Kiki Kersten is a project manager and researcher specialising in the circular economy at Statistics Netherlands. ‘Exceeding the boundaries of what our planet can support will have a major effect on our way of life, our environment and our health,’ she explains. ‘Several ministries have therefore stated that government policy should be aimed at staying within those boundaries. Scientists have also advocated for this. But staying within planetary boundaries is an enormous challenge that involves so many complex, interrelated factors that nobody can explain exactly what this ambition means. Let alone identify the right measures to achieve it.’ Horlings continues: ‘Politicians and policy makers want to know what to do and they need concrete tools to stay within the limits of what our planet can support. What is the impact of economic choices? And what action can we take?’
It was late 2023 when Kersten first met Natascha Spanbroek, coordinator of the circular economy research programme at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). They discovered that they share the same ambition. ‘We’d both noticed that the concept of planetary boundaries is talked about fairly frequently by policymakers in the Netherlands and Europe, but it’s unclear what action needs to be taken in practice,’ Spanbroek recalls. ‘When we say that the goal is to stay within planetary boundaries, what does that mean in specific terms? Kiki and I both wanted to shed more light on that question, and to provide options for action.’ Kersten: ‘It’s important that policymakers and politicians understand the concept of planetary boundaries and find practical guidelines for staying within them. They need concrete, quantifiable options to base their decisions on. This framework will help them to make that leap.’
Joining up the dots
Horlings continues: ‘In addition to that, the work of both CBS and RIVM mainly involves individual issues. So we know a lot about biodiversity, water usage or levels of nitrogen compounds, for example. But in reality, all these factors are interrelated. So for instance, high levels of greenhouse emissions are changing our climate. That in turn affects farming practices, which affects biodiversity, and so on. This means it’s important to bring together all the data we have on all these different issues. One of our aims was to find a way to do that. Otherwise, we only ever see an isolated piece of the jigsaw, and so policy proposals will only address isolated issues and not the whole picture.’ Kersten adds: ‘It’s important that the different ministries look at these challenges together, and develop coherent, holistic solutions.’
Accurate picture
Soon after they had met, Kersten submitted an internal research proposal at CBS and Spanbroek did the same at RIVM. Both applications were granted, the funding was pooled and a joint six-member team from CBS and RIVM began exploration and research. Spanbroek: ‘If it’s essential for ministries and policy makers to act together, it’s just as important for knowledge institutions to do the same. The objective of staying within planetary boundaries involves a range of questions and requires in-depth knowledge. So you need a range of perspectives to get an accurate picture.’
Measuring the impact
The work of the joint CBS and RIVM team resulted in a publication: ‘Towards a framework for measuring the impact of the Dutch economy on planetary boundaries’. The authors, who include Horlings, Kersten and Spanbroek, describe a model and a roadmap. CBS focused mainly on the former, and RIVM on the latter. The model – known as DAPSIR – analyses both the causes and the consequences of environmental pressure, as well as how they interrelate. This analysis can be used as a starting point for identifying possible policy solutions and setting priorities. The authors use two specific planetary boundaries – nitrogen/phosphorus pollution and chemicals, also known as novel entities – as an illustration.
The policy response
Horlings explains: ‘Two Canadian statistics experts developed the model to study the relationship between economics and ecology. We thought it could be useful for the planetary boundaries. D stands for drivers: i.e. basic human needs, such as food. A stands for activities – in this case, activities undertaken to provide for food, with distinctions made between ‘potatoes’ or ‘meat’, for instance. It also includes food imports from other countries. P stands for the ‘pressure’ that those activities place on the environment. For example, agriculture and the associated use of (artificial) fertilisers and pesticides. Those pressures affect the state – S – of our environment and climate, which in turn can have an impact – I – on people’s health, for example. R stands for ‘Response’: the actions taken in relation to D through to I when planetary boundaries may be at risk. These may be policy responses – typically focusing on the impact and pressure phases – but may also include changes in behaviour or culture, among households and businesses, for instance. These latter responses may target the initial ‘Drivers’ directly in order to reduce adverse effects further down the chain.
Getting to know the model
Workshops have already been held to present the model to officials at several ministries. They were able to see the kind of insights that DAPSIR can provide. Kersten recalls: ‘At one of the sessions, the participants discussed food security. How are our economic activities and the associated burden on our environment affecting our food security? This included the question of pet food and the effect this is having on human food security. Why do we feed our pets meat so often? This not only leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions, but also involves using agricultural land and resources that would otherwise be available to supply food for humans. This does not necessarily mean we should take action to reduce the amount of meat that we feed our pets, but it did help to clarify the current situation and the causes and consequences of our actions.’
Making knowledge applicable in practice
A roadmap helps policy staff to apply the DAPSIR method. The plan has seven stages: from ‘clarify the issue’ to ‘monitor and evaluate’. All these stages are visualised. Spanbroek: ‘The roadmap is consistent with one of the RIVM’s missions: to act as the bridge between science and policy, which means making knowledge applicable in practice.’ Kersten continues: ‘Our recent collaboration made us want to take it further. This has been a warm-up exercise – an initial exploration of how to create a comprehensive system for measuring and understanding the pressure that our country places on planetary boundaries, and then applying that knowledge to take effective action. This has yielded tools and applications, but not yet any indicators that could make this complex problem easier to manage, for example.’ Spanbroek: ‘Given the need for coherence and collective action, it would be good if the ministries involved asked a number of knowledge institutions, including CBS and RIVM, to broaden this approach incrementally, so that it becomes even more useful and useable. Knowledge that can be applied easily is the key to patrolling planetary boundaries and making sure that we stay away from them.’
