The purpose of this contribution linked to material science-based targets is an effort to give natural resources, and in particular material management, proper recognition and attention in the policy space. This is currently lacking and not matching the already recognised importance given to the energy transition and to limiting the GHG emissions. Both are critically important, but not sufficient, for the needed environmental and social sustainability breakthrough.
Natural resources - land, water and materials, which include biomass, metals, non-metallic minerals and fossil fuels, so everything extracted from the Earth, are not used with care, nor with environmental and social sustainability in mind. We must identify the necessary balance among human needs and the capacity of the planet Earth to support meeting human needs and absorbing the negative effects of human behaviour.
Let me try to explain why this is so important and necessary, and how this could be best done pragmatically.
The key challenge is how to shift from an economic system based on the notion of unlimited growth to one that is both ecologically sustainable and socially just. ‘No growth’ is not the answer. Growth is a central characteristic of all life; a society, or economy, that does not grow will die sooner or later. Growth in nature, however, is not linear and unlimited. And we, humans, are in a way the result of this qualitative growth in nature based on evolutionary developments and it would be paradoxical if we were to be the reason for its end. What is the problem? The linear view of economic development, as used by most mainstream and corporate economists and politicians, corresponds to the narrow quantitative concept of economic growth, to GDP, while the biological and ecological sense of development corresponds to the notion of qualitative growth, to wellbeing. While acknowledging the importance of GDP, we should be driven by wellbeing.
Access to and use of natural resources has been in human history always closely related to the level of wellbeing achieved by nations. It was also driving the geopolitical efforts of consumption countries to politically control the resource rich countries. Just remember the efforts of developed nations related to the access of land, water, oil and gas, various minerals or precious metals, like gold. This is often connected to the reasons leading to the lack of stability, security, poor democratic systems, resulting in conflicts and wars, in these countries. The whole history of, let’s call it colonisation of nature, was, and still is, central to fairness and equity.
The Global Resource Outlook 2024 (GRO24) released last year by UNEP International Resource Panel (IRP) is showing that the unsustainable resource use is driving the triple planetary crisis. Extraction and processing of materials are responsible for 55% climate impacts, even 60% if we include also land use change, over 90% of land related biodiversity loss and water stress and around 40% of health-related pollution impacts. All of these unfortunately show an increasing trend since our last global assessment in 2019. In total, global material use has increased by over a factor of 3 since 1970. If current trends continue, it is projected to grow from approximately 100 billion tonnes in 2020, to 160 billion tonnes in 2060.
The economy, designed and championed by industrialized nations, is wasteful and unjust. We must set the order right. The economy should serve humans and meeting human needs and not the opposite. The focus should be on optimising provisioning systems providing for human needs. We must unpack the drivers and pressures leading to the consequences we face; We need a fundamental, systemic shift in how we use resources. Shifting away from wasteful, linear, production and consumption systems, towards circular, resource efficient societies, providing wellbeing for all. To avoid severe environmental impacts, breaking the links between ever-increasing resource use, economic development, human wellbeing, and environmental impacts, so-called decoupling, is a must.
Only by integrating resources (and nature-based solutions) into our efforts can we design successful mitigation policies and bring more attention to the demand-side solutions. To the solutions linked to improving wasteful production systems — which could be designed to meet the same human needs with fewer energy and by using fewer materials — as well as to solutions linked to excessive consumption. Only by integrating into our policies, in particular into our international efforts, the question of who is crossing planetary boundaries, with excessive resource use in production and consumption, living outside of the safe operating space, can we effectively address the equity and fairness globally and nationally.
Climate change will not be solved by an energy transition helped by technological development alone. Both are important, even essential. But in a scientific work published recently, authors of the “The behavioural crisis driving ecological overshoot” are clear: “Climate breakdown is a symptom of ecological overshoot, which in turn is caused by the deliberate exploitation of human behaviour. We need to become mindful of the way we are being manipulated. The material footprint (of renewable energy) is dangerously under discussed. Most climate “solutions” proposed so far only tackle symptoms rather than the root cause of the crisis. This leads to increasing levels of the three “levers” of overshoot: consumption, waste and population. Where discussion of climate often centres on carbon emissions, a focus on overshoot highlights the material usage (including fossil fuels), waste output (the consequence of the still prevailing linear economy) and growth of human society, all of which affect the Earth’s biosphere.”
The developments of Climate COPs are not promising. At the recent COP, it was indeed agreed to focus on financial solutions, but similar trends can be observed already for some decades. Focus on financial transfers from industrialised countries to those in needs, as much as it is necessary, will not be enough if the questions linked to who is crossing the planetary boundaries, questions linked to wasteful production and consumption, will not be simultaneously addressed. Now it looks like industrialised countries are offsetting their impacts, buying the (im)moral ticket to continue with improved, but still prevailing, business as usual. This will not lead to effective climate change mitigation, rather to the growing adaptation needs, to deeper gap among the needs of global south and readiness to fund and increase that funding, from industrialised countries. If not appropriately adjusted, the process as it stands cannot end up well. Climate change can only be efficiently addressed by combining supply side solutions (energy transition and GHG management), demand side solutions (decoupling of wellbeing and economic growth from resource use and environmental impacts) and nature-based solutions. Currently, the focus is mainly on supply side solutions, energy transition and GHG management.
At the end of last year, I was participating at the Raw Materials Week 2024 and contributing to the session Equitable and Just Energy Transition: Implementing UN Principles on Critical Energy Transition Minerals. The rooms were packed with mining, economy and energy related people. All are needed, of course, but unfortunately environmental concerns, the reasons which brought us all there, were not really part of the debate.
The success and speed of energy transition depend on increased material (minerals) needs. The solution pillars, which are currently receiving most of the policy attention, are securing critical energy transition materials with the highest environmental and social standards in a geographically more diversified way and using the recycling potential. But recycling is unfortunately only a solution when the needs are stable, which is not the case for critical energy transition materials. Their needs are growing and growing a lot. Solutions should thus be complemented by using all circular economy options (better design, more intensive use, light weighting and life extension) and in the first place by optimizing the current delivery of human needs in most energy and material intensive systems, like housing and mobility.
First, we must fix the baseline! As mentioned, the way we are currently meeting human needs, the provisioning systems for mobility, housing, daily functional needs … is wasteful. The current level of energy and materials we use to meet human needs is way too high and could be reduced by reorganising critical provisioning systems. The IRP modelling done for GRO24 purposes provides us with the evidence that we can mitigate growth in material use by 30% by 2060, compared to continued historic trends and reduce energy demand by 25% by 2060, compared to 2020 levels, by applying system transformation measures. If we fix the baseline, which is the main, already existing problem, future needs would be much lower, and solutions would be easier and different.
The UN Secretary-General has recently established a specific panel to deal with the Critical Energy Transition Minerals with a mandate to accelerate greater benefit-sharing, value addition, and economic diversification in critical energy transition mineral value chains, as well as responsible and fair trade, investment, finance, and taxation. Again, while all of this is very much needed, it is very much missing the environment sustainability angle. To effectively address the energy transition and consider also broader sustainability perspective, it should be focusing not only on critical energy transition minerals, but on all the materials. Optimizing the use of all materials would scale down the demand for critical energy transition minerals and make the energy transition easier and possible. Thus, to be effective and integrate also broader sustainability considerations, it would be necessary to extend the mandate of the SG panel and include all material and mineral management. The paradox is that the panel was established exactly due to environmental concerns — to enable energy transition from fossil to renewable options — but environmental concerns are largely left out when the debate is about the necessary transition minerals.
The same logic that is used above for climate breakdown could be applied for other environmental, social and equity-related impacts. In short, efficiency should be complemented by sufficiency policies. And very much needed decarbonisation policy, already attracting a lot of attention, should be complemented with dematerialisation policies.
Material consumption thus matters, which leads us to conclude that we need to introduce science-based material targets. The need for setting the materials targets was clearly recognised already by GRO24. The main policy recommendations were as follows: institutionalize resource governance and define resource use paths, direct finance towards sustainable resource use, make trade an engine of sustainable resource use, mainstream sustainable consumption options and create circular, resource-efficient and low-impact solutions and business models. Concretely, institutionalizing resource governance and defining resource use paths means global and national institutionalization of natural resource use within global sustainability agendas and action on environmental agreements, through the definition of global and national resource use paths. Material targets would allow contextualizing what is “sufficient” to address the triple planetary crisis, enabling us to measure and compare countries' progress towards meeting Multilateral Environmental Agreements, since progress is currently off track.
Material footprint, measured in tonnes per capita, integrates the impacts of domestic extraction (including domestic material harvested by agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and extracted by mining and quarrying) and raw material trade balance (the import minus exports of raw materials required to produce materials and consumer goods). By combining the domestic extracted materials and net imported materials, it captures the impact of a country’s consumption well.
According to GRO24, over the last two decades, global material footprint increased by around 60%, mainly due to affluence – economic growth, but also due to population growth. Technology has played a modest positive neutralising role. But the material footprint drivers vary a lot across global regions. In Europe and North America, the material footprint did not increase. Here, economic and population growth was neutralised by technology contribution. This would be great news if per-capita material footprint level in both regions would not be much too high. In West Asia and Africa, the major driver was population growth, while in Asia and Pacific, and in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia it was affluence, or economic growth. In short, countries face different developments and different challenges depending on their achieved development level.
Also in developed countries, where human needs are more or less successfully met, or at least could be met if energy and materials would be distributed more equally, differences exist. These are not such much in structure, but in size. For example, while in 2020, Europe was using 17 tonnes per capita in 2020, North America was using 30 tonnes per capita. The huge differences in material footprint exist not only among countries, which were addressed and analysed by the GRO24, but also within the countries. Those with higher income are consuming much more materials than those with lower income. This is a growing issue, and it is important in all countries, in particular in those where inequality level is higher. According to the latest 2025 Oxfam Report, there was a huge jump in billionaire wealth, while the number of people living in poverty barely changed since 1990.
GRO24 is also clear, four provisioning systems providing human needs — energy, food, built environment and mobility — are the most resource-intensive, accounting for 90% of all global material use and deserve most of our policy attention. However, these material needs are very different across various country income groups. In low-income countries, 54% of materials are used for providing food needs, in lower-middle income countries, over 50% is used for providing food and housing needs, in high-middle income countries, which are in the most resource-intensive phase of development, 68% of materials are used for providing housing and mobility needs, and in high-income countries, material needs are relatively equally shared among all four most resource intensive human needs.
Since the material footprint indicator is expressed in tonnes, and various human needs are associated with different materials, this needs to be well considered in the context of potential material target setting. This is confirmed also by the trends GRO24 is analysing for the last half of the century, where one can see that the share of non-metallic minerals in total material consumption has increased from 31% to 48%. This increase could be explained by intense development in parts of the world where a lot of population is concentrated, like China, coupled with industrialisation, building new cities and infrastructure in those part of the world. These developments are resource intensive when measured in tonnes/pc.
This means that the material footprint, the yearly level of the flows measured in tonnes/pc, should be considered also in the context of the existing material stock level. High-income countries where the material stocks needed to meet the basic, most resource-intensive, human needs (food, housing, mobility, energy) are already in place, and with moderate population growth, would logically need lower material flows. But in reality, this is the opposite. Higher level of development, connected with higher purchasing power and per capita consumption, combined with wasteful production models, results in planetary overshoot. Clearly, the potential for reducing the yearly per capita material footprint exists and is necessary.
The material footprint is connected to the level of development as well as with the environmental and equity related impacts. The data shows that material footprint is higher in high income countries, but it is also relatively high in countries in the fast development phase. As mentioned, international efforts are predominantly focusing on cleaning the supply side of the production and not sufficiently addressing the demand side of the equation. Integrating these considerations in international collaboration would allow to better factor in the equity and equality efforts as part of “the future we want”.
Material targets could also steer industry, innovation and finance towards material productivity and resilient economies. This will be crucial for industry to prepare for upcoming requirements of reducing material consumption, planning, and proactively developing new business models and technologies that use fewer materials.
The wealthiest benefit the most from resource use and are also the most responsible for environmental impacts. Meanwhile, many low-income countries still do not consume enough materials to meet basic human needs. Over one-third of countries globally do not have their basic nutritional needs met, 40% do not have adequate access to energy, and nearly 80% do not meet the threshold for overall life satisfaction.
Thus, in high-income countries, absolute decoupling should be the aim: decreasing material use, while maintaining or improving wellbeing outcomes. In low and some middle-income countries, where additional material use is still needed to construct infrastructure and meet people’s basic wellbeing needs, relative decoupling should be the aim – sustainably raising resource use at a slower rate than growth in wellbeing, while minimizing environmental impacts and maximizing the delivery of essential needs. Taking into account the relative development stage when considering material targets is necessary and just.
One should acknowledge that until all human needs are sufficiently met, based on objective scientific criteria, the material requirements should increase but limited as much as possible through resource efficiency and productivity measures. Repeating past mistakes by industrialised countries would certainly not be sustainable, nor would it be the right way to go. Relative targets linked to improved resource productivity and efficiency should thus be valid for all countries setting their short and medium-term efforts and policies in a direction of more responsible resource management.
Maybe the best way to explain this would be by drawing an analogy to the agreed climate targets and national contributions of the countries. As acknowledged by established common but differentiated approach, many countries are still in a development phase where GHG emissions are allowed to increase, reaching the peak for example in 2030, after which they will, according to their plans and commitments, start to decrease. The fact is that global GHG emissions were highest in 2023, despite efforts of many to already lower their GHG impacts, such as the European Union countries. But the shared net-zero 2050 vision is the North star leading the behaviour of all. In relations to materials, their sustainable use and constraints, we would need a similar type of logic and North star.
The optimal way, for high-income and also for high-middle income countries, which should be simple, understandable and actionable, would be to set clear global long term aggregate budget constraints of material consumption, aligned with scientifically proposed orientation values (material footprint) – the “net-zero for resource use” setting the desired direction. Short and mid-term implementation could be based on an agreed trajectory of absolute reduction targets and/or relative resource productivity and efficiency measures.
For low- and low-middle income countries, where there is additional material demand to meet basic human needs, the most appropriate target would be set the sustainable direction by defining relative resource productivity and efficiency measures. The long-term vision could be based on the same, but quite distant, science-based absolute orientation values (material footprints).
This logic would be consistent with the established IRP science and principles of absolute and relative decoupling.
Finally, we should be aware that setting concrete targets is always based on a search for an agreed balance in a politically managed process. It is of course critical in the process to use system lenses and basing decisions on contributions from various fields of science. But science can only empower policymakers with argumentation related to material need(s), as well as with the best scientific assessment determining the necessary sustainable levels, or better, orientation values to guide policymakers in the case that they see the need to set the targets. This is the responsibility science has. To apply or not apply what science advises is of course the responsibility of the policymakers, including the consequences of not following the critical mass of scientific policy advice and recommendations.
It would be helpful if more detailed analyses would be done on the level of various material components (biomass, metals, non-metallic minerals and fossil fuels) or material groups (for example abiotic, biotic). Setting the aggregate target constrains should not rule out or prevent countriesfrom setting specific material targets (for example for phosphorous or those related to Critical Raw Materials). On the contrary, an aggregate target could trigger those developments, as well as start the process across various ministries of the government to identify the best options how to contribute to reaching the target set at the aggregate level.
The time for setting as simple and understandable material targets as possible and integrating them better in our policy efforts has come. This would implicitly bring more attention also to the demand side of our economy and to its equity implications. This is recognised by a number of open-minded policymakers in multiple countries, which are trying to set the responsible resource use on the political agenda. Material target setting is already happening in practice – policymakers in 14 countries and regions have already set material targets. This indicates a need for such targets, but it also highlights the necessity for scientific guidance in setting these targets, which is still falling short.
The recent news from Germany is very encouraging and exciting. The German government has adopted on December 4th the updated national circular economy strategy: Nationale Kreislaufwirtschaftsstrategie (NKWS).
The NKWS intends to make Germany climate-neutral, more competitive and more economically resilient by 2045 and help achieve the goals of the German sustainability strategy. The NKWS contains a mission statement, three strategic goals and indicators. Among others, it aims at reducing the consumption of primary raw materials by 2045. The orientation provided by the IRP already more than decade ago of reducing the consumption of primary raw materials per capita to 6 – 8 tonnes served as a guidance. Starting in 2030, the mission statement will be evaluated every five years with the involvement of the business community and adapted if necessary.
While in the scientific community many dilemmas still exist on how to approach setting the most scientifically robust material targets or orientation values – which certainly deserve further scientific attention – the dramatic reality of developments in environmental and social field are calling for immediate attention and action. Unfortunately, the luxury of not integrating more responsible resource management in our policy efforts does not exist anymore … if it ever existed. Any solution, including a material footprint, is not ideal and one can have credible concerns, like a tonne of gravel is not the same as the tonne of wood or gravel, but like it is always in life, it is about risk management. We have to make policy decisions, which are better managing our future risks … and when it comes to current wasteful material use, the sustainability risks are very high. Having said that, it is clear that a scientific work, in particular important modelling efforts to strengthen credibility and argumentation based on existing data and analyses (and also common sense) is still very much needed.
Setting the »net-zero by 2050« for material use, setting science-based material targets and giving natural resources, and in particular material management, a proper recognition and attention in the policy space, should be in the centre of the next legislative cycle of European institutions. The recent “System Transformation Hub (STH) Policy brief 2: Building a Secure and Thriving Europe: A System Approach to the 2024-2029 EU Strategic Agenda”, is, among other important recommendations, also calling for the provisioning systems approach and for establishing material targets.
What is also lacking is a credible governance structure at the international level in the area of materials. This was already identified by “A System Change Compass: Implementing the European Green Deal in time of recovery”, published by two of the STH founding partners, the Club of Rome and Systemiq. This called for exploring the establishment of an international resource management body to ensure better inclusion of resource management in international efforts, including all existing international agreements.
What is at least needed is an institution providing reliable data, analyses, guidance and transparency to all those who need this, for example those designing circular economy solutions. Something like an International Energy Agency for materials.
One thing is clear. Providing human needs by using fewer energy and fewer materials is critical for the “The future we want”.But also, for the European strategic autonomy and competitiveness. Sustainability is not in opposition to competitiveness, but a critical success factor for competitiveness, security, fairness, democracy … it is a critical success factor for the coherence of the European project at large.
Image credit: by IISD/ENB
Janez Potočnik is co-founder of the Systems Transformation Hub. Among other roles, he is co-chair of the International Resource Panel and Partner at Systemiq. Prior to that he was Commissioner for Science and Research and in his second mandate for the Environment, when he introduced the first EU Circular Economy package.
The content presented in this opinion piece is solely those of the author in their personal capacity, and does not necessarily reflect the position of the Systems Transformation Hub or its members.