Critical review of the planetary-boundary approach: Expert technocracy or political deliberation?

What should be the global targets for environmental governance, and who should set them? Where should we be heading on Planet Earth through global institutions and national policies? In 2009, a group of over 20 scientists came forward with a new approach to this fundamental question: They suggested that there are nine planetary boundaries that define ‘the safe operating space for humankind’. This approach has been extremely influential in generating academic debate and in shaping research projects and policy recommendations worldwide. But it has also been heavily criticized by other earth system scientists, scholars from development studies, proponents of degrowth, and experts in science and technology studies.

Prof. Dr. Frank Biermann and Dr. Rakhyun E. Kim, both working at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University, have recently published a study that critically reviewed the planetary-boundaries approach, based on their own research on global goal-setting in Utrecht’s ERC GLOBALGOALS project.

Representation from all political stakeholders

Biermann and Kim argue that any global targets must be defined in political processes where all political stakeholders – especially from the Global South – are fairly represented. This was clearly not the case with the planetary boundaries. Global targets, Biermann and Kim argue, cannot be left to Northern-dominated science networks.

Decided by experts and professors

They posit that although most scientists affiliated with the planetary boundaries approach simply seek to advance human understanding, there is a danger that political processes that build on this concept create political realities where the operating space of humankind is decided by experts and professors, not by the people.

Biermann and Kim conclude that only when the planetary-boundaries approach manages to clearly distance itself from planetary technocracy and a global limits discourse that is unjust given past colonialism and Northern overconsumption, will the debate on the risks of planetary tipping points gain the legitimacy and global political support that it needs.

The article, The Boundaries of the Planetary Boundary Framework: A Critical Appraisal of Approaches to Define a “Safe Operating Space” for Humanity, appears in Annual Review of Environment and Resources, and it is available open access here.