‘Circular economy is an opportunity, but we're navigating through a storm’: Nicola Cerantola

Nicola Cerantola serves as an external expert for the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and teaches at numerous universities and business schools internationally. His work focuses on facilitating business transformation toward resilient, regenerative models that benefit both people and planet.

The views expressed below are those of the interviewee and aim to stimulate reflection among cooperation practitioners.

You said ‘circular economy is an opportunity, but we're navigating through a storm.’ What did you mean by that? Is circular economy not working as well as we hoped?

It's not that circular economy isn't effective, it absolutely is one of our most promising tools for tackling humanity's major challenges. The "storm" I'm referring to is the complexity of our current situation: geopolitical tensions, technological disruptions, ideological conflicts, cultural shifts. Everything is interconnected, especially with how we do business and structure our economy.

Here's the challenge: if we want to change the economy and the way we do business, we have to change our entire 'operating system.' That's no small task.

Think about decarbonisation, for example. We can switch to renewable energy sources - a relatively limited set of technological solutions that already exist. But circular economy? That's different. We're talking about fundamentally transforming how the economy works: connecting production and consumption more locally, extending the life of products and resources. These aren't 'plug and play' solutions. We're talking about changing the very nature of the economy and how we exchange value.

You also talked about learning from nature rather than just using it as a source of raw materials. 

Yes, exactly. We need to shift our view of nature from being just a warehouse of raw materials to seeing it as a teacher and learn from it.

Can you explain what you mean by "traditional ecological knowledge"?

Traditional ecological knowledge is the ancient wisdom we can still find in communities that have lived sustainably for hundreds or thousands of years - particularly indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, these communities and their knowledge are disappearing. What they have that we've lost is a sense of proportion and restraint. They understood that overusing available resources would destroy their sources of sustenance.

I'm an anthropology enthusiast, and I've studied how indigenous peoples exercised balance and moderation for millennia. They lived in small groups in symbiosis with nature. When societies became sedentary and agricultural, that paradigm shifted. Stratification emerged, inequalities grew, and that sense of restraint was lost—think of Easter Island. Every society that has collapsed lost this moderation. And I'm sorry to say, we're heading in the same direction.

Traditional ecological knowledge means rediscovering good practices from the past: water management, land management, democratic decision-making - things that worked.

And regenerative economy?

I see circular economy as only transitional. Our ultimate goal should be regeneration, not just circularity. Why? Because circularity means keeping resources in circulation, but if we keep losing value along the way, we'll eventually be unable to maintain our current lifestyle and quality of life.

Circular economy should be a means to achieve something higher: a regenerative economy where we recapitalise nature, restore human lives, and give people back their health, including mental health. Circular economy is good for industry, yes, but it should be a stepping stone toward these higher goals that we really need.

How should Interreg project beneficiaries keep these ideas in mind during project design and implementation?

I was really inspired by the EU-funded "Communities for Climate" project I participated in recently. Unlike previous initiatives, it was specifically structured to support and strengthen communities in the green transition. That's when I realised we often underestimate that the players in this process don't come exclusively from the business world.

Projects should involve different types of beneficiaries. Companies are fine, but they should partner with local communities, the ones actually supporting the circular transition in their territories. I'm talking about involving people who aren't necessarily NGOs, but individuals and communities without established legal forms who are doing interesting, impactful work.

And referring back to my earlier point, projects should collect and preserve ancestral knowledge from different cultures, territories, and populations. If things were done a certain way in the past, it was because it made perfect sense. Architecture in Castilla-La Mancha differs from northern Spain for good reason. The same with food. These things made sense for specific times and places but were lost with globalisation and cheap transport.

Given the prospect of future scarcity and potential ecosystem collapse, we should recover these elements: traditional seeds, territorial wisdom from before globalisation. This provides valuable lessons, including psychological and spiritual ones. The frugal mindset we had when we possessed little would be an excellent starting point for the transition we must undertake.

What future do you see for circular economy in Europe? Any recommendations for policy makers?

Europe has always defended universal values and symbols of civilisation, but we're also tremendously exposed to raw material scarcity and current geopolitical tensions. We're caught between two global powers - the United States and China - and we've lost political weight.

If I had to suggest one policy for the European level, it would be reindustrialisation of territories. We need to bring production of what satisfies our basic needs back to zero-kilometre production. Industrial production must return to Europe, I see this as inevitable. Authorities should facilitate this process and promote and protect our high-quality local production that meets sustainability and circularity criteria.

As for the future of circular economy... I must say I'm a little sceptical lately. The world is heading in the wrong direction, and I'm quite worried. How can we think about circular economy when human rights and international justice are being trampled in Gaza and elsewhere? True circular economy must go hand in hand with respect for fundamental human rights, becoming an instrument of peace as well as prosperity. I believe only by sharing and managing scarce, finite resources in a democratic, circular, and regenerative way can we foster real peace on Earth.

Finally, you have extensive experience in Interreg and other projects. If you had a magic wand to fund anything, what project would you design?

My dream would be to spread Buddhist spiritual principles to everyone! [laughs] No, joking aside, I've always been fascinated by Eastern cultures and philosophies. Change must be cultural to be real. If we can't be happy with what we have, if we can't understand that everything around us is an illusion and temporary, then all our other efforts are probably in vain.

Technically speaking, we can improve how companies produce aluminium window frames, for example. But the starting point should probably be somewhere else. We now have the opportunity to live better, with less stress, working fewer hours, but we struggle to put this into practice. In Europe, we generally have access to everything we need, all the comforts, all the material things, yet we're always a little "miserable" in how we live and deal with life.

So, if I had a magic wand, I would promote powerful dissemination of different values. We should invest in cultural change, because the industry that emerges from that would be completely different from what we have today. If we only intervene at the industry level - in projects, in business practices - but don't intervene at the basis of society, at the level of citizens who are manipulated and don't lift a finger to inform themselves or seek knowledge, we'll never change things. If we can't get to the root of consumption, we can't change anything.

I would promote projects capable of changing our value system. If we improve industry but don't change our perverse relationship with the economy and consumption, it will be difficult to achieve the goals we should really be setting. We might get better products and services, but their raison d'être would be meaningless. I believe Interreg projects can contribute to this change by connecting various actors in the territory to support the change we really need.