The Intergovernmental Process on Beyond GDP is advancing. Over 160 submissions for the Elements Paper to inform the negotiations were submitted by governments and other stakeholders including IEF as described below. The Elements Paper was released by the United Nations on 11 September, and all the submissions including from IEF will soon be posted on the UN website.

The Elements Paper is wide-ranging, including the conceptual framework and possible content, governance of the process, and institutional arrangements. For example, some areas raised for inclusion span the concept of human security, agency, mental health, spiritual and moral well-being, social fabric, community ties and solidarity, human mobility, youth participation, food security and nutrition, housing, urbanization, digital inclusion and connectivity, and disaster risk reduction. It calls for further work to consider cultural identity and the diversity of understandings of well-being, particularly subjective well-being, across cultures.

IEF will continue to follow the beyond GDP process and keep you informed of relevant issues.

The United Nations - Beyond GDP process called for contributions from all stakeholders to contribute to an Elements Paper in support of the intergovernmental process. The following is the contribution from the International Environment Forum submitted on 9 August 2026. It mentions IEF president Arthur Dahl as this made it possible to include references beyond the direct work of IEF.

International Environment Forum - Beyond GDP Input

proposals from Arthur Dahl, International Environment Forum, https://iefworld.org (former Coordinator, UN System-wide Earthwatch, UNEP, 1992-2000)

I. Political vision, strategic direction and normative anchor

The conceptual framework in Chapter 3 provides a clear objective for the intergovernmental process: to achieve equitable, inclusive and sustainable well-being based on trust and cooperation to achieve social cohesion leaving no one behind. Poverty should finally be eliminated as called for repeatedly, including in the SDGs.

The report has identified gaps and weaknesses in the present fragmented approaches, and provides an integrated multidimensional approach. The challenge will be to reflect this in both intergovernmental institutions and the structures of government required for implementation at the national level. It may in fact be easier to achieve such integration at the community level, which could be emphasized more in implementing the beyond GDP framework.

The report provides a good diagnosis of the need for measures beyond GDP, but it does not go sufficiently deeply into the reasons why all the past efforts have never taken off or had much impact. GDP, by looking only at financial measures, reinforces the present economic paradigm of progress as growth in wealth, including profits for corporations and investors and stock market valuation, thereby reinforcing the capitalist system of unequal wealth generation. The enormous vested interests in this system and their power over governments continue to undermine the political will to make changes such as those in beyond GDP. The report refers in §78(a) to government conflicts of interest, which recognises this challenge. The economic profession itself tends to be very conservative in questioning its basic assumptions, and marginalises the creative thinkers who propose alternatives. These obstacles need to be acknowledged and addressed more directly.

II. Conceptual Framework, Measurement and Governance

While the conceptual framework has been well researched on recent initiatives, and chapter 2 refers to many previous efforts, it could draw more on earlier experience with indicators of sustainability. Below are just a few examples from this literature that I was involved in myself but there are of course many more sources to draw from:

Hak, Tomas, Bedrich Moldan and Arthur Lyon Dahl (eds). 2007. Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment. SCOPE Vol. 67. Washington, D.C., Island Press, 413 p.

Dahl, Arthur Lyon. 2012. "Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability"". Ecological Indicators, vol. 17, p. 14-19. June 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032

Dahl, Arthur Lyon. 2014. "Putting the Individual at the Centre of Development: Indicators of Well-being for a New Social Contract". Chapter 8, pp. 83-103, In François Mancebo and Ignacy Sachs (eds), Transitions to Sustainability. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9532-6_8. This approach was originally developed as a consultant to the World Bank, before finally being sidelined as too radical.

Dahl, Arthur Lyon. 2018. Contributions to the Evolving Theory and Practice of Indicators of Sustainability, chpt. 3, pp.42-57, in Simon Bell and Stephen Morse (eds), Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators, London and New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1-138-67476-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-56110-3 (ebk)

While examples of well-being assessments are cited from some well-known cases, there is no reference to the creative approaches and experience of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), such as in the Pacific Islands. See for example Reweaving the Ecological Mat: Toward an Ecological Framework for Development in the Pacific Islands, and Vanuatu Statistical Office 2021. The SIDS could be very receptive to the beyond GDP approach and be useful testbeds for its implementation when scaled down to island capacities and resources. It will resonate well with Indigenous values.

One challenge with GDP and many similar indicators is the use of monetary values as the units of measure. This presents methodological challenges for more abstract concerns like social cohesion that do not lend themselves to such costings. It might be easier to develop measures of service to a local or national community. One alternative is to use scientifically-based measures directly as alternative “currencies” for indicator calculation. The International Environment Forum and partners explored this conceptually, for example by using the carbon cycle to calculate carbon debts in the atmosphere, carbon assets when sequestered, and carbon flows as the dynamic to be assessed. See the report at: Dahl, Arthur Lyon. 2023. Lessons learned from the Global Solidarity Accounting project, International Environment Forum website, 24 July 2023, https://iefworld.org/accounting_lessons.

The governance challenge for implementing beyond GDP can be integrated into the larger efforts at reforming multilateral governance and institutions including the United Nations. This could even be a rallying point for reform efforts by providing well-defined targets, capturing the scientific, social and ethical needs for reform. See for example: Dahl, Arthur Lyon. 2024. Towards Effective Multilevel Environmental and Sustainability Governance for Shared Ecological Risks, chapter 19, pp. 317-331 in Global Governance and International Cooperation: Managing Global Catastrophic Risks in the 21st Century, Richard Falk and Augusto Lopez-Claros (eds), London: Routledge.

III. National Implementation

We must acknowledge that most governments today are structurally incapable of favouring the common good over selfish interests, or the long term over short-term priorities. This is a significant barrier to implementation. The structure of government needs to institutionalise consideration for the longer-term future as part of checks and balances. Proposals for beyond GDP will support this if governments accept to implement them.

While GDP is seen as a national statistical measure, not something of local relevance or community application, the conceptual framework for beyond GDP could be translated to be relevant to the community level, and be used to organise consultations on the local reality and priorities within the capacity for local social action. This would help to build public understanding and support for the broader concept and national implementation.

IV. International Policy Applications

The best approach would be to apply the beyond GDP methodology in a number of representative and willing countries as case studies for its usefulness in a range of international decision-making processes that rely today on GDP. The Bretton Woods institutions should be involved in this process. This could demonstrate its ability to attract aid and financial support that is more responsive to local needs and priorities.

It would be valuable if the UN established a high-level interagency coordination mechanism comparable to the UN System-wide Earthwatch Coordination office that UNEP hosted in the decade after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This was able to orchestrate coherent responses to the challenges of Earth observation, scientific assessment and reporting, and the development of indicators of sustainable development across the whole UN system, governments, the scientific community and civil society, by demonstrating the benefits of cooperation.