Definition of Regenerative > Sustainable

We need an update to the Bruntland/UN definition of sustainability that not only moves beyond mere sustainability, but reflects regenerative systems. The current definition allows rationalization of depletion of resources and destruction of the ecosystem via magical thinking: Tech, innovation and endless substitution will save us and protect future generations.

We need a definition with actionable goals and some teeth so people will deeply consider their choices and be clear when their choices and actions are destructive rather than productive.

Out with the old: Bruntland
"Sustainability: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Which version of an improved definition do you prefer? Suggestions?

Ver. 1
Regenerative systems reestablish the co-creative relationship between human-centric and natural systems, enabling communities and societies to generate abundance indefinitely while resilient to and adaptable to all but the most extreme external shocks without depleting non-renewable resources future generations may depend on to meet their needs. Regenerative systems increase productivity and resilience over time.

Ver. 2
Regenerative systems reestablish the co-creative relationship between human-centric and natural systems. This enables communities and societies to generate abundance indefinitely while resilient to and able to adapt to all but the most extreme external shocks without depleting non-renewable resources future generations may depend on to meet their needs. Regenerative systems increase productivity and resilience over time.

Ver. 3
Regenerative systems reestablish the co-creative relationship between human and natural systems. They utilize ecosystem resources and services to enable communities or societies to generate abundance and perpetually withstand external changes and shocks without depleting their resources. Regenerative systems enhance natural functioning and increase resilience over time.

Ver. 4
Regenerative systems utilize ecosystem resources and services to reestablish the co-creative relationship with the rest of the ecosystem. The integration of human-centric and non-human-centric aspects of the ecosystem enables communities or societies to increase ecosystem abundance and enhance natural functioning to indefinitely withstand external changes and shocks without depleting resources nor the integrity of the ecosystem increasing resilience over time.

Ver. 5
Regenerative systems use the ecosystem and ecosystem services in such a way as to allow a community or society to operate indefinitely resilient to external shocks by returning to our co-creative and symbiotic relationship with the ecosystem to enhance productivity and natural functioning rather than depleting resources and eroding ecosystem functions.

Ver. 6
Regenerative: The use of the ecosystem and ecosystem services in such a way as to allow a community or society to operate indefinitely resilient to external changes/shocks without eroding its resource base or ecosystem functions, and so as to enhance the productivity and natural functioning of the ecosystem.

Ver. 7
The use of the ecosystem in such a way as to not only not diminish the resources available to future generations, but to enhance the productivity and natural functioning of the ecosystem.

Bruntland's definition of sustainability isn't definitive. Regenerative systems use observed natural processes to meet human needs, relying overwhelmingly on renewable resources to accomplish those tasks.

j

Jim Garlits wrote:Bruntland's definition of sustainability isn't definitive. Regenerative systems use observed natural processes to meet human needs, relying overwhelmingly on renewable resources to accomplish those tasks.

Hello. Thanks for responding.

In practice, the Bruntland definition is, in fact, definitive in that it is massively ubiquitous. If I ask virtually anyone what sustainability is it will be some variant of Bruntland. It doesn't matter what field, how many years ago, etc., it's always the same or something that translates as the same. I said all this in the OP: "We need an update to the Bruntland/UN definition of sustainability that not only moves beyond mere sustainability, but reflects regenerative systems. The current definition allows rationalization of the depletion of resources and destruction of the ecosystem via magical thinking: Tech, innovation, and endless substitution will save us and protect future generations.

We need a definition with actionable goals and some teeth so people will deeply consider their choices and be clear when their choices and actions are destructive rather than productive. "

The issue is, "regenerative" **does** need a definition that is universally applicable, else what are we all talking about? How do we design, ultimately, a bioregional-managed planet with no shared definition of what we are creating? Thus, my post was not, "Is Bruntland THE definition of sustainability?", it was declarative: "We NEED a shared definition of 'regenerative' that is specific, actionable, and universally applicable. Please check these over and share your thoughts about these definitions I have developed."

It would be great if you chose to do that.

The biggest difference, obviously, is between the concepts of sustaining (status quo) and restoring (status reno). I have a larger framework in which to place this, but defining definitions as a first task is important as you note.

Manfred Max-Neef's Fundamental Human Needs lists Violators, Pseudo-satisfiers,  Satisfiers, and Synergistic Satisfiers. The same framework could be used for environmental needs. Those also must first be defined before we can correctly identify violators and satisfiers. The system works at its best when people choose synergy, but that is a whole 'nother discussion.

I would say that nature's first need is to be left alone wherever possible. I mean this with no ill motives toward us humans. But in the vast majority of circumstances we need to leave natura alone. That doesn't mean not living it in or enjoying its beauty. It means at the deepest level to leave it as it is. You leave its systems intact. You take nothing that doesn't self-renew. Even if a tree falls in a forest you leave it there to give itself back to the environment that produced it and that needs its mass back.

But let me take a stab at a definition of regenerative sustainability:  It is simply that our actions and developments follow the observed laws of nature, working with it instead of against it.

Then you have to define how nature acts.

I think permaculture has done that quite well in the short time it has existed.

j

Killian O'Brien wrote:

Jim Garlits wrote:Bruntland's definition of sustainability isn't definitive. Regenerative systems use observed natural processes to meet human needs, relying overwhelmingly on renewable resources to accomplish those tasks.

Hello. Thanks for responding.

In practice, the Bruntland definition is, in fact, definitive in that it is massively ubiquitous. If I ask virtually anyone what sustainability is it will be some variant of Bruntland. It doesn't matter what field, how many years ago, etc., it's always the same or something that translates as the same. I said all this in the OP: "We need an update to the Bruntland/UN definition of sustainability that not only moves beyond mere sustainability, but reflects regenerative systems. The current definition allows rationalization of the depletion of resources and destruction of the ecosystem via magical thinking: Tech, innovation, and endless substitution will save us and protect future generations.

We need a definition with actionable goals and some teeth so people will deeply consider their choices and be clear when their choices and actions are destructive rather than productive. "

The issue is, "regenerative" **does** need a definition that is universally applicable, else what are we all talking about? How do we design, ultimately, a bioregional-managed planet with no shared definition of what we are creating? Thus, my post was not, "Is Bruntland THE definition of sustainability?", it was declarative: "We NEED a shared definition of 'regenerative' that is specific, actionable, and universally applicable. Please check these over and share your thoughts about these definitions I have developed."

It would be great if you chose to do that.

How about "Restorative Sustainability improves ecosystem health, biodiversity, and community vitality by leveraging holistic practices to regenerate degraded environments and foster resilience, ensuring future generations inherit a thriving, more vibrant planet by establishing a regenerative relationship between human activities and the natural world."

I also took Max-Neef's fundamental needs and transferred them to planet Earth as a possible action plan...

Creating a framework for Earth's fundamental needs presents a new approach to understanding and addressing environmental sustainability and regenerative thinking.. This framework lists what the Earth requires to maintain its health, resilience, and ability to support life. Here is a proposed list of 10 fundamental ecological needs for the Earth, along with some examples of violators, pseudo-satisfiers, satisfiers, and synergistic satisfiers for each need:

Biodiversity
Violators: Habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Limited protected areas without connecting corridors.
Satisfiers: Comprehensive conservation programs, habitat restoration.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Integrating biodiversity conservation into agriculture and urban planning.

Clean Water
Violators: Water pollution, over-extraction of groundwater.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Temporary water transfer projects.
Satisfiers: Sustainable water management, pollution control.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Rainwater harvesting and integrated watershed management that support ecosystems and human needs.

Healthy Soil
Violators: Erosion, chemical pollution, overuse of fertilizers.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Use of chemical fertilizers without improving soil structure.
Satisfiers: Organic farming, cover cropping.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Agroforestry and regenerative agriculture practices that build soil and provide economic benefits.

Clean Air
Violators: Industrial emissions, vehicular pollution.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Temporary air quality improvements during lockdowns without long-term strategies.
Satisfiers: Emission controls, green transportation.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Urban green spaces that improve air quality and provide recreational areas.

Ecological Connectivity
Violators: Fragmentation by roads and urban development.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Small, isolated wildlife corridors.
Satisfiers: Large-scale ecological networks that connect habitats.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Integrated land-use planning that promotes connectivity and human coexistence with nature.

Renewable Resources
Violators: Overfishing, fossil fuel extraction.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Quotas that are too high or not effectively enforced.
Satisfiers: Sustainable harvesting, shift to renewable resources.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Circular economy models that reduce, reuse, and recycle materials.

Pollution Reduction
Violators: Plastic waste, chemical run-off.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Recycling programs with low effectiveness.
Satisfiers: Waste reduction strategies, effective recycling.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Zero-waste policies and innovations in biodegradable materials.

Energy Efficiency
Violators: Inefficient industrial processes, wasteful consumption patterns.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Incremental efficiency improvements without addressing systemic issues.
Satisfiers: Adoption of best available technologies, energy conservation.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Integrated energy systems that leverage renewable sources and smart grid technologies.

Resilience to Change
Violators: Lack of adaptive capacity in ecosystems and human settlements.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Short-term disaster relief without building long-term resilience.
Satisfiers: Ecosystem restoration, climate-adapted infrastructure.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Community-led adaptive management practices and policies that build ecological and social resilience.

Climate Stability
Violators: Greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Short-term emission reductions without sustainable long-term plans.
Satisfiers: Transition to renewable energy, reforestation.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Developing green infrastructure and sustainable cities that reduce emissions and enhance resilience.

j

Jim Garlits wrote:our actions and developments follow the observed laws of nature, working with it instead of against it.

Then you have to define how nature acts.

But you can't do that in a simple definition. The definition itself must be clear and have teeth. Have you read through the versions offered? The key to being regenerative is, as you said, not to use up nature. That is in all 7 versions. And, we should always be making it better. That is in all 7 definitions. Given we have been the cause of destruction, we must rebuild ecosystems. that is in all 7 definitions.

I see your version as too close to Bruntland. Neither Bruntland's nor yours are bad, but the vagueness is exactly the problem.

"But, we are using succession!"
"Yeah, but to completely alter the ecosystem."
E.g.

Consider the teeth of the suggested definitions inherent in the definitions within the definitions themselves rather than needing to be explained eternal to the definition: If you are depleting resources and failing to increase them, you aren't being regenerative. The "co-creative relationship" makes explicit that we have lived within and symbiotically with nature... forever. And must return to that.

Jim Garlits wrote:How about "Restorative Sustainability improves ecosystem health, biodiversity, and community vitality by leveraging holistic practices to regenerate degraded environments and foster resilience, ensuring future generations inherit a thriving, more vibrant planet by establishing a regenerative relationship between human activities and the natural world."

No objections, per se, except for "leveraging holistic practices" is too jargon. We need the definition to be clear to non-activists, non-permies, even denialists.

Jim Garlits wrote:I also took Max-Neef's fundamental needs and transferred them to planet Earth as a possible action plan...

Creating a framework for Earth's fundamental needs presents a new approach to understanding and addressing environmental sustainability and regenerative thinking.. This framework lists what the Earth requires to maintain its health, resilience, and ability to support life. Here is a proposed list of 10 fundamental ecological needs for the Earth, along with some examples of violators, pseudo-satisfiers, satisfiers, and synergistic satisfiers for each need:

Biodiversity
Violators: Habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Limited protected areas without connecting corridors.
Satisfiers: Comprehensive conservation programs, habitat restoration.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Integrating biodiversity conservation into agriculture and urban planning.

Clean Water
Violators: Water pollution, over-extraction of groundwater.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Temporary water transfer projects.
Satisfiers: Sustainable water management, pollution control.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Rainwater harvesting and integrated watershed management that support ecosystems and human needs.

Healthy Soil
Violators: Erosion, chemical pollution, overuse of fertilizers.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Use of chemical fertilizers without improving soil structure.
Satisfiers: Organic farming, cover cropping.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Agroforestry and regenerative agriculture practices that build soil and provide economic benefits.

Clean Air
Violators: Industrial emissions, vehicular pollution.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Temporary air quality improvements during lockdowns without long-term strategies.
Satisfiers: Emission controls, green transportation.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Urban green spaces that improve air quality and provide recreational areas.

Ecological Connectivity
Violators: Fragmentation by roads and urban development.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Small, isolated wildlife corridors.
Satisfiers: Large-scale ecological networks that connect habitats.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Integrated land-use planning that promotes connectivity and human coexistence with nature.

Renewable Resources
Violators: Overfishing, fossil fuel extraction.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Quotas that are too high or not effectively enforced.
Satisfiers: Sustainable harvesting, shift to renewable resources.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Circular economy models that reduce, reuse, and recycle materials.

Pollution Reduction
Violators: Plastic waste, chemical run-off.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Recycling programs with low effectiveness.
Satisfiers: Waste reduction strategies, effective recycling.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Zero-waste policies and innovations in biodegradable materials.

Energy Efficiency
Violators: Inefficient industrial processes, wasteful consumption patterns.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Incremental efficiency improvements without addressing systemic issues.
Satisfiers: Adoption of best available technologies, energy conservation.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Integrated energy systems that leverage renewable sources and smart grid technologies.

Resilience to Change
Violators: Lack of adaptive capacity in ecosystems and human settlements.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Short-term disaster relief without building long-term resilience.
Satisfiers: Ecosystem restoration, climate-adapted infrastructure.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Community-led adaptive management practices and policies that build ecological and social resilience.

Climate Stability
Violators: Greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation.
Pseudo-satisfiers: Short-term emission reductions without sustainable long-term plans.
Satisfiers: Transition to renewable energy, reforestation.
Synergistic Satisfiers: Developing green infrastructure and sustainable cities that reduce emissions and enhance resilience.

j

I am not a fan of siloing systems. My two huge criticisms of the SDGs are #8 makes the entire set a bunch of nonsense by tying everything to money and finance, which is inherently diametrically opposed to regenerative systems, and the siloing itself. This is why we need ecosystem-based, risk-based, and problem-solving-based discussions, not concepts-based. IMO.

Oh, something is not healthy? Let's solve that. That's what the Regenerative Governance model, @ 2011, is all about. [Any use of"Regenerative Governance" not associated with me is not justified in using that term... coined by me.]

Thanks for engaging. It's good to finally be having a robust discussion of this after so long. (I once tried to start this on We Don't Have Time and it got almost zero notice.) Still hoping others will also engage.

I would keep the current definition as is. As it happens, it was proposed as an antropocentric economical term. The goal of sustainability, in economy or the industrial mindset, is to be able to keep the production for as long as we may need it. As you said, there's the possibility that, once we know when we will consume the last item, nothing stops us from depleting the resources needed for that item.
But let's think it for real. Is there really an expiration date for our needs? Not in any foreseeable future!

If we think it through, the only way for the food production to be sustainable is by being able to restore the system to their initial state without using non renewable resources. (Unless it's a non renewable resource that could outlive all human species in the next million years. I don't think humans of the next million year will care about our definitions.)

For me, the problem is that a perfectly valid term is being misused for pecuniary reasons, and now we feel the urge to use a new definition that will be perverted, in the same fashion that the old word was perverted, as soon as the word becomes inconvenient for the powers that be.

The use of the word sustainability was replaced by resilience, which is related, but comes from a systemic perspective instead of an economic one. One cannot go without the other, but using one word or the other signals what your focus is.

Abraham Palma wrote:I would keep the current definition as is. As it happens, it was proposed as an antropocentric economical term.

Not so much:

"The Commission focused its attention in the areas of population, food security, the loss of species and genetic resources, energy, industry, and human settlements - realizing that all of these are connected and cannot be treated in isolation one from another"

The Brundtland Commission Report recognized that human resource development in the form of poverty reduction, gender equity, and wealth redistribution was crucial to formulating strategies for environmental conservation, and it also recognized that environmental limits to economic growth in industrialized and industrializing societies existed.

And there is nothing in the definition about economics. It is quite specifically about needs, to its credit. However, it was proposed by people who had no idea we were thundering toward collapse in so short a time nor what it would take to become regenerative.... or even what that is. Ergo, they came up with an inadequate definition that serves to allow people to do anything they want because there is no way to quantify limits, effects, consumption, or anything else.

Your argument boils down to, "They'll just co-opt it anyway, so why bother?" That is not good enough for me. We must teach people to think and act within limits. Bruntland does not achieve that and never would have even in the best circumstances because it was always too broad, so too easily violated.

Thanks for the input, but I am not looking for a debate about whether we need a better term and definition. We do. I am looking for interesting input for the definition.

Killian O'Brien wrote:We need an update to the Bruntland/UN definition of sustainability that not only moves beyond mere sustainability, but reflects regenerative systems. The current definition allows rationalization of depletion of resources and destruction of the ecosystem via magical thinking: Tech, innovation, and endless substitution will save us and protect future generations.

We need a definition with actionable goals and some teeth so people will deeply consider their choices and be clear when their choices and actions are destructive rather than productive.

Here's my latest.

https://x.com/PermResInitDet/status/1768133705800024240?s=20

I pretty much stay away from political stuff.

I like permaculture better.

"Permaculture is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way." Bill Mollison, Permaculture A Designers Manual

Anne Miller wrote:I pretty much stay away from political stuff.

I like permaculture better.

"Permaculture is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way." Bill Mollison, Permaculture A Designers Manual

But I am not trying to redefine Permaculture, and while Permaculture is gaining wider acceptance, it is still at a rate that is FAR too slow to mitigate climate change, ecosystem destruction, resource depletion and pollution. The wider public is more comfortable with terms like "sustainable", "agroforestry" and even regenerative. Because of the layering of beliefs, moralities, and ideologies over permaculture, it is still easily dismissed by many. Unfairly, certainly, but we are stuck with the Americanization/New Aging of Permaculture unless or until we can become more universally consistent in talking about it as what it is: ecological engineering/ecological design science.

I actually asked Bill about this back in 2009. I was having trouble with people in Detroit who tended to add all that other stuff onto permaculture whereas for me it was always, from the first minute I heard of it, an utterly pragmatic design process universally applicable regardless of beliefs, morals, ideologies, etc. Both he and Geoff Lawton expressed to me their frustration with all the layering of ideologies, etc., what I just referred to as the Americanization/New Aging of Permaculture, onto Permaculture. It was never the intent.

I have no idea what you mean by political.

The problem I am addressing is the co-opting and misuse of "sustainability" and "regenerative" even by supposedly "green" people due to a general lack of actual understanding of what is truly sustainable and regenerative. Many permies I have communicated with, read of, watched videos of even permies who think such things as wind and solar are sustainable/regenerative, that a garden/farm full of PVC and using a tractor are sustainable/regenerative. It is pervasive.

Of course, we can think in terms of embedded energies, appropriate technologies, etc., as ways to get to regenerative, but in the long run the goal must be to actually become regenerative. Until we can 100% recycle everything, the use of almost all technology needs to be understood as being non-regenerative. That is not to say to not use these things, but it is to say be aware of what we are actually doing so that over time we can step closer and closer to a truly regenerative society. We cannot do that without awareness. Terms like sustainable, regenerative and permaculture need to be used only when accurate, i.e. in such a way as to indicate when a system qualifies as such and when it is still in transtion. Most things are, due to the very nature of the situation we have created, in transition, not over the threshold of regenerative, sustainable or permacultural.

This effort has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Anyway, here's what I hope is the final version:

Regenerative human-modified systems regenerate and/or enhance the natural functioning of ecosystems. They re-establish the co-creative relationship between humans and all other planetary systems, enabling communities and societies to increase productivity and resilience of the ecosystem over time while building resilience and adaptability to external shocks without depleting non-renewable resources or using renewable resources beyond their replenishment rates, thereby meeting current needs and securing for future generations an ecosystem with the stability, resources and productivity to meet their needs.

Cheers

I don’t want to argue or debate but the point ought to be made that not all “tech” and “innovation” is bad. Some might be, but not all. Anyway, there is a lot of “tech” and “innovation” in permaculture too, whether we like it or not.  Sorry, but perhaps you could be more specific about what you like or don’t like. I mean permaculture is still new to most people, so to them it is still in a sense “innovative”.