Hindrance to sustainable development: Global inequities, non‐progressive education and inadequate science‐policy dialogue

Abstract

Social habits and economies driven by profit are opposing efforts to reach a path of sustainable development. In addition, many communities worldwide have diverged away from nature through consumerism and technology. In the context of the escalating risks and consequences related to global challenges such as the climate crisis and ecosystem degradation, education for sustainable development and science‐driven decision‐making offer tremendous opportunities for improvement.

Science and education are critical to shift consumer behaviour and improve decision‐making in politics.

INTRODUCTION

Societies worldwide face increasingly threatening challenges. Compared to most developed countries, greater risks to people's livelihoods exist in the Global South, with a wide range of diversity in the level of health care, scientific research, quality of education, roles of women and funding allocated to societal support services. Awareness of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015) and knowledge of sustainability are often overshadowed by pressing existential issues such as food security, poverty and disease. While the need for solidarity, international aid, scientific cooperation and capacity building have been advocated in many forums and political discussions, the resources actually committed to reducing inequalities fade in comparison to, for instance, investment in military infrastructure. This review summarises the main aspects of the difficulties in achieving the SDGs, featuring research results on the microbiome as a paradigm to inspire new and wiser perspectives.

ADDRESSING INEQUALITIES BY RECOGNISING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF NATURE

SDG #10 calls for actions to address inequalities: there cannot be peace, health and prosperity without ethically working towards the gradual reduction of the dramatic differences between countries across multiple sectors. However, improvements in conditions to reduce global disparities clash with the linear, competitive and capitalistic economic model that dominates world markets and seeks continuous growth in spite of the damage caused to the planet's resources and natural ecosystems. Against this backdrop, science–and knowledge arising from scientific research–stand both as a tool to bridge national and international barriers and as a rational language to guide better policy.

Through work at the interface between science and economics, the idea of recognising the value of and assigning a market worth to Nature is being accepted as valid (Dasgupta, 2021; Lisovski & Liedvogel, 2021), although this is struggling to become part of any governance. This concept, if applied through politics and policy, would create a way to protect Nature and regions of the biosphere that have a use for human activities. The change in the economic mentality means that ‘inclusive wealth’ is the manufactured capital and human capital combined with the natural capital. Nature and life‐support systems are key to human health and to the quality of people's lives in general; gross domestic product (GDP) alone is merely an indicator of wealth and not well‐being (UNEP, 2018).

NEW KNOWLEDGE ARISING FROM MICROBIOME RESEARCH: A MODEL FOR SCIENCE‐DRIVEN VISION

Advances in microbiology research, especially the studies on microbiomes, have presented results with striking implications on several levels. Here, I present 6 considerations arising from microbiota research that can help frame some of the issues that underpin the Global Challenges addressed by the SDGs.

1. New knowledge on the functions of microbiomes in both human beings and other living organisms, for instance, on plant roots, shows how science is paving the way for a new understanding of the value of Nature and its role in health and economics. Soil microorganisms such as nitrogen‐fixing bacteria offer Nature‐based alternatives to chemical fertilisers; their economic benefit was assessed, thus providing an estimated value for one set of ecosystem services (Telles et al., 2023).

2. Research on the rhizosphere microbiome (e.g. Ling et al., 2022) is opening up new knowledge horizons about the delicate and intricate balance between microbial communities in the soil and in association with plant roots that can affect mineral availability and uptake. Thus, plant growth can be enhanced or curtailed by the type of soil bacteria associations. Similarly, the fact that the interactions and composition of gut microbiota are key to human metabolism and even mental states should increase our awareness of the interlinkages and interdependencies between us, the environment and its ecosystems, and Nature in general (O'Toole & Paoli, 2023).

3. Related to this is the concept of ‘One Health’, which crystallised over the first decade of the new millennium (Gibbs, 2014) to convey the effects of animal health and planetary health on human health. Understanding the gut microbiome reinforces the concept of a unified condition of health. Linking the well‐being of people to that of ecosystems is now seen by many as the only way to envision the future of a healthy society. In particular, during the COVID‐19 pandemic, the topic of zoonotic infectious diseases re‐emerged and highlighted the virus spillover risks associated with both unethical treatment of animals and human dominance and interference on animal habitats (Gibb et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2020).

4. The research results of the human gut microbiota and also the concept of ‘One Health’ point to food and diet in a new and holistic way. The nutrient and fibre content of what we eat greatly influences the microbial communities in our intestine and may prevent degenerative diseases (Nova et al., 2022). However, a western fashioned diet has been spreading in many countries, including the Global South, with an increasing emphasis on processed foods and greater meat consumption. This is mainly due to marketing forces and consumer lack of knowledge.

5. Studies have shown that the diversity in species of the gut microbiota is correlated with the health of the individual (Lozupone et al., 2012). Diversity is coupled to the notions of balance and equilibrium: if we negatively shift the interplay between bacteria in our gut, our food intake and our lifestyle in general, we can then compromise our health. This reminds us of the declining biodiversity that is crippling the harmony of Earth's ecosystems with the onset of the 6th Mass Extinction (Ceballos et al., 2020), as well as the growing disconnect between Nature and people (Díaz et al., 2015).

6. It is not possible to achieve sustainable development without protecting and nurturing equilibrium and balance, which are essential to the environment and life‐supporting systems and useful, as demonstrated by microbiome research, to the well‐being of the body. We now have a holistic vision of every person hosting complex communities of microorganisms; however, this view and much of the related points outlined above should reach a wider audience, and the younger generations in particular. Education is absolutely pivotal and urgent to bring into societies worldwide the key concepts of sustainability and planetary boundaries (O'Toole & Paoli, 2017).

EDUCATION AS A MEANS TO CHANGE MINDSETS

The only tool that can set the basis for a better understanding of our relationship with the planet is education. Many education systems, however, have not evolved significantly over the past decades and fail to convey key principles needed for a much‐needed shift in consumer behaviour. Also, knowledge arising from research is often left in scientific papers and does not get integrated into school curricula. This knowledge is essential for a critical mass of people to gain an improved vision of their health as well as of their ecological footprint.

Quality education is certainly needed to forge a skilled workforce and to form adequate research capabilities to address complex problems; in addition, and most importantly, it is needed to create a proper understanding of sustainable development. In fact, in 1987, in the report ‘Our Common Future’, published by the Brundtland Commission, formerly the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland, 1987), it was recognised that teachers had a crucial role in shaping the young generations to comprehend the meaning of sustainability and to address global challenges. During the 1990s and after the turn of the millennium, discussions on the importance of education continued and in 2005, the UN launched an initiative called ‘Decade on Education for Sustainable Development’, which was led by UNESCO. The project resulted in several guideline documents for teachers and decision makers (UNESCO, 2014).

UNESCO compiled a fascinating document as early as 1997, thus much before the launch of the Decade for ESD: ‘Educating for a Sustainable Future: a Transdisciplinary Vision for Concerted Action’ (UNESCO, 1997). This was certainly a visionary piece, as it touched upon the meaning of sustainability and its associated global issues, the need for public awareness, the power of education to affect production and consumption patterns and the ethical aspects of unsustainable lifestyles. A key message was the bold proposal of a reorientation of education, aiming at achieving some level of environmental literacy in the graduating students.

In spite of all of this and the documents that followed the Decade of ESD, to date, most countries are still striving to effectively incorporate principles of sustainability into their education systems.

DISPARITIES AND ETHICAL ISSUES

The diversity of approaches to education and to the implementation of the SDGs is mirrored by the drastic disparities that exist across a wide range of areas such as gender equity, health systems, levels of poverty, capacity in science and technology, environmental laws and governance in general. In the last two decades, there has been an increase in the development gap: even before the COVID‐19 pandemic, inequalities were deepening, especially in some communities in the UN category of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Ethical issues of social injustice have been exacerbated in recent years by the rising risks and dire consequences of climatic disruptions (UNESCO, 2019). Even if these topics have been discussed in many international forums, little concrete action by governments, especially those in the so‐called developed countries, has been seen.

The current model of unsustainable development and irresponsible growth continues to place pressure on developing countries, with consequences for the natural environment, social justice and political/economic stability. Because of the expanding appetite and competition for resources, biodiversity and ecosystem services have and are still being damaged, mainly in poorer countries where the global market takes advantage of the weaker political systems and lack of laws protecting the environment as well as the health and safety of workers.

One of the difficulties has been defining and measuring equity, with different types of disparities between developed countries and many nations in the Global South. The spectrum of ethical challenges associated with inequalities is under research; some key points are outlined below (Pickett et al., 2014):

• market consumeristic demands by rich societies are very different from the needs of poorer communities;

• those with greater purchasing power can influence the use of resources and drive indiscriminate environmental degradation in poor nations;

• marked inequalities enable some to fuel unsustainable short‐term high‐profit consumption thus reinforcing the linear consumeristic economic model that currently dominates the world.

THE SCIENCE‐POLICY DIALOGUE

In decision‐making, ethics is often overridden by economic considerations and market priorities, at the expense of both the environment and people, especially those in underprivileged settings. We desperately need a scientific, rational and evidence‐based approach to guide policy and decision‐making. In the new epoch of the Anthropocene, defined by extensive exploitation of the planet's resources and degradation of life‐supporting systems, governments that ignore the environmental pillar of sustainable development will continue to cause damage to future generations. This is an issue of ethics and responsibility. In the Anthropocene, humans have been exerting ever‐increasing pressure on those safe zones that have been termed the Planetary Boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009). New knowledge can build wisdom in the science‐policy dialogue, which is essential to tackle one of the biggest challenges of the current situation given by culture and habits: we have become accustomed to technological comforts in a way of life generally addicted to consumption and waste. The culture of growth and profit, unlimited economic growth in particular, is a major driver of the accelerating crisis. Human behaviour is affected by trends and fashion; for instance, our dietary choices have impacts (Clark et al., 2020; Schiermeier, 2019) that most people, including politicians, cannot even imagine unless their minds are fed scientific data and the wisdom that derives from that knowledge.

BUILDING CAPACITY FOR STRONGER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SDG #10 and the deepening inequalities can be addressed with targeted actions by international aid agencies, cooperation for development ministries and specific organisations and foundations that work in these directions. The World Academy of Sciences (www.twas.org), a programme unit of UNESCO, is an example of an organisation that implements capacity‐building programmes to strengthen science and research in developing countries and promote science‐driven policy.

The activities of UNESCO‐TWAS include research grants, doctoral and postdoctoral fellowships, exchange programmes for collaborative and interdisciplinary research, prizes to recognise scientific achievements, support for young scientists and training courses in science diplomacy.

There is an urgent need for these organisations and actions to be better supported to make a tangible, vital impact across the Global South. This is particularly critical for the LDCs, many of which are lagging further behind in the economic aftermath of the COVID‐19 pandemic and other international emergencies. However, in recent years, many wealthy nations have been looking inward rather than displaying an approach of solidarity to improve conditions in LDCs and alleviate poverty and other hardships. Without political wisdom and political will, there cannot be significant advances in reaching a more sustainable path of development.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In order to decrease or remove the hindrance to the implementation of the SDGs, four priority areas are outlined below.

1. Education is currently inadequate to prepare the new generations for facing the Global Challenges: progressive and emerging education must integrate key aspects of sustainable development, make stronger links to Nature and the life‐supporting systems, and provide the basis for a change in behaviour and mindset. The general public lacks knowledge about sustainability and, for example, the basic notions underlying climate change. Politicians, or anybody for that matter, cannot be expected to be sensitive and act on issues of which they have limited awareness, do not properly comprehend and do not consider sufficiently pressing. Knowledge brings understanding and awareness, which are crucial for action.

2. Connecting with Nature and conferring economic value to ecosystem services and natural resources in general is absolutely critical. If we are to understand and face intertwining challenges such as human population growth, climatic changes, food production, biodiversity loss and mass extinctions, environmental degradation and pollution, health, energy demands, etc., then a holistic consideration of the planetary boundaries and life‐support systems, ‘One Health’ and reconnecting with nature must all be at the centre of an informed approach to governance and also a reformed education system for a sustainable future.

3. Science literacy and the science‐policy dialogue are powerful tools that are overlooked. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, it was possible to discern the desperate need for better science literacy. Similarly, the attitude of many to the climate crisis is another indication of poor science literacy, which has detrimental consequences for sustainable development. A strong base for science and technology provides the critical know‐how in multiple sectors required for human well‐being and science‐driven decision‐making. Although science‐policy advice can result in better governance, political directions remain dominated by economic interests. This is also the cause of inequities in developmental aid and capacity‐building programmes, especially for the so‐called Least Developed Countries.

4. International collaborations for training and capacity building in science and research are essential efforts to decrease disparities and achieve the SDGs. Ethical politics focusing on solidarity, cooperation and climate justice has the potential to bring about real change. In the context of the science‐policy dialogue, scientists should feel more empowered and keep, despite the narrow nature of scientific research, a broad perspective to adopt a holistic view of their activities and to convey key messages effectively to broad audiences, locally and beyond.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The author declare no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

MP wrote the article. Funding for MP is provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Italian Government, the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency, the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research and the Elsevier Foundation.

Paoli, M. (2024) Hindrance to sustainable development: Global inequities, non‐progressive education and inadequate science‐policy dialogue. Microbial Biotechnology, 17, e14486. Available from: 10.1111/1751-7915.14486

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.