‘It feels cool to be a cog in change': how doughnut economics is reshaping a Swedish town
In 2021 one of the team had been reading an article about the concept of doughnut economics – a circular way of thinking about the way we use resources – and he brought it up. 'I just mentioned it casually at a meeting, as a tool to evaluate our new quality of life programme, and it grew from there,' says Stefan Persson, Tomelilla's organisational development manager.
The concept, developed by British economist Kate Raworth is fairly straightforward. The outer ring or ecological ceiling of the doughnut consists of the nine planetary boundaries. These are the environmental limits that humans are at risk of passing – we've already crossed the safety thresholds on climate change and biogeochemical flows, for example, but remain within safe limits on our atmospheric aerosol loading and ocean acidification. The inner ring forms a social foundation of life's essentials, and the 'dough' in between corresponds to a safe and just space for humanity, which meets the needs of people and planet. The model also includes principles such as systems thinking and seeing the economy as a tool, not a goal in itself.
'Doughnut economics is like running a farm. Using an excess of resources, like nutrients, on your crops is a mistake. Not using enough is a mistake too,' says Persson's colleague Per-Martin Svensson, who is a farmer when he is not doing council work.
Putting the schema into action is challenging, but doughnut economics is being used in Tomelilla, in Sweden's southern Skåne region, in several ways. It has been integrated into financial planning and decision support, so that rather than building a new ice rink, the plan is now to revamp an existing building.
The local government produces an annual portrait of how well it is doing at meeting doughnut economics targets. The best results in the latest diagram were on air quality, housing and social equality. Air quality in the area was good to begin with, but in order to keep improving it, young people at lower and upper secondary school have been given a free travel card for public transport. It is hoped the measure will also improve social equality in terms of access to education and health. Overcrowding and income disparities have both decreased, but it's hard to link that directly to any of the council's work.
Education is a priority, but targets such as carbon emissions, biodiversity and health are more difficult to meet. Emissions have not been decreasing, but in 2023 the town council adopted a climate programme to achieve net zero by 2045. Other measures include employing a municipal ecologist and improving access to outdoor recreation.
Tomelilla's flagship doughnut economics project, though, is planning a new school. The council hasn't built a school – or any other big development – since the 1990s.
The project is still at an early stage so no decisions have been made about the final construction.
Last year, a consultant report made recommendations for the project. These included using existing and carbon-neutral materials as far as possible, growing hemp as a building material on the current site; building the school around a greenhouse for growing vegetables as well as for educational and social activities; and making the school an off-grid energy producer using solar power and batteries.
A goal is for the space to be flexible, to adapt to large variations in the size of cohorts of children, with buildings that can be used for adult education as well as after-hours meeting places to support social sustainability and community.
This vision has carried over into the council's procurement requirements, although budget constraints and other considerations have meant it is still unclear whether all of these ideas will come to fruition. However, Persson sees it as a win that this type of vision has even been included in the process. 'It would be much easier to procure a ready-made concept. Our politicians have been really brave letting us do this.'
It has certainly been demanding. Is it even possible to use the resources needed for a large construction project and stay within the doughnut? Persson thinks it may not be possible but he is focusing on the bigger picture, with a more holistic view of social change. 'In individual projects, there are always trade-offs. But we're also looking at how the local community as a whole can move towards the doughnut model. I think that if we're going to build anything, it should be democratic meeting places and schools.'
The conversation has grown beyond new physical infrastructure. Local schools are discussing more philosophical questions such as what a school is and what it is for, as well as the future of educational approaches.
Tomelilla is the first local government to attempt to deliver infrastructure and education using doughnut economics, according to Leonora Grcheva, the cities and regions lead at Doughnut Economics Action Lab, who says the town 'was an early adopter and is one of the more committed, innovative and ambitious places, in terms of finding different opportunities to bring these ideas into its work'.
With a population of about 7,000, it is certainly one of the smallest towns in the international network of the Doughnut Economics Action Lab, dwarfed by Barcelona, Glasgow and Mexico City, which are all putting Raworth's theories into practice in local governments.
Other towns and cities are working on their own projects inspired by doughnut economics: Ipoh in Malaysia is developing a plan for a regenerative economy, with demonstrator projects in areas such as ecotourism, climate resilience and low-carbon food choices, and in 2022 Mexico City used the theory to develop two potential scenarios for the city in 2040, demonstrating the social and ecological impacts of different pathways.
The people of Tomelilla welcome the challenge and are extremely proud of the way their town is forging a path. As Jonna Olsson, one of the staff at the council says: 'Doughnut economics is a really interesting way to work with sustainability. It feels cool to be a cog in international change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Anthony Joshua teases surprise move into another sport amid Jake Paul showdown talks
Anthony Joshua has taken to social media to make a plea to Matchroom boss Eddie Hearn over a business venture in a different sport. Since turning professional in 2013 Joshua has been attached to the Matchroom banner, a partnership that led to two-time world champion status for the 2012 Olympic gold medallist. Currently sidelined as he recovers from elbow surgery he underwent earlier this year, Joshua appears to be brainstorming ideas for life after boxing, suggesting to Hearn that they tackle football agency together. He posted on his Instagram story: 'Eddie Hearn, the family has conquered darts, snooker, pool, boxing, fishing, golf, owning a football club & you've had a presence in basketball, netball & gymnastics. 'I believe 'we' could look at the football agency industry and have a strong presence. 'Imagine we help manager the player who helped England win the World Cup. 'Call me tomorrow mate.' Eddie Hearn's father, founder of Matchroom Barry Hearn, owned English Football League club Leyton Orient for the best part of two decades, but that is the limit of the family's direct involvement in the sport. However, Matchroom's success across a variety of sports would give them instant authority in the world of football. There has been some overlap with football agencies and promotions in the past, with one of the biggest companies in soccer, Wasserman, buying Team Sauerland and creating Wasserman Boxing in 2021. In May, Joshua confirmed that he was exploring the possibility of buying shares in hometown football club Watford. The Hornets have bounced between the Premier League and Championship over the past 20 years, but whilst Joshua is fond of the club, it appeared to be more of a financial decision. He told Seconds Out: "We wanted to move into private equity, venture capital funds. As you earn, naturally, you want to save. "So rather than me spending recklessly I'm trying to invest money into certain asset classes and that was an opportunity that presented itself. 'Nothing's come of it yet. It's a serious investment. If it comes off it's one that should do well. 'If they went back to the Premier League, then I'd need to get a shop on Market Street because the traffic that would be coming through Watford would be phenomenal. 'If we don't do it then good luck to them anyway because they're a great team." Speculation has surrounded Joshua in recent days, with rumours about his next opponent. Latest Queensberry recruit Tony Yoka is one mooted option, but Jake Paul's camp have claimed that talks with Matchroom have started regarding a potential bout between their fighter and Joshua. DAZN Matchroom, Queensberry, Golden Boy, Misfits, PFL, BKFC, GLORY and more. An Annual Saver subscription is a one-off cost of £119.99 / $224.99 (for 12 months access), that's just 64p / $1.21 per fight. There is also a Monthly Flex Pass option (cancel any time) at £24.99 / $29.99 per month. A subscription includes weekly magazine shows, comprehensive fight library, exclusive interviews, behind-the-scenes documentaries, and podcasts and vodcasts.
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump played the EU at its own game... and won
Squaring off across the table from Ursula von der Leyen was Donald Trump, banging his fists and demanding a 30 per cent blanket tariff. The clubhouse of the Trump Turnberry golf course had become the unlikely setting of a face-off between the two global superpowers – and ultimately, the EU's humiliation. The Telegraph has spoken to insiders who were in the room when the negotiations were taking place and has seen diplomatic notes that paint a clear picture. It's one of Mrs von der Leyen, the European Commission president, bowing to pressure from the US and being beaten at the bloc's own game. She had just agreed to the US imposing 15 per cent tariffs on EU goods entering America, while Britain had come away with a rate of 10 per cent. And at the end of it all, she and her team of EU negotiators had to put their thumbs up, their smiles not reaching their eyes, as they stood next to Mr Trump who boasted of the 'biggest deal ever made'. US officials had played hardball for the weeks and months leading up to the high-stakes showdown. Panicked European officials had turned to their Japanese counterparts for advice before flying to Scotland, asking for their advice on how to be successful like them. But ultimately, the EU was beaten by a dealmaker who played the bloc's game better than they could have played it. Over the years, Brussels has used the size of its single market to reinforce the need for trading partners to make concessions, rather than the other way round in talks over deals. And European leaders have voiced their frustration at the move. France's leaders described it as a 'dark day' for Europe and that the bloc hadn't been feared enough going into the talks. Trump plays hardball After a round of golf, the stage was set for the American negotiating team, including Mr Trump. A no-deal deadline was set for Friday, Aug 1. Without a pact Brussels would be subjected to the 30 per cent tariffs set out by the president in a letter to Mrs von der Leyen just two weeks earlier. European firms doing business in America would have become uncompetitive overnight if the EC president didn't shake hands on a pact. To secure this deal, the German eurocrat was told she would have to stomach a number of concessions, signing on the dotted line of an agreement that would be considered one-sided in favour of the Americans. Brussels also knew this agreement was needed to avert a nastier, more chaotic transatlantic trade war that would have left Europe without its most important ally until at least January 2029, when Mr Trump's second term comes to an end. To achieve this, member states agreed that they would have to stomach a blanket tariff because of a belief that the US president wouldn't settle without one, a source familiar with the negotiations told The Telegraph. Maros Sefcovic, the EU's trade commissioner, had briefed capitals that they simply wouldn't be able to do business in the US if that tariff rose to the 30 per cent demanded by Mr Trump. Therefore, they needed to settle on a number that would be an increase on the status quo originally charged on European imports into America – 14.8 per cent, according to one official. Some might argue that this was the EU being made to take a taste of its own medicine, with the bloc usually the first negotiator to reach for hard deadlines and use its size and strength to extract concessions from prospective partners. And it worked, the bloc had blinked. Before Mrs von der Leyen headed to Scotland, European capitals signed off on a mandate, perhaps for the first time, that would use a trade deal to increase tariffs from the current number. Behind the scenes For 24 minutes, the US President and the commission chief held an impromptu press conference under the eight chandeliers in the glamorous ball room at Trump Turnberry. With the Brussels and White House press packs ushered out, the real talks could begin. Mr Trump opened with his gambit of 30 per cent tariffs on all European products imported into America. The commission's first offer was 'high single digits', a source briefed on the wrangling said. The White House delegation stood firm as their European counterparts began slowly ratcheting their number closer to the American's figure. But ultimately, the commission's team kept their cool, at the recommendation of the Japanese, the most recent country to sign an agreement with the US. The Telegraph can reveal that a top aide to Mr Sefcovic had reached out to his Japanese counterpart for help on handling the Americans before the talks. 'They come in shouting the high number, and all you have to do is hold your cool and they diminish as you push back,' a source said, describing the advice. The other tactic deployed by the Europeans was to woo Mr Trump with some large numbers presented to him on a single sheet of A4 paper. Eurocrats had used their build-up to prepare an offer on paper that the US president would see as a major victory. That was an offer to buy billions of dollars worth of American military technology – born out of Nato's recent decision to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The EU pledged to purchase $750bn (£565bn) worth of energy from the US over the next three years. And then there was a further promise that European companies would invest $600bn (£452bn) by 2028. These, European officials claim, are non-binding, not really worth the paper they were written on. The numbers were calculated using publicly available order information and information from trade associations. But this was enough to convince Mr Trump to settle at a tariff rate of 15 per cent, covering about 70 per cent of EU exports and totalling about €780bn (£588bn) worth of trade. In return, US imports into the EU will not face higher tariffs. 'This is probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade,' Mr Trump declared. 'It's a giant deal,' he added, referring to the $600bn and $750bn promises. 'That's going to be great.' The US president's claims of victory and the deal were met with derision in Europe. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, said the bloc hadn't been 'feared' enough in the talks, which opened the door to the concessions. François Bayrou, Macron's prime minister, described it as a 'dark day' for Europe and accused the Commission of bowing to American pressure. Michel Barnier, the EU's former Brexit negotiator, said accepting tariffs was an 'admission of weakness'. 'This weakness is not inevitable. It results from poor choices that ensure neither the sovereignty nor the prosperity of the continent and its states,' he wrote on social media. Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, meanwhile said it would cause 'considerable damage' to his country's economy, the largest in the Eurozone. In comparison, Britain had negotiated a tariff rate of 10 per cent, five less than the EU, in its own deal with Washington. This was hailed by Brexiteers as evidence that leaving the bloc was the right thing to do. Paris and Berlin had been the two capitals pushing hardest for the bloc to take a more robust stance in the trade talks. The French had especially pushed for a package of €93bn (£81bn) of retaliatory tariffs to be unleashed to bring Mr Trump and Washington to heel. There were also calls from Paris to clamp down on American tech firms doing business in Europe. 'This was a big red button nobody was willing to push,' an EU diplomat told The Telegraph, spelling out fears that Europe's economy is reliant on American payment services. But Mrs von der Leyen, who was particularly dovish, argued that this would spill over into other sectors and potentially spell an end to what is a crucial alliance for Europe, especially in security. Fears that the White House and Pentagon would withdraw security guarantees for Europe and cut off weapons supplies to Ukraine overshadowed the talks. But the commission president and her top officials also steeled member states for a longer-term game. Devil in the detail Gabrielius Landsbergis, a former Lithuanian foreign minister, said: 'The only way I can explain to myself why the EU commission would choose to humiliate Europe by accepting the 15 per cent tariff is that they hope to appease Trump enough for him to maintain US security commitments in Europe.' Now Mr Trump has his victory, the devil would be in the detail as the terms are finalised, Mrs von der Leyen's team told member states. The commission will be looking to quietly enlarge a list of products that are exempted from tariffs in more technical talks with Washington. Eurocrats are already briefing that Britain's deal, despite having a lower tariff rate, doesn't protect key European industries, such as beef farmers.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed toand what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
