Sustainability, global impact and the humanitarian-development-peace nexus– NTNU beyond the 2030 Agenda

Hilde Refstie, Associate Professor in Geography and Programme Leader MSc Globalisation and Sustainable Development, NTNU

In August 2019, I wrote a piece in Universitetsavisa titled “NTNU Sustainability – Roar or Chatter?”. The piece drew inspiration from the “Climate Roar” campaign being rolled out in Norway at the time, and advocated for a more noisy, disorderly, boisterous and riotous (this is how a roar is described in the dictionary) engagement with sustainability at NTNU.

In the piece, I highlighted two main issues. First, I pointed out the disparity between NTNU Sustainability’s stated emphasis on the crucial role of social and political conditions for sustainability, and the actual activities conducted under its umbrella. The activities listed on the NTNU Sustainability web page at the time primarily revolved around technologies, frameworks and models promoting green value creation and transformation in business and industry. I suggested this approach placed NTNU Sustainability squarely within the ‘biophysical’ discourse on sustainability, which leans heavily on market-based measures, incentives, and nudging individual consumer attitudes and behavior. I argued, drawing on scholars like Karen O’Brien and Robin Leichenko, that this overreliance on technical and behavioral responses, while neglecting the broader social, economic, and political contexts, prevented NTNU Sustainability from effectively addressing the necessary structural and systemic changes required to tackle global challenges. Therefore, I suggested a vital step forward would be to significantly strengthen the involvement of critical social and human sciences in NTNU’s sustainability research and education efforts.

The second point made in the article underscored the important role of universities as independent, non-commercial actors in knowledge co-production and sustainability debates. For universities to not just focus on finding win-win solutions for the environment and profit makers, but also have the courage to bring to light controversial solutions that necessitate tough political decisions and political change. There is a potential danger in relying on technological solutions with limited impact, as they tend to be band-aids and may divert attention from the urgent need to transform the dysfunctional systems and processes that got us into trouble in the first place. Instead, there is a need for a paradigm shift that links ‘smart’ technological innovations and individual consumer choices with collective action aimed at addressing multilevel power imbalances. While acknowledging the necessity and importance of co-producing knowledge and solutions with industry and the private sector, I emphasized that universities must work towards ensuring that their research priorities are set independently of such collaborations, even when faced with funding incentives that might suggest otherwise. I argued that this required a continuous critical assessment of how research topics emerge, what topics become explored (and which do not), what actors universities and researchers choose to collaborate with, the methods employed, and the underlying motivations for sustainability partnerships. With reference to Participatory Action Research, scholars like Eveliina Lyytinen suggests that we researchers should continuously ask ourselves the following questions: Who defined your research problem? What motivated you to conduct this research? For whom is your study worthy and relevant, and who says so?

A few weeks after my piece was published, I met Helge at a NTNU conference. He reached out to me in one of the breaks to say he concurred with many (not all) of the points I had brought up. He also agreed to join a ProtestPub event on sustainability and transformation with Karen O’Brien and others that we were organizing some months later. Helge and his team’s openness to critique and critical reflexivity stood out to me, and I believe it has been key for the success of NTNU Sustainability over the last ten years. At the same time, their presentations have also highlighted some of the structural limitations sustainability initiatives face at a university like NTNU in terms of embodying multiple approaches to sustainability, negotiating different interests, and coordinating across diverse disciplines.

Photo: Helge Brattebø, Karen O’Brien, Hugo Martinez, Paritosh Deshpande, and Elizabeth Barron in one of the breaks of the Protest Pub on Sustainability and Transformation. Photo: Chin-Yu Lee

Over the past five years, NTNU has significantly embraced sustainability, particularly in the form of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in both teaching and research. The social and human sciences have also gained more prominence in NTNU sustainability debates, thanks in part to the efforts of the Energy strategic thematic area’s Team Society group. While the biophysical discourse remains influential, more focus has been put on how sustainability is contingent on social and political transformations and just, inclusive transitions. There is also more awareness of how sustainability justified research is financed, and the danger of green - and SDG washing. Some examples are projects like GreenBlack that examines how research financing allocated by different kinds of actors contribute either to prolonging the oil age or to a green transition, and DatSam, which examines SDG co-creation strategies through visual digital tools handling large data. At the same time, research priorities and financing are increasingly determined top-down by the EU, the government, or centrally at NTNU. The university’s new Strategic Research Areas are close to identical to the Government’s long-term plan for research and higher education (2023-2032), and the external portion of the NTNU Board is still predominantly composed of business and industry representatives, lacking input from environmental or civil rights organizations. Most pressing though, in my opinion, is the dwindling capacity of NTNU to commit to its slogan knowledge for a better world.

Knowledge for a better world

As the 2030 agenda gains traction in Norway and throughout Europe, it is simultaneously becoming more Eurocentric. In Norway, this trend towards deglobalization in research and education is apparent, marked by diminished funding for collaborative research with low and middle-income countries and the imposition of high tuition fees on students from outside the European Economic Area. Sustainable development, however, requires a comprehensive global approach that goes beyond the realms of energy transitions and industry supply chains in Europe. Addressing sustainability challenges holistically necessitates a worldwide perspective, integrating various sectors and regions. To truly realize the vision of "knowledge for a better world," there is thus a pressing need to counteract this trend and re-globalize research and education by ensuring inclusivity and diversity in knowledge exchange and collaboration.

Rolee Aranya recently emphasized the importance of internationalization in academia, citing NTNU as a leading example in Norwegian higher education due to its long-term commitment to global partnerships. She argued that to genuinely engage with knowledge and action on sustainability and sustainable development, it is crucial for NTNU to uphold its status as a global institution. This commitment is vital not only for fostering international collaborations and exchanges, but also for ensuring that NTNU truly embodies its slogan and remains at the forefront of global academic and sustainability efforts. It is absurd to believe that global solutions can be sought without involving knowledge institutions in low and middle-income countries, home to 84% of the people in the world.

Beyond the 2030 agenda – The Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus
Coming from Geography and Development Studies, I have followed different discourses of development surrounding the previous Millennium Development Goals and the current Sustainable Development Goals over a long period of time. The incorporation of environmental impact in the measure of development, and the following conclusion that ‘we are all developing countries’when ecological footprints are considered, is a welcome shift. The SDG framework has also successfully united many states and actors around a common vision for the future. However, since the SDG framework is consensus-formed in nature, it tends to shy away from addressing root causes and placing global responsibilities. While this contributes to its widespread adoption, it is also its Achilles Heel. The framework’s effectiveness in promoting just sustainable transitions and combating climate coloniality depends heavily on its ability to confront historically inequitable power dynamics. At the heart of recognizing these challenges is the imperative to forge equitable partnerships for global impact, setting the stage for genuine progress towards sustainable development and climate justice.

The world is also grappling with new and reemerging instabilities. We have entered a stage where crises have in many ways become the new normal. In areas plagued by fragility and conflict, millions are pushed back into poverty. Before the pandemic, it was estimated that by 2030, 80% of those in extreme poverty would be in fragile regions. The pandemic has worsened this situation, amplifying existing conflict and fragility causes, while climate change increases natural disasters' frequency and worsens food and livelihood insecurity for hundreds of millions. Emerging conflicts in previously stable areas are creating substantial humanitarian needs, with the Ukraine conflict anticipated to notably deteriorate food security in developing countries. Already, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported a record need for humanitarian assistance in 2023, with an all-time high of 360 million people affected. This simultaneous occurrence of prolonged conflicts, intensifying climate crises, and widespread inequality, compounded by shifts in geopolitical power, highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive approach that interconnects humanitarian, development and peace building efforts. This shift demands that scholars, practitioners, and decision-makers more explicitly engage with the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, going beyond the current integration within the SDG framework. NTNU as a university may be well placed to do so, following good efforts by NTNU Sustainability in terms of promoting integrated work across silos.

Ultimately, universities should focus on addressing the root causes of global challenges, not just their symptoms. To maintain our relevance and leadership in creating knowledge for a better world, we must actively understand the emerging world orders and their effects on social and environmental sustainability. This requires cultivating a learning environment that promotes critical thinking, innovation, and a strong commitment to social justice and equity. It also entails a firm commitment to independent research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and equitable truly global research and education partnerships with what is, in fact the majority world.