This practice helps communities become aware of—and spread—successful solutions to shared problems that are being practiced by certain unrecognized community members”12(p.228).

Rapid Review worksheets: A method of evaluation for participatory approaches. Worksheets are filled out by both the organisers and the participants. The Institute for Local Governance has produced worksheets that can be applied to most public engagement contexts41.

Strategic Environmental Assessment: “The process by which environmental considerations are required to be fully integrated into the preparation of Plans and Programmes and prior to their final adoption. The objectives of the SEA process are to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to promote sustainable development by contributing to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of specified plans and programmes”42.

Stratified random sampling: A probabilistic sampling option that can be used to ensure that a randomly selected group of participants accurately represents the various strata present in the relevant community. Community members are divided into different subgroups (strata) from each of which participants are randomly chosen. Stratified random sampling can either be proportionate or disproportionate, meaning that each strata is either represented proportionally to the entire population or not. The prior tends to produce more accurate primary data, but the latter can be used in such a way as to overcome inequity43.

System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA): “A framework that integrates economic and environmental data to provide a more comprehensive and multipurpose view of the interrelationships between the economy and the environment and the stocks and changes in stocks of environmental assets, as they bring benefits to humanity”44.

Teal organisations: A more participatory approach to the management of organisations. It “views the organization as an independent force with its own purpose, and not merely as a vehicle for achieving management's objectives. Teal organizations are characterized by self-organization and self-management. The hierarchical "predict and control" pyramid of [traditional organisation management] is replaced with a decentralized structure consisting of small teams that take responsibility for their own governance and for how they interact with other parts of the organization. Assigned positions and job descriptions are replaced with a multiplicity of roles, often self-selected and fluid. People’s actions are guided not by orders from someone up the chain of command but by ‘listening’ to the organization’s purpose”45. This approach to organisation could also be applied to community networks and groups responsible for the implementation of initiatives.

Wisdom council (WC): A citizen reflective council of 12 randomly selected participants (ideally selected using stratified random sampling) discussing political issues over two days, moderated using Dynamic Facilitation. Moderators explore the contributions of each participant in detail and are responsible for compiling the outcomes produced by the councils. WCs were originally designed to have participants explore unspecified issues of importance to their community or country, but can also be convened about a specific topic. They are ideally intended to be convened periodically throughout the year, but can also be convened on an irregular basis. In Vorarlberg, Austria, WCs are convened on request of local governments to find solutions to specific problems, and can also be held in response to petitions of over 1,000 signatures. The outcomes of WCs are presented by the participants to the relevant decision-makers, and to the public27.

World café: “A whole group interaction method focused on conversations. A Café conversation is a creative process for leading collaborative dialogue, sharing knowledge and creating possibilities for action in groups of all sizes… People sit four to a table and hold a series of conversational rounds lasting from 20 to 45 minutes about one or more questions which are personally meaningful to them. At the end of each round, one person remains at each table as the host, while the other three travels to separate tables. Table hosts welcome newcomers to their tables and share the essence of that table's conversation so far. The newcomers relate any conversational threads they are carrying -- and then the conversation continues, deepening as the round progresses”46. Questions or issues discussed should be related, and important, to the lives of participants. The conversational process helps provide common ground and identify possibilities for action based on those issues or questions46.

78

Appendix 4D: A Non-Exhaustive List of Biophilic Design elements, Innovations, and Concepts

14 design patterns of biophilic cities: Produced by consulting company Terrapin Bright Green as a design tool.

“1. Visual Connection with Nature—A view to elements of nature, living systems, and natural processes

2. Nonvisual Connection with Nature—Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature, living systems, or natural processes

3. Non-rhythmic Sensory Stimuli—Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely

4. Thermal & Airflow Variability – Subtle changes in air temperature, relative humidity, airflow across the skin, and surface temperatures that mimic natural environments

5. Presence of Water—A condition that enhances the experience of a place through the seeing, hearing, or touching of water

6. Dynamic and Diffuse Light—Leveraging varying intensities of light and shadow that change over time to create conditions that occur in nature

7. Connection with Natural Systems—Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes characteristic of a healthy ecosystem

8. Biomorphic Forms and Patterns—Symbolic references to contoured, patterned, textured, or numerical arrangements that persist in nature

9. Material Connection with Nature—Material and elements from nature that, through minimal processing, reflect the local ecology or geology to create a distinct sense of place

10. Complexity and Order—Rich sensory information that adheres to a spatial hierarchy similar to those encountered in nature

11. Prospect—An unimpeded view over a distance for surveillance and planning

12. Refuge—A place for withdrawal, from environmental conditions or the main flow of activity, in which the individual is protected from behind and overhead

13. Mystery—The promise of more information achieved through partially obscured views or other sensory devices that entice the individual to travel deeper into the environment

14. Risk/Peril—An identifiable threat coupled with a reliable safeguard”47.

Adaptive palettes: Using the natural processes present in biologically diverse ecosystems to repair soils and treat urban stormwater. Multiple ponds of varying depth, pH, and moisture are integrated into the topography along with carefully chosen indigenous plant species. Each pond therefore produces a microhabitat that provides diverse functions based on their regenerative capabilities48.

Attributes of biophilic design: Produced by Yale professors Kellert and Calabrese (2015).

“I. Direct experience of nature

● Light ● Air ● Water ● Plants ● Animals ● Weather ● Natural landscapes and ecosystems

II. Indirect experience of nature

● Images of nature ● Natural materials ● Natural colours ● Simulating natural light and air ● Naturalistic shapes and forms ● Evoking nature ● Information richness ● Age, change, and the patina of time ● Natural geometries ● Biomimicry

III. Experience of space and place

● Prospect and refuge ● Organized complexity ● Integration of parts to wholes ● Transitional spaces ● Mobility and wayfinding ● Cultural and ecological attachment to place”49.

Biomimicry: An approach to sustainability innovation that emulates nature’s design and processes in order to address challenges. It views nature as a font of research and development processes that have successfully produced the most effective answers to certain challenges, which have the potential to be adapted to human needs48. Nature-based solutions, blue-green and green infrastructure all incorporate aspects of biomimicry.

Bioswales (syn. bioswale systems): Biophilic retention areas that can be used to improve the quality, and reduce the runoff, of stormwater48. “A bioswale is a ditch with vegetation and a porous bottom. The top layer consists of enhanced soil with plants. Below that layer is a layer of gravel, scoria or baked clay pellets packed in geotextile” 48. Bioswale systems are designed to absorb and filter rainfall from an impervious area and are therefore located next to said area, for example in a ditch next to a parking lot50.

79

Bird-friendly building design: Buildings pose a threat to birds, but there are certain steps that can be taken to ensure that buildings are designed in such a way as to limit their impact. This includes bird-safe window glazing treatments, minimal and shielded lighting, and avoiding the use of vertical axis turbines and horizontal wind turbines that do not appear to be solid. San Francisco has even produced Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings, introduced the Lights Out for Birds initiative, and implemented a programme encouraging people and buildings to become Certified Bird-Friendly Monitors and Certified Bird-Friendly respectively51.

Blue-green infrastructure (may also be referred to as ecologically integrated infrastructural systems, related to multi-functional green and water): Infrastructure design that “connects urban hydrological functions with urban nature, landscape design and planning”52. Blue-green infrastructure can help address the water management challenges such as droughts and flooding through the use of water and natural elements. It can also help reduce urban heat island effects. This concept is a type of nature-based solutions53, and is tightly linked to the concept of green infrastructure.

Certification systems: It would likely prove useful to encourage or mandate the use of at least one sustainability- or well-being-focused certification system51. Below is a short, and non-exhaustive, list of examples of relevant certification systems that could be considered.

● Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM): “The world’s leading sustainability assessment method for masterplanning projects, infrastructure and buildings”54 produced by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). They use third party certification to assess environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Resulting certification implies that the asset in question provides positive benefits for the wellbeing of people living and working in them while also protecting natural resources54. Assessment can take place at any stage of the asset’s life cycle.55 BREEAM also encompasses CEEQUAL56 and Home Quality Mark57 standards54.

● Civil Engineering Environmental Quality (CEEQUAL) Assessment and Award Scheme: “The international evidence-based sustainability assessment, rating and awards scheme for civil engineering”56. It is a process of self-assessment that is performed by CEEQUAL-trained assessors. This assessment is then externally validated58. CEEQUAL rewards project and contract teams that go above and beyond the required environmental and social minima for projects. CEEQUAL is now part of the BRE Group59.

● Home Quality Mark (HQM): The UK’s “national standard for new homes, which uses a simple 5-star rating to provide impartial information from independent experts on a new home's design, construction quality and running costs”60. It also shows the impact of the home on occupants’ health and wellbeing. HQM was developed by BRE60 and involves assessment by independent, fully trained and licensed professionals61.

● Additional examples of sustainability certification

schemes: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED); Living Building Challenge; Sustainable SITES Initiative; WELL Certification and Building Standards.

Cradle to Cradle (C2C) principle: The principle ‘cradle to cradle’ states that designs should use materials made of either biological nutrients that are capable of biodegrading in order to be returned to the earth, or technical nutrients that can be recovered and endlessly reused51. This principle has formed the basis for the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (C2CPII), which “educates and empowers manufacturers of consumer products to become a positive force for society and the environment” and administers the Cradle to Cradle Certified Product Standard62. This certification involves an assessment performed by an independent, qualified, C2CPII-trained organisation and based on scores for five quality areas (material health, material reutilisation, renewable energy and carbon management, water stewardship, social fairness)63.

Eco-District: The Eco-District tool help groups of property owners, businesses, and residents within a neighbourhood develop and initiate sustainability initiatives64. There is no focus on biophilia specifically, but many of the initiatives that would come from the use of this tool may in fact be biophilic. The non-governmental organisation Eco-District focuses is on providing neighbourhood-level support to such initiatives65. Since 2012 there has also been an Eco-District summit every year. This acts as a platform for discussion challenges, opportunities, successes, and lessons in neighbourhood- and district-scale sustainability66. The reports from the summits are likely to provide further insight into how to approach biophilic urban design.

Green alleys: The use of alleyways as spaces to incorporate biophilic elements. In Austin, Texas, the University of Texas was involved in a program to experiment with potential functions for alleys. Existing alleys can be turned into tools for stormwater management (via incorporation of bioswales, rain gardens, etc.), new public green spaces that contribute to biodiversity (via external green walls, etc.), wildlife corridors, etc.. The ‘activation’ of these un- or under-utilised alleys can also help increase public safety and increase community engagement with greening initiatives51.

Green Area Ratio (GAR): An urban site sustainability metric that shows how much of the original biodiversity of a development site is restored through the biophilic elements of the development project. A GAR of 1 is ideal, as this would mean that the new development has accounted for the biodiversity lost through the use of the area. This ratio can be used to help assess the biophilic contribution of a development51. The District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment have also used the GAR as “an environmental sustainability zoning regulation that sets standards for landscape and site design to help reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, and keep the city cooler”67.

Green belt: An area of land around a city that is reserved for open space, upon which development is prohibited. Green belts can be used to protect areas around cities from urban sprawl, and to connect urban nature to peri-urban nature. This helps

80

protect wildlife and maintain biodiversity68. However, green belts raise key concerns relating to their accessibility for inner-city residents and their connectivity to urban green spaces. These concerns are more effectively addressed by green corridors and green wedges69.

Green corridor (syn. greenways): Green corridors serve as a way to link green spaces within cities, and/or to link urban green with natural spaces outside, or on the periphery, of cities. They help protect wildlife and biodiversity by acting as wildlife corridors, but also enhance the use of green spaces for citizens. This is done through creating networks and improving accessibility69.

Green infrastructure: Nature-based infrastructure design. Green infrastructure can be used to reduce heat island effects, improve air quality, increase biodiversity, manage stormwater, promote urban agriculture, improve citizens’ wellbeing, and more51. The EU has already produced a Green Infrastructure Strategy70, and the US EPA provides various resources71.

Green roofs: The use of roof space to create contained green spaces. Each green roof will be designed differently based on the region, climate, building, and type, which will in turn affect the specific benefits accrued. However, general benefits include improved building aesthetics (and users’ wellbeing), stormwater management, reduced urban heat island effects, increased biodiversity, improved air quality, improved energy efficiency, increased noise reduction, and the introduction new, green jobs72.

Green walls: Vegetated wall surfaces. Although the specific regional, climatic, building, and type characteristics will influence the potential impacts there are some generalisable benefits, similar to those of green roofs. Green walls can help reduce urban heat island effects, improve (internal or external) air quality, protect building structures, reduce noise, treat wastewater onsite, improve health and well-being, and create new, green jobs72. There are three types of green walls, discussed below.

● Green facades: “Systems in which vines and climbing plants or cascading groundcovers grow into supporting structures that are purposely designed for their location” 72. They may be attached to existing structures or built as free-standing structures, and can be used for shading purposes.

● Living walls: “Pre-vegetated panels, modules, planted blankets or bags that are affixed to a structural wall or free-standing frame” 72. The modules can be made of recycled materials and can support more diversity and density of plant species. Living walls are suitable for both indoor and outdoor applications72.

● Retaining living walls: “Engineered living structures that are designed to stabilize a slope, while supporting vegetation contained in their structure” 72. They can be used to protect slopes from erosion and lateral forces72.

Green wedge: Green areas that connect non- and peri-urban nature to urban spaces for nature69. They provide space for recreational activities while also preventing the merging of adjacent areas and providing easy access for residents to urban green73. They also help protect wildlife and biodiversity, as they can act as wildlife corridors51.

Incentive programme: Incentive programmes can be used to promote the adoption of specific biophilic design elements or

innovations. Examples of this include the City of Toronto Eco-roof Incentive Program grants, the city tax incentives included in Mexico City’s Plan Verde, and many of the subsidies for biophilic innovation provided by the Singapore government. These incentives often take the form of a subsidy or tax incentives51.

Micro-parks (syn. parklets): Converting two to three on-street parking spaces into very small urban parks. San Francisco has received international attention and praise for their work with parklets. These are similar to, and can be integrated with, sidewalk gardens. San Francisco has also been working with these, and a special one-page permit was created specifically for such projects51.

Nature-based solutions: “Interventions which use nature and the natural functions of healthy ecosystems to tackle some of the most pressing challenges of our time”.

Pervious concrete (related to porous paving): Pervious concrete has cavities that allow for the absorption of water. This is a highly useful tool for stormwater management, and can be incorporated easily into developments. Pervious concrete contributes to the recharging of groundwater supplies and the reduction of stormwater runoff. The use of pervious concrete is one of the US EPA Best Management Practices for regional and local stormwater management74.

Rain garden: Biophilic elements that provide storage and filtration services for stormwater50. They are small gardens planted in a shallow depression with deep-rooted75, indigenous plant species capable of withstanding various extremes in moisture50.

Restorative landscaping: Landscaping design that aims to restore native biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. It may involve a combination of different planting zones and landscape qualities51.

Stormwater tree trenches: Another biophilic element designed to help with stormwater management by connecting a system of trees through an underground filtration system. From aboveground they look like a series of individual street tree pits, but the underground filtration system connects them and helps manage runoff. The collected stormwater is used to water the trees, and if the system capacity is exceeded it can be released slowly into existing stormwater sewers76.

Subsistence biophilia: Biophilic elements, programmes, etc. can be used to provide subsistence benefits to urban populations. Examples of such programmes include the Beacon food forest in Seattle, USA, and the Urban Agriculture Program in Rosario, Argentina51,77.

Urban Park Rangers: This is a programme developed in New York City, but which could feasibly be adapted to other large cities. The Urban Park Rangers are a faction of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation that provides activities for environmental education, outdoor recreation, and wildlife conservation and management. The programme was designed to “introduce, reacquaint, and deeply engage [residents] of all ages with the city’s abundant ecosystem and natural amenities”51(p.145). This aim is central to the concept of biophilic cities, as it attempts to increase curiosity and care for the environment through exposure to it.

81

Urban stream restoration/rehabilitation: Rehabilitating and restoring urban streams can be done in a wide variety of ways, and must be tailored to the specific ecological and socio-political contexts. Potential benefits are improved stormwater and flood management, provision of recreational space, reduced heat island effects, and improved air quality. Successful examples include the Cheonggyecheon Stream restoration project in Seoul, and the restoration of the Akerselva river, as part of Oslo’s Green Structure Plan51.

Wildlife corridors and overpasses/crossings: Land used by wildlife to travel between habitats. Protecting the land that wildlife travels on is key to conservation78 as it helps manage the effects of habitat fragmentation79.

Wildlife overpasses or crossings: Also referred to as ecoducts, are a type of wildlife corridor that is specifically designed to reduce the likelihood of wildlife being hurt or killed by roads that may intersect with routes used by wildlife80. Edmonton, Canada, is a useful example of the successful design and installation of dual aquatic and mammal wildlife passages. The City used an Ecological Network Approach to ensure effective connectivity, and wildlife collisions have decreased since the 27 overpasses were completed.

82

Appendix 4E: Non-exhaustive List of Criteria for Tailoring Non-Monetary Valuation Methods of Ecosystem

Services to Specific Policy Contexts

Figure 1 portrays a decision tree that can serve as a guide to the selection process of non-monetary valuation methods of ecosystem

services, also referred to as socio-cultural valuation methods. A more comprehensive list of selection criteria and decision trees for

biophysical and monetary valuation methods, is presented in the OpenNESS Project Deliverable Integrated valuation of ecosystem

services. Guidelines and experiences, from which the figure is taken. Table 181 and Table 282, which are taken from and further

explained in Santos-Martin et al. 2017 depict the suitability of evaluation methods with regard to methodological requirements and

their capacity to capture different types of value, respectively.

Figure 1 Decision tree for socio-cultural valuation methods. Taken from Barton et al. 201781.

Table 1 Methodological requirements of socio-cultural methods for valuing Ecosystem Services82

83

Appendix 4F: Biophilic Cities Vertical Framework

84

85

Appendix 4G: Glossary of Terms

Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: See Appendix 4C.

Adaptation Support Tool: See Appendix 4C.

Bayesian belief networks (BBN): See Appendix 4C.

Biophilia: ‘The innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms’. - E.O. Wilson. Biophilia further implies that emphasising this affiliation with other living organisms (ie. nature) will improve wellbeing51.

Biophilic city: biophilic cities have four main characteristics.

● They are natureful- full of integrated, biodiverse, multi-

scaled natural systems, and spaces51.

○ Biophilic cities should be seen as, and designed to be,

extensions of, and proxies for, naturally-occuring

systems. Biophilic elements should therefore be

functional and aesthetic83.

● Citizens of biophilic cities are engaged with nature, care for

it, enjoy it, and celebrate it51.

○ Biophilic cities maintain an ethics of coexistence,

emphasising respect for all types of nature51.

○ Local stewardship encourages stewardship of and care

for nature outside of city and national boundaries51.

● Biophilic cities are leaders- they participate in networks

and knowledge sharing in order to facilitate innovation

and the transition of other cities towards biophilia51.

● Biophilic cities ensure the equitable distribution of natural

experiences, nature, and its benefits51.

Biophilic design: the working definition used in this brief is design elements that integrates nature in ways that are intended to increase wellbeing. Biophilic design should also be functional, while prioritising the maximisation of biodiversity and inclusion of native species.

Charette: “a hands-on interactive session—often involving subgroup sessions—where professionals and ordinary citizens together generate design solutions to a public issue or architecture/land use problem that integrate the contributions and interests of a variety of stakeholders”12(P.218).

Citizen Deliberative Council: a group of 12 or more citizens who represent the diversity of the community, state, or country in questions form a temporary face-to-face council. They are typically selected at random with some additional criteria to ensure that all categories of diversity are present. They typically last two to 10 days and are convened to consider an issue of public concern. They 1) learn about the issue, 2) reflect on it as a group, usually with the help of a facilitator, and 3) produce a collective statement on the issue to be announced to the public and/or relevant government representatives and groups. Citizen Juries, Consensus Conferences, and Wisdom Councils are examples of CDCs. Denmark have in fact institutionalised CDCs to advise Parliament on controversial technical issues12.

Citizen science (also referred to as participatory monitoring, participatory action research): see Appendix 4C

Co-Digital: See Appendix 4C

Deliberative valuation: See Appendix 4C

Dynamic Facilitation (DF): See Appendix 4C

Eco-city: “a human settlement modelled on the self-sustaining resilient structure and function of natural ecosystems”84. They differ from biophilic cities because they do not emphasise wellbeing, nor the inclusion of biodiverse urban nature51.

Environmental Impact Assessment: See Appendix 4C

Experts: Individuals with expertise relevant to the operationalisation and implementation of biophilic design principles within specific cities, or as members of a task group.

Experts recommended per phase:

● Phase 2: Ecologists, Engineers, Sociologists, Social

Psychologists, Environmental Scientists and

● Phase 3: City Planners, Sociologists and Social

Psychologists

● Phase 4: Architects, City Planners, City Works Managers,

Engineers, Sociologists, Social Psychologists

Facilitator (syn. moderator): the working definition used in this brief is a person who helps prevent the intrusion of the negative impacts of power structures into discussions. They also compile the outcomes of said discussions.

Future Search: See Appendix 4C

Green city: cities that focus on reducing energy consumption and decreasing ecological footprints. Although the inclusion of nature may be considered in the urban planning process, it is not the primary tool, and there is no focus on wellbeing51.

GuideToES.eu: See Appendix 4C

Habitat III: “The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development”85.

Heat Island Effect: “The higher temperatures experienced in urban areas compared to the surrounding countryside [due to] increased use of manmade materials and increased anthropogenic heat production”86.

Initiatives: “An act or strategy intended to resolve a difficulty or improve a situation; a fresh approach to something”87- the Oxford English Living Dictionary.

Informal settlements: “1. areas where groups of housing units have been constructed on land that the occupants have no legal claim to, or occupy illegally; 2. unplanned settlements and areas where housing is not in compliance with current planning and building regulations (unauthorized housing)”88.- UN Glossary of Environment Statistics.

86

MDD Healthcheck: The tool provides an overview of nature-based measures, and shows the effect on different health aspects as tool users introduce the measures to their plan area. By doing so, users can quickly explore which urban green options are most (cost)effective37.

Moderator (syn. facilitator): the working definition used in this brief is a person who helps prevent the intrusion of the negative impacts of power structures into discussions. They also compile the outcomes of said discussions.

Municipality: a city with its own local government89.

New Urban Charter (NUC): See Box 3

Non-monetary valuation methods : recently also referred to as socio-cultural valuation methods explore ways of representing cognitive, emotional, and ethical responses to nature. They are often shared values, particularly suited to explaining the context specificity of values90.

Online Public Forum: See Appendix 4C

Open meeting: See Appendix 4C

OpenNESS project: Operationalisation of Natural Capital And Ecosystem Services Project, founded by the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research. Ran between December 2012 and May 2017. Its aim was to “translate the concepts of Natural Capital (NC) and Ecosystem Services (ES) into operational frameworks that provide tested, practical and tailored solutions for integrating ES into land, water and urban management and decision-making. It examines how the concepts link to, and support, wider EU economic, social and environmental policy initiatives and scrutinizes the potential and limitations of the concepts of ES and NC. OpenNESS works in close cooperation with decision makers and other stakeholders”91.

Participatory Social Returns on Investment (PSROI) framework: See Appendix 4C

Positive deviance approach: See Appendix 4C

Rapid Review worksheets: See Appendix 4C

Resilient cities: cities that are capable of withstanding severe shocks without descending into immediate chaos or suffering permanent harm92.

Relational values: “preferences, principles, and virtues associated with relationships, both impersonal and as articulated by policies and social norms”93. Values derived from relationships- between individuals, between individuals and communities, between individuals and nature, between communities and nature, between different aspects/parts of nature93.

● The connections between intrinsic and instrumental

values can be understood via relational values.

● Eudaimonic (relational) values are those associated

with a good life; “relationships between people and

nature, and to the foundations of wellbeing (e.g., trust

in neighbours, empathy, mindfulness, and purpose,

rather than an accumulation of things)” 93.

● Human collective relational values relate to cultural

identity, social cohesion, social responsibility, moral

responsibility93.

● Individual relational values primarily relate to individual

identity, stewardship as part of a good life, and

stewardship as morally right93.

Social sustainability: “living in ways that can be sustained because they are healthy and satisfying for people and communities”94.

Stakeholder: the working definition used in this policy brief is those directly or indirectly affected by biophilic initiatives implemented under the policy framework outlined in this brief.

Strategic Environmental Assessment: See Appendix 4C

System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA): See Appendix 4C

Wisdom council: See Appendix 4C

World café: See Appendix 4C

87

Bibliography

1 Museum of the City (n.d.) Portland is a Biophilic City.

Retrieved December 10, 2017, from

http://www.museumofthecity.org/project/portland-is-a-

biophilic-city/

2 Biophilic Cities. (2012, July 2). Portland Green Streets. Jones C.

Retrieved December 10, 2017 from

http://biophiliccities.org/portland-green-streets/

3 World Climate (n.d.) Average Weather Data for Portland,

Oregon. Retrieved December 10, 2017 from

http://www.worldclimate.com/climate/us/oregon/portland

4 City Parks Alliance (n.d.). Portland Green Street Program.

Retrieved December 10, 2017 from

http://www.cityparksalliance.org/issues-a-

resources/design/case-studies/portland-green-street-program

5 Water Environment Research Foundation (n.d.). Portland

Oregon : Building a Nationally Recognized Program Through

Innovation and Research. Retrieved December 10, 2017 from

http://www.werf.org/liveablecommunities/studies_port_or.ht

m

6 The City of Portland Oregon. City of Portland Public

Involvement Principles [2010, August 4]. Retrieved December

10, 2017 from

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/article/312804

7 Rwanda Environment Management Authority (2015). Rwanda:

State of Environment and Outlook Report. P.O. Box 7436 Kigali,

Rwanda

8 Rwanda Natural Resources Authority. (2011). National

Forestry Policy.

9 MININFRA. (2013). Urbanization and Rural Settlement Sector

Strategic Plan: 2012/13-17/18. Kigali: Republic of Rwanda,

Ministry of Infrastructure.

10 Citiscope. [2016, September 16] Rwanda Urged to Design

People Centric Green Cities. Retrieved December 12, 2017.,

from http://citiscope.org/citisignals/2016/rwanda-urged-

design-people-centric-green-cities

11 Tashobya A. [2016, September 8]. Green Cities Key to

Sustainable Economic Development - Experts. The New Times.

Retrieved December 12, 2017, from

http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/article/2016-09-

08/203347/

12 Atlee, T. (2012). Empowering public wisdom: a practical vision

of citizen-led politics. Berkeley: Evolver.

13 AmericaSpeaks. (n.d.). Engaging Citizens in Governance.

Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.americaspeaks.org/

14 Covi, M., Yusuf, J., Considine, C., St. John III, B., & Nicula, G.

(2016). Action-Oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient

Tomorrow (ASERT) Framework[PDF]. Old Dominion University

Resilience Collaborative.

15 Deltares. (n.d.). Adaptation Support Tool (AST). Retrieved

December, 2017, from

https://www.deltares.nl/en/software/adaptation-support-tool-

ast/

16 Wageningen university and Research. (n.d.). Adaptation

Support Tool – supporting stakeholders in climateproofing

cities. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.wur.nl/en/project/Adaptation-Support-Tool-

supporting-stakeholders-in-climateproofing-cities-1.htm

17 Queen Mary University London. (n.d.). Bayesian Belief Nets-

What is a Bayesian network? Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/BBNs/BBNs.htm

18 (Dickinson, Zuckerberg, & Bonter, 2010; Palermo, Laut, Nov,

Cappa, & Porfiri, 2017; Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2016; Silvertown,

2009)

19 “Civic Council Project 2016 - German Ministry for the

Environment - BMUB.” Vimeo, Martin Rausch, 2016,

vimeo.com/184388934.

20 Atlee, T. (2017, December 12). Comments on first draft of

policy brief [E-mail to the author].

21 Co-Digital. (n.d.). Co-Digital- How it works. Retrieved

December, 2017, from

http://www.codigital.com/howitworks/#top

22 Good Jobs New York. (2011, February 21). Community

Benefits Agreements. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.goodjobsny.org/resources-tools/community-

benefits-agreements

23 Gerber, S. (2007, November 1). Community benefits

agreements: A tool for more equitable development? Retrieved

December, 2017, from

https://minneapolisfed.org/publications/community-

88

dividend/community-benefits-agreements-a-tool-for-more-

equitable-development

24 Arias, P., Barton, D., Braat, L., Garcia-Lorene, M., Gómez-

Baggethun, E., Kelemen, E., . . . Schröter, C. (2014). State-of-the-

art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services (1st

ed., OpenNESS Deliverable D.4.1/WP4). OpenNESS project.

25 Kenter, J., Reed, M., & Fazey, I. (2016, November 09). The

Deliberative Value Formation model. Retrieved December,

2017, from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204161

6303552

26 Hillbrand, U., & Nauen, C. E. (2014). Underpinning Conflict

Prevention by International Cooperation. p166. Handbook of

International Negotiation,157-172. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-

10687-8_12

27 Asenbaum, H. (2016). Facilitating Inclusion: Austrian Wisdom

Councils as Democratic Innovation between Consensus and

Diversity. Journal of Public Deliberation,12(2). Retrieved

December, 2017, from

https://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refere

r=http://diapraxis.com/home/translations-of-germanlanguage-

resources-on-df-and-

cccs&httpsredir=1&article=1462&context=jpd

28 Dynamic Governance. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.clsolutionsinc.com/what-we-do/dynamic-

governance/

29 European Commission. (n.d.). Environmental Assessment.

Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/index_en.htm

30 Ecosystem Services Assessment Support Tool. (n.d.).

Retrieved December, 2017, from http://www.guidetoes.eu/

31 ICLEI. (n.d.). Who we are. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.iclei.org/about/who-is-iclei.html

32 ICLEI. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions about ICLEI.

Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.iclei.org/about/who-is-iclei/faq.html

33 IISD. (2016, January 20). Integrated Environmental

Assessment Training Manual. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.iisd.org/library/integrated-environmental-

assessment-training-manual

34 International Association for Public Participation. (n.d.).

About IAP2. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.iap2.org/?page=A3

35 International Association for Public Participation. (n.d.). Core

Values. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.iap2.org/?page=corevalues

36 European Netowrk of Living Labs. (n.d.). What are Living Labs.

Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/node/1429

37 Wageningen University and Research. (n.d.). MDD-

Healthcheck . Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.wur.nl/en/Research-Results/kennisonline/MDD-

Healthcheck-InvT..htm

38 National Issue Forum Institute. (2015, February 03). About

NIF Forums. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.nifi.org/en/about-nif-forums

39 Chaudhury, A. (2012). Unlocking the power of local

knowledge: A novel framework to cost community-based

adaptation to climate change(Rep.). p3. Climate &

Development Knowledge Network. Retrieved from

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/27707/Unlo

ckingPowerLocalKnowledge.pdf.

40http://www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan/approach/positive_

deviance

41 Assessing Public Engagement Effectiveness: Rapid Review

Worksheets[PDF]. (n.d.). Sacramento: Institute for Local

Governance. Retrieved December, 2017, from http://www.ca-

ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-

attachments/resources__Rapid_Review_Worksheet_FINAL_sec

ured__5-6-11.pdf

42 Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Strategic

Environmental Assessment. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.epa.ie/monitoringassessment/assessment/sea/

43 Stratified Sampling. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-

collection/stratified-sampling/

44 System of Environmental Economic Accounting. (n.d.).

Retrieved December, 2017, from https://seea.un.org/

45 Teal Organizations. (2017, April 29). Retrieved December,

2017, from

http://www.reinventingorganizationswiki.com/Teal_Organizati

ons

46 The World Cafe. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.kstoolkit.org/The World Cafe

47 Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning and

design. Box 2.1. p22-23. Washington, DC: Islandpress.

89

48 Amani Farooque | November 7, 2012 |. (n.d.). Tianjin’s

Qiaoyuan Park: Enabling Resilience and a New Aesthetic.

Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://biophiliccities.org/tianjins-qiaoyuan-park-enabling-

resilience-and-a-new-aesthetic/

49 Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning and

design. Box 2. p23. Washington, DC: Islandpress.

50Soil Science Society of America. (n.d.). Rain Gardens and

Bioswales. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/soils-in-the-city/green-

infrastructure/important-terms/rain-gardens-bioswales

51 Beatley, T. (2016). Handbook of biophilic city planning and

design. Washington, DC: Islandpress.

52http://www.ramboll.com/Services-and-sectors/Planning-and-

Urban-Design/Blue-green-infrastructure-design

53 https://nbs2017.eu/

54 BRE Group. (n.d.). BREEAM. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.breeam.com/

55 BRE Group. (2017, November 23). How BREEAM Certification

Works. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.breeam.com/discover/how-breeam-certification-

works/

56 BRE Group. (n.d.). CEEQUAL. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.ceequal.com/

57 BRE Group. (n.d.). Home Quality Mark. Retrieved December,

2017, from http://www.homequalitymark.com/

58 BRE Group. (2017, July 13). Process. Retrieved December,

2017, from http://www.ceequal.com/process/

59 BRE Group. (2017, July 13). About. Retrieved December,

2017, from http://www.ceequal.com/about/

60 BRE Group. (n.d.). What is the HQM. Retrieved December,

2017, from http://www.homequalitymark.com/what-is-the-

hqm

61 How are homes assessed? (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017,

from http://www.homequalitymark.com/how-is-it-assessed

62 Cradle to Cradle Innovation Institute. (n.d.). About the

Institute. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.c2ccertified.org/about

63 Cradle to Cradle Innovation Institute. (n.d.). Overview- Get

Cradle to Cradle Certified. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/product-certification

64 Vinnitskaya, I. (2013, June 29). San Francisco's Eco-Districts,

Starting with the Central Corridor. Retrieved December, 2017,

from https://www.archdaily.com/395672/san-francisco-s-eco-

districts-starting-with-the-central-corridor

65 About EcoDistricts - District-Scale Urban Development Firm.

(n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://ecodistricts.org/about/

66 Explore Past Summits. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.summit.ecodistricts.org/explore-past-summits/

67 DC Department of Energy and Environment. (n.d.). Green

Area Ratio Overview. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://doee.dc.gov/service/green-area-ratio-overview

68 Green Belt UK Politics. (n.d.). What is Green Belt Land and Its

Purpose. Retrieved December, 2017, from http://www.politics-

greenbelt.org.uk/

69 Lindley, I. (2017, January 30). Green belt vs. green wedge - a

new approach to integrated landscape. Retrieved December,

2017, from https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/blog/green-

belt-vs-green-wedge/

70 European Commission. (2016). The EU Strategy on Green

Infrastructure. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/strategy/

index_en.htm

71 Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, November 08).

Green Infrastructure. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure

72 Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. (n.d.). About Green Roofs.

Retrieved December, 2017, from https://greenroofs.org/about-

green-roofs/

73 Planning Portal. (2015, July 14). Green Wedges. Retrieved

December, 2017, from

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/directory_record/269/green

_wedges

74 National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. (n.d.). Pervious

Concrete Pavement. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.perviouspavement.org/

75 Rain Garden Network. (2017, January 27). What is a Rain

Garden? Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.raingardennetwork.com/blog/what-is-a-rain-

garden/

76http://www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/green_in

frastructure/tools/stormwater_tree_trench

90

77 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(2014). Growing Greener Cities in Latin America and the

Caribbean. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization

78 African Wildlife Foundation. (2013, July 18). Wildlife

Corridors. Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.awf.org/land-protection/wildlife-corridors

79 Bond, M. (2003, October). Principles of Wildlife Corridor

Design[PDF]. Center for Biological Diversity.

80 The World Geography. (n.d.). Unusual Bridges For Animals -

Wildlife Overpasses. Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.theworldgeography.com/2012/06/unusual-

bridges-for-animals-wildlife.html

81 Barton, D.N.; Dunford, R.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Harrison,

P.A.; Jacobs, S.; Kelemen, E.; Martín-López, B. (2017). Integrated

valuation of ecosystem services. Guidelines and experiences. In:

Barton, D.N. and P.A. Harrison (Eds.). EU FP7 OpenNESS Project

Deliverable 33-44.

82 Santos-Martin, F.; Kelemen, E.; Garcia Llorente, M.; Jacobs, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Barton, D.; Palomo, I.; Hevia, V.; Martín-López, B. (2017). Socio-cultural valuation approaches. In Burkhard, B. and Maes, J. (eds.) Mapping Ecosystem Services. 104-114.

83 Yeang, K. Answers to Questions on UNDSD Policy Brief [E-mail

interview]. (2017, December 3).

84 EcoCity Standards. (n.d.). What is an Ecocity? Retrieved

December, 2017, from

http://www.ecocitystandards.org/ecocity/

85 Habitat III. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://habitat3.org/

86 Mohajerani, A., Bakaric, J., Jeffrey-Bailey, T. (2017). The urban

heat island effect, its causes, and mitigation, with reference to

the thermal properties of asphalt concrete. Journal of

Environmental Management, 197, pp. 522-538.

87 Definition of initiative in English by Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.).

Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/initiative

88 OECD Statistics Directorate.

(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1verl89l3dqeliayxdkcuej

nyzkb7rl3bif6csvvqhkc/edit, November 14). Glossary of

Statistical terms- informal settlements. Retrieved December,

2017, from https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1351

89 Definition of municipality noun in English by Oxford Learner's

Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english

/municipality?q=municipality

90 Barton, D.N.; Jacobs, S.; Iniesta, I.; Saarikoski, H.; Termansen,

M.; Pérez Soba, M.; Kelemen, E.; (2017). Diverse Valuation and

Accounting of Nature. EU FP7 OpenNESS Brief 5. Retrieved

December 2017, from http://www.openness-

project.eu/sites/default/files/Policy%20brief%20%235%20Capt

uring%20diverse%20nature%20values_Final.pdf.

91 OpenNESS Project. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2017, from

http://www.openness-project.eu/

92 Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., &

Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience,

adaptability and transformability. Ecology and society, 15(4).

93 Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chan, K. M., Chapman, M., Díaz,

S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., . . . Turner, N. (2017). Why protect

nature? Rethinking values and the environment. p1463. Post-

publication peer review of the biomedical literature,113(6),

1462-1465. doi:10.3410/f.726134549.793538411

94 Antons, D. C., Bai, X., Duraiappah, A., Fragkias, M., Gutscher,

F., Munoz, P., & Rogers, D. (2012). A vision for human well-

being: transition to social sustainability. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability,61-73. Retrieved December, 2017,

from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.013.