Environmental Stewardship in Tuvalu Formal School Education – a Policy Analysis Perspective across Scales

1. Introduction

Tuvalu is the world’s fourth-smallest country, with a population of roughly 11,000 people, a land area of only 25.9 km², and a 900,000 km² exclusive economic zone. It consists of five coralline atolls (Nanumea, Nui, Nukufetau, Funafuti, and Nukulaelae), three table reef islands (Nanumaga, Niutao, and Niulakita), and one composite (coralline atoll/table reef) island (Vaitupu) (Figure 1). Islands and atolls rarely climb higher than 3 metres above sea level, an attestation of Tuvalu’s vulnerability to sea-level rise, erosion, saltwater intrusion, inundation, and storm surges associated with cyclones [1]. The 2021 Commonwealth Universal Vulnerability Index (UVI) shows that Tuvalu had an index of 0.97 for UVI_1 in 2018, which signifies its vulnerability to external and natural shocks, climate change, and socio-political or societal fragility partially matched by its structural and policy resilience. According to UVI_2, Tuvalu is among the thirty most vulnerable countries in 2018 [2]. Based on the 2021 World Risk Index, Tuvalu’s atoll neighbour, Kiribati, is among the twenty countries at risk for natural disasters with the lowest adaptation capacity [3]. Tuvalu would have been on the same risk level had it not been due to excessive missing vulnerability values. In June 2024, Tuvalu had an estimated population of 11, 478 [4], of whom an estimated 50.4% resided in Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu [5].

The National Advisory Council on Climate Change (NACCC) and the Department of Climate Change and Disaster (DCCD) were established in late 2013 and 2014, respectively, as part of Tuvalu’s reaction to the inevitable impacts of climate change [6,7] (p. 43; p. 3). The latter was once more divided into two significant departments: the Department of Disaster Management (DDM), which reports to the Ministry of Public Works, Infrastructure, Environment, Labour, Meteorology and Disaster (MPWIELMD), and the Department of Climate Change (DCC), which is currently under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Climate Change and Environment. Since then, the efforts of the DCC, the Department of Environment, the Department of Waste Management, the Tuvalu Fisheries Department, the Tuvalu Meteorological Service, and non-governmental organisations like the Tuvalu NGO, Tuvalu Red Cross Society, Tuvalu Climate Action Network (TuCAN), NGO/NPO Tuvalu Overview, Tuvalu National Council of Women, Tuvalu National Youth Council, Live and Learn Environmental Education Tuvalu, and Fuligafou has significantly increased public awareness of environmental protection and conservation, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, albeit in silo. However, policies on formal schooling on environmental stewardship and horizontal implementation guidance between government departments and NGOs have been lacking. This article explores how formal environmental and educational policies are shaping practical environmental stewardship in Tuvalu, examining the various disconnections between formal and informal policymaking at national, regional and international scales. Theoretical and policy frameworks related to environmental stewardship education highlight the inconsistency of environmental and climate policy implementation in Tuvalu.

2. Theoretical and Policy Insights

2.1. Environmental Stewardship Education: Theoretical Insights

Environmental stewardship involves preserving, restoring, and using sustainable practices to improve ecosystem resilience and human well-being [8]. Bennett et al. [9] defined local environmental stewardship as protecting, caring for, or responsibly using the environment to achieve environmental and/or social outcomes in various social-ecological contexts by individuals, groups, or networks of actors with different motivations and capacities. The latter concept was adopted as this research focused on actors, capacity, and motivation, the three most critical characteristics of environmental stewardship. Individuals, local communities, CSOs, NGOs, and governments are involved. Local environmental stewardship may be promoted by horizontal policy integration. Environmental stewardship education through educational policy is essential because capacity—whether the actors listed can manage their resources—is a fundamental concern. Ethics, morals, beliefs, economic gains, increasing provisioning, etc., encourage actors to care for the environment. Government policies and other agency programmes can be deployed across the three elements, and sectoral uniformity and vertical alignment with global guidelines are essential for improving national outcomes.

Environmental stewardship (ES) and education are interdependent [10,11,12]. Education fosters environmental stewardship by raising awareness, providing information, and promoting responsible behaviour. Environmental stewardship is closely related to environmental education (EE), education for sustainability (EfS), education for sustainable development (ESD), place-based education (PBE), and community-based education (CBE) [13]. EE promotes environmental stewardship by educating individuals on the significance of the environment and the consequences of human actions [14]. ESD, EfS, and ES aim to promote sustainable practices and preserve the environment.

PBE involves learning about a place’s local environment, culture, and history, while CBE involves learning about and engaging with the local community [15,16]. Both can promote environmental stewardship by nurturing a sense of community and environmental connection and responsibility. In Tuvalu, this occurs through the informal inter-generational transmission of traditional ecological knowledge, skills, and values that generally occurs through oral and practical informal means in village settings—peer-to-peer learning [17]. For effective ES, this needs to be incorporated into formal education curricula [17,18].

Environmental Stewardship Education (ESE) is rarely discussed in the literature. However, ‘Stewardship Education’ is commonly used in the literature and characterised as a process for creating an internalised stewardship ethic and abilities needed to make informed decisions and engage in environmental stewardship behaviours [19]. Seng [12] proposes that to attain environmental stewardship behaviour, the education programme should consider the student’s progression from entry-level (environmental awareness and environmental knowledge) to ownership level (an in-depth understanding and identification with an issue) to empowerment level (purpose to act and personal responsibility), as depicted in Figure 2.

This research draws on Thorne’s [20] ESE definition, which considers the inclusion of care pedagogy in environmental and sustainability education programmes. Thorne demonstrates that ESE is a feasible educational strategy and explores where it is effective and how Tuvalu may benefit from it. It has also been posited that ESE is a crucial component of education in the Anthropocene [21], as it strives to develop the emotional and cognitive skill sets necessary to deal with severe environmental change and provide the foundation for an egalitarian and sustainable culture [13]. Furthermore, ESE is included in all formally recognised environmental education programmes, including EE, ESD, EfS, PBE, CBE, and climate change education (CCE) [13,22] (p. 22; p. 6).

ESE is a tool to change students’ attitudes and behaviours towards the natural environment, and formal education is the best medium for developing environmentally conscious citizens [23]. Formal education is essential for developing a literate and educated populace for the modern economy [24], allowing for developing skills, attitudes, and values for decent living and improved environmental behaviours [25]. Recent studies have shown that more excellent formal education significantly boosts individuals’ public and private environmental behaviour [26,27]. Higher levels of formal education improve individuals’ environmental knowledge and pollution awareness, influencing their environmental behaviour. However, there is a debate on where and how to situate formal ESE appropriately across formal educational timelines.

2.2. Environmental Stewardship Education Embedding Level: Theoretical Insights

Studies by Lutz et al. [28] and Striessnig et al. [29] argue that investment in universal primary and secondary education, especially in developing countries, is the most effective strategy for enhancing the adaptive capacity to climate change. Additionally, Havea et al. [30] explain the importance of tackling climate change from a young age. They contend that schools must teach younger children about climate change at a far younger age than only at the decision-making level of secondary education. They also argue that youngsters should know about climate change science to mitigate and adapt. Prabawani et al. [31] found that students’ comprehension of eco-friendly education does not improve as their education level increases, suggesting that the elementary years of education are the best times to establish the groundwork for children’s future desire to engage in environmental stewardship behaviours actively. Recent studies have found that young teenagers (12-13 years old) are perfect change agents crucial for public opinion, increasing scientific literacy, and using this information to advance climate-friendly policy and governance [32]. A 2017 study involving 401 12 to 13-year-olds found that they could also cognitively process elements of climate science that would enable them to develop a scientific understanding of the subject [33].

At the secondary level, Aklin et al. [34] found that income does not affect environmental preferences in Brazil and that education is a stronger predictor of environmental preferences. They argue that people with secondary schooling are more likely to support environmental views than those with primary education. Taylor et al. [35] agreed and argued that EfS should be implemented at the secondary level due to its potential to improve secondary students’ knowledge and skills, leading to actions such as economic, social, and environmental justice [36]. Additionally, students are approaching voting age and becoming more independent and autonomous.

This study suggests that ESE should be introduced at the primary level, as most people in Tuvalu and other Pacific Island Countries only complete primary education [18]. This level of awe and wonder should be targeted for long-lasting impact [37].

2.3. Regional and International Policy Insights on Environmental Stewardship Education

Pacific island countries and territories are on the front line of climate change impacts, with climate change being viewed as a slow-acting disaster [38,39]. Therefore, climate change adaptation is a sub-set disaster risk reduction and is closely aligned financially and in terms of governance across the Pacific. An analysis of various Pacific regional and national guiding policy documents indicates a strong shift towards the integration of CCA and DRM/DRR policy since 2010 when Tonga led the region in the development of its Joint National Action Plan for CCA and DRR. The process of integration has been continuous (Figure 3) and led to the development and support of the regional Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific (FRDP) 2017-2030, which is a set of voluntary guidelines for the Pacific region [40]. The FRDP promotes two types of integration: integrating climate change and disaster mitigation actions to reduce redundancy and maximise resource use and mainstreaming climate change and disaster risk action into development planning, policy, funding, programming, and execution. The FRDP (2016) is a “mainstreaming and integration” first for the Pacific and represents the region’s global leadership in the recognition and advocacy of integrated resilient development. It should also be noted that ministers at the Inaugural Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction Ministers Meeting (Nadi, Fiji, September 2022) and the Asia-Pacific Ministerial Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction (APMCDRR, Brisbane, Australia, September 2022) recognised that DRR underpins sustainable development and provides the nexus for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement, the Agenda for Humanity and the New Urban Agenda. This integrated approach is very much reflected in the ethics of ES. The FRDP encourages formal and non-formal education systems to strengthen knowledge on causes, impacts, and responses to climate change, hazards, and disasters and capacity-building for adaptation and risk management measures.

At the international scale, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) 2022-2030 and its predecessor, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, are international frameworks for action by governments, subnational and local governments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and enhance its benefits for people. The Framework encourages incorporating biodiversity into education programmes, promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use curricula in educational institutions, and fostering knowledge, attitudes, values, behaviours, and lifestyles consistent with living in harmony with nature [41].

In addition, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015–2030, the Paris Agreement of 2015, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development are other pertinent international frameworks that will influence national and local disaster risk reduction, climate change, and sustainability strategies. The SFDRR promotes disaster risk knowledge in formal and non-formal education, primary and secondary school resilience programmes, teachers’ curricula material, and the idea that children and youth are agents of change [42]. The Paris Agreement is a global pact to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius, which calls on all parties in Article 82 to ensure that education contributes to the development of climate change resilience. The Global Goals and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development aim to end poverty and hunger, realise human rights, empower women and girls, and protect the earth and its natural resources. Target 13.3 of the 2030 Agenda requires incorporating climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning into primary, secondary, and tertiary curricula [43].

Furthermore, the Belgrade Charter and the Decade for ESD are educational frameworks and programmes that guide global quality education for environmental integrity, economic viability and just society. The Belgrade Charter outlines clear guidelines for environmental education programmes, including that it should examine the entire environment, be lifelong, be multidisciplinary, encourage environmental action, address significant environmental issues, address present and future environmental issues, consider environmental impact in all progress, and emphasise the importance of local, regional, and global environmental cooperation [44]. UNESCO drafted key characteristics of ESD, demonstrating that it should be interdisciplinary, holistic, and values-driven, promote critical thinking and problem-solving, employ multiple methods, encourage participatory decision-making, and be applicable and locally relevant [45]. These international guidelines should filter down to local government policies, such as the Tuvalu education policy.

ESE, EfS and ESD have been promoted through project-based and/or activity-based approaches [23,46,47]. According to Roofe and Ferguson [48], ESD and TVET are potent forces that can assist people in becoming active and environmentally responsible citizens, employees, and consumers capable of addressing local and global challenges. TVET was declared under the Bonn Declaration as the master key that can alleviate poverty, promote peace, conserve the environment, improve the quality of life for all and help achieve sustainable development [49]. ESD has been integrated into formal TVET curricula at the primary and secondary levels [48,50,51] in Tuvalu [52,53], but the integration of ESD and any other adjectival education, such as ESE, has not been explored.

This study draws on Roofe and Ferguson’s [48] idea of infusing ESD and adjectival education into TVET curricula at the primary level. Further research is needed to understand the role of environmental stewardship in educational planning, policy, and practice [20]. This article compares the formal education objectives expressed in national, regional, and international policies to how environmental stewardship will be taught in Tuvalu’s elementary and secondary schools in 2022/23.

Regional and international policies are essential to directing national and local policies for effective and improved national environmental stewardship education outcomes. The Pacific Islands Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas (PIFNCPA) guides Pacific partners’ conservation efforts, emphasising the need for coordinated Pacific-wide efforts to handle environmental issues and emerging threats to Pacific ecosystems, cultures, and economies [54]. The objectives of the PIFNCPA are to protect Pacific biodiversity and the natural environment forever, lead conservation and preservation activities of natural resources for present and future generations, and conserve nature and use resources sustainably. The PIFNCPA 2021-2025 and the FRDP 2017-2030 are two relevant regional guidelines that could link to the above Tuvaluan policy context.

2.4. National Policy Insights on Environmental Stewardship Education

Government policies are essential for encouraging economic progress and shaping society. For Tuvalu, these include the Tuvalu National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (TNBSAP) 2012-2016, Integrated Environmental Policy and Natural Resources 2020-2022, Tuvalu NEMS 2022-2026, and Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu Climate Change Policy 2021-2030. In addition, there are educational policies and frameworks such as the Tuvalu Education Strategic Plan III (TESP III) 2016-2020 and the Tuvalu National Curriculum Policy Framework (TNCPF) 2019. The horizontal integration of policies and frameworks should precede their vertical alignment with Tuvalu’s National Strategy for Sustainable Development – ‘Te Kete’ 2021-2030, which should influence primary and secondary school ESE.

The TNBSAP 2012-2016 was formulated to manage, preserve, and address biodiversity issues and constraints. It consists of thirteen priority areas, five of which are cross-cutting issues, and the remaining eight comprise the heart of the Plan. The Department of Environment (DoE) leads the implementation of the Plan, which advocates integrating biodiversity (an ES-related concept), traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and cultural practices into primary and secondary curricula. A current Integrated Environment Policy and Natural Resources (IEPNR) 2020-2022 was developed by DoE to address biodiversity challenges reported in the Biodiversity Rapid Assessment (BIORAP) in 2017. The policy aims to protect the environment, enhance resource management (critical components of ES) and assist Tuvalu in fulfilling its international obligations.

Furthermore, the Tuvalu National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) was developed by DoE and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) to help the government repair deteriorated environments. It emphasizes integrating TEK and cultural practices into the educational curriculum and encourages formal and informal education to promote community waste management and pollution control training. Additionally, Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu 2021-2030, Tuvalu’s climate change policy, was created to address the effects of climate change (a concept related to ES) and the island community’s vulnerability issues. The policy also addresses Tuvalu’s regional and global climate change commitments and advances national objectives outlined in ‘Te Kete,’ the National Strategy for Sustainable Development for 2021–2030. It replaced the earlier climate change policy, ‘Te Kaniva’, which called for integrating lessons on disaster risk reduction and climate change into the curriculum.

The successful horizontal (sectoral) integration between the aforementioned environmental policies and educational frameworks, such as the Tuvalu National Curriculum Policy Framework (TNCPF) and the Tuvalu Education Strategy Plan III (TESP III) 2016-2020, is essential for the implementation of their requirements. The latter is a five-year Plan created to serve as a road map for education in Tuvalu to realise the vision of a “Quality education for sustainable living for all.” The former charts a new course for Tuvaluan education by defining system-level guidelines, concepts, and learning and teaching principles for students from pre-primary to Year 13. It does not explicitly address environmental stewardship and related concepts such as biodiversity and disaster risk reduction. However, ES-related cross-cutting themes such as climate change and sustainability were included in the Framework. The EfS was highlighted in the philosophy section of the revised 2019 Framework. It stated that “the education system will equip its students with skills, capacity and motivation to plan and manage change towards sustainability within their schools, families and communities” [55] (p. 18). Under the Science Learning Area, the Framework includes curriculum material pertinent to teaching about environmental stewardship and climate change.

In addition, the Framework address the environment under the primary and secondary education sections, which state that “the primary education curriculum emphasises life skills and pays attention to sustainable ways of living… secondary education in Tuvalu will prepare students to be more responsive to the real dangers and vulnerabilities of their environment and develop resilience in the face of this adversity” [55] (p. 19). Additionally, the Framework states that “children and students will understand biological, physical and chemical processes that cause natural phenomena and events through the study of sciences… they will develop an understanding and appreciation of the importance of natural resources, interrelationships in systems and sustainable ways. They will learn to live in harmony with their environment and appreciate [the] traditional use of science in their cultures” [55] (p. 42).

Appropriately implemented, the TNCPF offers scope to align formal national ESE with the various national, regional, and international policy outcomes outlined above.

2.5. Insights on Policy Implementation

The failure of national governments to implement and localize resilience-related regional and national policies was a key finding of the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: Pacific Regional Synthesis Report [56]. This finding has important implications for ESE since capacity development (education and training across all sectors and at all levels) was cited as the most needed intervention to improve policy implementation, with formal education identified as the most effective intervention to reduce vulnerability [56].

For Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS), the failure to implement policies is due to a number of factors. For example, the vast majority of policies listed above were developed without an implementation budget to ensure effective and efficient execution of the policy objectives. Since the general idea of a policy is to support government budgetary spending, this could be seen as a gaping oversight; however, PSIDS like Tuvalu, with a population of around 11,000 people, do not follow the same fiscal rules as larger nations as national governments do not have ultimate control over national finances. From 2010-2021, Tuvalu has averaged a GDP of USD 43 million annually (USD 3,900 per capita), with Overseas Development Aid (ODA) contributing between 30-55% of GDP annually [56,57]. Over this period GDP fluctuated from USD 34-59 million annually. How ODA is targeted also impacts policy implementation. For example, 86% of ODA in PSIDS is delivered through projects [58,59], which are usually implemented by regional organisations such as SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme) and the Pacific Community (SPC) [59], who are mandated to implement regional policies, as well as run projects which develop regional and national policies. However, this arrangement removes control of funding from national governments, so national priorities can be overlooked. Structuring large regional projects to run over 2 or more regional agencies also increases administration costs, reducing funds for implementation. Further constraints on funding are due to the fact that more than 40% of project spending goes towards creating “enabling environments” – mainly for the development of policies and strategies, not their implementation [59].

For Tuvalu, funding for “enabling environments” spent on much-needed national policies and plans has a limited shelf-life of around 4 to 9 years, with much still needing to be achieved related to those policies and plans before another round of spending on policy development and planning [56]. Since this has been shown to use over 40% of total ODA funding available over a 5-year period [58], it might be worth extending integrated approaches until the majority of policy and planning recommendations have been achieved rather than limiting policies to short timeframes [56].

Funding for Tuvalu is further constrained since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members are not meeting expected funding targets associated with their international commitments. For DAC countries, the target for ODA to least developed countries as a share of Gross National Income (GNI) was 0.15–0.20%, whilst their contributions in 2018 and 2019 were 0.09% and 0.08%, respectively—less than half of their commitments [60].

Tuvalu is aid-dependent, and the donor-recipient relationship is not an equal one [61]. The grant-making architecture is complicated with numerous donors, differing, and at times overlapping, proposal requirements and timelines are challenging to manage given Tuvalu’s limited availability of human resources (typically less than 6 staff in any government department). This indicates that the global financing environment does not account for the challenges that small countries with small public service staff face in accessing such resources [56].

Project timeframes are donor-specified and are typically 4-5 years. Current project lifecycles are far too short to meaningfully integrate ESE into formal educational provision. For example, changes to national curricula in Vanuatu to introduce disaster risk reduction into secondary education and support associated teacher training are still ongoing after 11 years [18].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Collection of Key Documents

We sought relevant national policy documents from government agencies addressing environmental stewardship and related themes. A combination of methods was employed, including an Internet-based search of documents on national ministries of environment, climate change, and education websites as well as a Google search using keywords such as the ‘Pacific Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation, Climate change and Disaster Risk Reduction, a Global Framework for Biodiversity Conservation, Paris Agreement, Disaster Risk Reduction Global Framework and Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. Materials not available online were requested from relevant national agencies through email.

3.2. National Policies and Frameworks

Government policy records available online were identified in the following relevant government departments: the Education Department (EdDep), the Department of Environment (DoE), and the Department of Climate Change (DCC). DoE and DCC documents were the most recent ones used for their day-to-day management decisions (see Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10), while EdDep documents were filtered for those available from 2007 to 2019, resulting in nine documents (see Figure 4).

3.3. The National Curriculum

The National Curriculum specifies the subjects that must be taught in schools and sets out specific learning objectives for each subject at each level. We selected the syllabus for basic science, social science, geography, and biology as these are the curriculum subjects most readily aligned with environmental stewardship education [62,63]. The science [64,65,66,67,68] and social science [69,70,71,72,73] syllabi for years 6-10 at the Primary and Lower secondary levels were analysed for environmental stewardship-related education themes. The geography [74,75,76] and biology [77,78,79] in years 11 to 13 were analysed for similar themes. Geography and biology are optional subjects (see Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5).

3.4. Regional Policy and Frameworks

Tuvalu is part of the Pacific region, and regional policies play an important role in influencing national policies. Regional policy records available online were identified in the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) and Pacific Community (SPC). The documents analysed (see Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11) included the Pacific Islands Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas [54] and the Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific [40].

3.5. International Policies and Frameworks

This study examined the consistency of national policies with international ones. Relevant global policies and frameworks that promote environmental stewardship education were identified through Internet searches (see Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12), such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) and its predecessor, the Paris Agreement (PA), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs).

3.6. Document Content and Discourse Analysis of the Policy Documents

An analysis of national government policy documents on education that frame ES and its related themes was conducted to understand Tuvalu’s education strategies and curriculum regarding ES. The approach used is a document content and discourse analysis based on Cardno’s [80] and Perryman’s [81] typologies. Document content analysis aims to extract meaning from data by revealing underlying themes, patterns, and trends that reveal authors’ intentions, worldviews and practises [80]. Document discourse analysis focuses on the social and cultural contexts in which the documents were produced and how the language used reflects and shapes those contexts [81].

We conducted a document content and discourse analysis of government, regional, and international documentation. We read the documents to examine the language used and whether ES is emphasised in government documents. The intent of the government documents and the expression of environmental stewardship in school curricula were analysed for relationship linkages. We were particularly interested in how the educational policies and national curriculum mirrored the language of environmental policies that call for the inclusion of environmental stewardship and related themes. The inquiry was broadened to see if national policies were consistent with regional and international ones.

This research utilised keywords and phrases employed by Thorne [20] (p. 100) and Aikens et al. [82] (p. 338) to identify the actual word ‘environmental stewardship’, ‘phrases related to environmental stewardship’, and ‘phrases that depict an inference to environmental stewardship’ in policy documents. These search terms and phrases were compared to the environmental and education documents, and repeated words were highlighted and tallied. To determine the rhetoric and meaning of words and phrases in policy documents, tone and mood were analysed. The analysis of the content and discourse of policy documents was carried out. A summary of all documents collected for analysis is presented in Figure 4.

4. Results

4.1. Environmental Stewardship Promotion in Government Education Documents

The analysis of 30 national documents, especially the 9 educational policy documents from 2007 to 2019, revealed that environmental stewardship was not explicitly emphasised in government documents between 2007 and 2019 (see Table 1). However, environmental stewardship-related themes identified as sustainability, environment, biodiversity, climate change, and disaster risk reduction were referenced in educational documents, with sustainability and the environment being the most referenced concepts. A notable observation derived from Table 1 relates to the difference in references to sustainability and climate change. Using Wilcoxon’s signed-ranked test, the results indicated a significant difference between the number of references to sustainability (Mdn = 21.00, n = 9) and climate change (Mdn = 2.00, n = 9), z = -2.521, p = .012, with large effect size, r = .84. This suggests that the government has been favouring sustainability in its policies, but it has been giving less attention to climate change. However, a significant global shift in climate policy occurred in 2015 with the universal endorsement of the Paris Accord, a political landmark agreement that was also endorsed by Tuvalu. This international development seems to have prompted the government to increase its focus on climate change in its education policies from 2016 onwards.

The Tuvalu Education Sector Plan III (TESP III) 2016-2020 [83] and the revised Tuvalu National Curriculum Policy Framework (TNCPF 2019) [55] are two important education documents in Tuvalu. The Plan prioritises climate change and disaster risk reduction, while the Framework prioritises environment and sustainability. The Plan’s main goal was to “nurture young Tuvaluans who are productive, self-reliant, responsible and with deep affection and sense of service for Tuvalu and the people of Tuvalu” [83] (p. 17). On the other hand, the Framework recognises education for sustainability, stating that “the education system will equip its students with skills, capacity and motivation to plan and manage change towards sustainability within their schools, families and communities” [55] (p. 18). However, these documents did not promote biodiversity and environmental stewardship, and the lack of educational measures that foster an environmentally aware society appears negligent.

4.2. Environmental Stewardship Education in Primary and Secondary Schools Curricula

Environmental stewardship (ES) and environmental stewardship-related concepts such as sustainability, environment, climate change (CC), biodiversity and disaster risk reduction (DRR) are delivered through national curricula in ten elementary and two secondary schools with English as the medium of instruction [84]. As a result of the review of the TESP II 2011-2015 to formulate the TESP III 2016-2020, a key recommendation was to improve the curriculum and assessment. This recommendation coincided with the formulation of the first-ever Tuvalu National Curriculum and Policy Framework (TNCPF) in 2013, which proposes the adoption of an outcome-based curriculum [85] (p. 14). Further work must be done to transform the TNCPF into syllabi, teaching guides, and student handbooks aligned with an outcomes-based curriculum from preschool to year 13 [86] (p. 33).

4.2.1. Primary and Lower Secondary Education (Years 1-10)

The sixteen subject syllabi that were analysed revealed that aspects of environmental stewardship were primarily addressed in social science and basic science in the current primary school curriculum (Years 1 to 8) and lower secondary curriculum (Years 9 and 10) and are already taught in schools in 2022 [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Environmental stewardship was not explicitly mentioned in the social and basic science curricula (Years 6 to 10). However, aspects of environmental stewardship are included as major, key, and specific learning outcomes [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Figure 5 compares the two disciplines’ total teaching hours spent on environmental stewardship aspects in primary and lower secondary schools. The total teaching hours for both subjects in primary school in the three years (Years 6-8) is 306. For lower secondary school, the total teaching hours for both subjects in the two years (Years 9 & 10) is 216.

At the Primary level, 14% of environmental stewardship-related concepts are covered in social science (11% environmental education and 3% sustainability). In basic science, only environmental education is covered. In contrast, the Lower secondary level is mostly dominated by environmental education (4% covered in social science and 27% in basic science). The rest are other elements of social and basic science. Figure 5 shows that environmental stewardship, biodiversity, climate change, and disaster risk reduction are not included in the social and basic science curricula from Years 6 to 10. This contradicts the Education Department’s strategic plan and curriculum policy framework, which explicitly states climate change as one of the guiding agendas.

In social science, environmental stewardship-related concepts are included in the following topics: Place, Space and Environment, Time, Continuity and Change, and Resources and Economic Activities. The total number of hours covered is 44 (14%) of social science’s 306 hours covered over the three years. Table 2 below shows how environmental stewardship-related concepts are taught in Year 7, over four weeks in Term 2, with 3 hours per week [55]. The maximum number of instructional hours per week for primary pupils in Tuvalu is 25, and the school year consists of 12 weeks for Term 1 and 13 weeks for Terms 2 and 3, respectively. Two weeks of the 38 weeks in Term 3 are occupied by Exams [87].

The overall instruction time for all subjects, excluding exam weeks, is 2,700 hours spread over three years (Years 6–8). Less than 2% of this time is spent on environmental stewardship-related education.

4.2.2. Upper Secondary Education (Years 11-13)

In the upper secondary, environmental stewardship issues are featured in curricula for geography and biology strands [76,79]. Figure 6 compares the total teaching hours spent on environmental stewardship and related themes of the two disciplines. Table 3 and Table 4 indicate the prominence of environmental stewardship concerns within their entire syllabi. Geography offers the most thorough examination of environmental stewardship-related topics, strongly emphasising environmental issues and less attention paid to climate change and biodiversity. Biology has the fewest teaching hours on environmental stewardship, with the majority occurring in Years 12 and 13.

Environmental issues such as climate change and conservation dominate the teaching time, with biodiversity only covered in Year 13 and is only mentioned once. The inclusion of climate change and biodiversity in the upper secondary curricula was due to the Year 13 geography and biology curricula set by SPC’s Educational Quality and Assessment Programme (EQAP). Environmental stewardship and disaster risk reduction were not expressly promoted in upper secondary schooling.

Table 3. Environmental stewardship and related concepts in Years 11 to 13 geography syllabus.

Source: Own composition based on analysing geography syllabi [74,75,76].

Table 3. Environmental stewardship and related concepts in Years 11 to 13 geography syllabus.

Source: Own composition based on analysing geography syllabi [74,75,76].

Table 4. Environmental stewardship and related concepts in Years 11 to 13 biology syllabus.

Source: Own composition based on analysing biology syllabi [77,78,79].

Table 4. Environmental stewardship and related concepts in Years 11 to 13 biology syllabus.

Source: Own composition based on analysing biology syllabi [77,78,79].

Therefore, students who complete Years 11, 12 and 13 are exposed to 396 geography and biology teaching hours. For geography, 73 hours (18%) cover nature and the impacts of disasters on the environment, 11 hours (3%) are on the impact of culture and humans on the environment, and 7% on geographical skills. For biology, 23 hours (6%) cover organisms’ interaction with the environment and 43 hours (11%) on environmental biology.

The most important details in this text are that due to the optional nature of both subjects, students have limited exposure to environmental stewardship and only a few benefits from environmental stewardship-related concepts. Additionally, there are few opportunities for students in biology and geography courses to actively contribute to environmental preservation. Also, there is minimal use of pedagogical approaches that promote environmental stewardship education, such as participatory action research [88] (p. 551), place-based learning [15] (p. 170), project-based learning [23] (p. 180), action competence learning [89] (p. 497), and community service learning [90] (p. 216). Furthermore, many of the elements highlighted in Tuvalu’s three central environmental policies – Tuvalu National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2012-2016, Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu: National Climate Change Policy 2021-2030, and Te Kete: Tuvalu National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 – were not included in the school curriculum.

Consequently, the specific learning outcomes for the geography and biology syllabi for Year 13 (Table 5) and (Table 6) are not aligned with Tuvalu’s three key policies (Table 7). There is a significant mismatch between biodiversity conservation and protection, seabed mining issues, sustainable resource management, environmental and social impact assessment, and disaster risk priorities. However environmental stewardship-related topics are included in these subjects, but it is unclear if they are sufficient to promote environmental stewardship behavioural changes that produce good environmental stewards “who recognise themselves to be of the world and who also assume responsibility for the world” [91] (p. 36).

Table 5. Specific learning outcomes in geography on issues relating to environmental stewardship.

Source: EQAP [76].

Table 5. Specific learning outcomes in geography on issues relating to environmental stewardship.

Source: EQAP [76].

Table 6. Specific learning outcomes in biology on issues relating to environmental stewardship.

Source: EQAP [79].

Table 6. Specific learning outcomes in biology on issues relating to environmental stewardship.

Source: EQAP [79].

Table 7. Goals of Tuvalu’s relevant policies on environmental stewardship.

Source: Own composition.

Table 7. Goals of Tuvalu’s relevant policies on environmental stewardship.

Source: Own composition.

4.3. Student Attrition and Environmental Stewardship Education

Education in Tuvalu at the Primary school level is free and compulsory; by law, everyone between the ages of six and fifteen must attend school. With assistance from development partners, the government pays for tuition, books and stationery, infrastructure development, and teacher recruitment. However, Table 8 reveals high attrition rates, possibly due to national exams after Years 8, 10, 11, and 12 and parents sending their children to Fiji for secondary education. In 2022, there were only 148 students in Year 11 and 66 in Year 13, compared to 244 in Year 1 [92], representing 39% and 73% attrition rates, respectively. Statistics from 2010 show that there were 235 current Year 13 students in Year 1 [93] (p. 19), representing a 72% attrition rate.

Motufoua Secondary School, the only government-owned institution in Tuvalu, has 148 students enrolled in Year 11, but only 20 (14%) study geography and 11 (7%) study biology. Fifteen-15 (15%) of the 98 students in Year 12 chose geography, while 21 (21%) chose biology. About half of the 66 students enrolling in Year 13 elected to study both optional subjects: 14 (21%) studied geography, and 18 (27%) studied biology. Most young people in Tuvalu do not benefit from formal exposure to environmental stewardship education (ESE) because most learning about these topics and associated ideas only occurs in the senior cycle, notably Year 13, and is limited to two optional subjects. Integrating ESE into secondary education may be counter-productive due to the high dropout rate. Primary school is the most impactful level at which climate change education (CCE) and ESE could be embedded [30,94,95,96].

Table 8. Attrition rates in primary and secondary schools.

ECCE – Early Childhood Care Education. Source: Own composition.

Table 8. Attrition rates in primary and secondary schools.

ECCE – Early Childhood Care Education. Source: Own composition.

4.4. Environmental Stewardship-Related Government Policies and Frameworks

Tuvalu’s policies and frameworks related to environmental stewardship, such as the Tuvalu National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (TNBSAP) 2012-2016, Integrated Environment and Natural Resources Policy (IENRP) 2020-2022, Tuvalu Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) 2022-2026, and Tuvalu Climate Change Policy, Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu 2021-2030 have been developed within the framework of international policies such as the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SDFRR) 2015-2030, the Paris Agreement of 2015 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030, and of regional policies such as the Pacific Islands Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas (PIFNCPA) 2021-2025 [54] (p. 8) and the Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific (FRDP) 2017-2030 [40] (p. 3). The broad goals of the relevant policies are summarised in Table 9. The vision of the ‘TNBSAP’ is that “Tuvalu would have a clean and healthy environment, full of biological resources where present and future generations of Tuvalu will continue to enjoy the equitable sharing of benefits of Tuvalu’s abundant biological diversity” [97] (p. 21).

Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu’s vision states, “A strong and resilient Tuvalu that protects the identity, culture and existence of our people and meets our commitment to environmental sustainability” [98] (p. 3). Implementing these policies entails incorporating biodiversity, climate and disaster risks and adaptations into sector strategies [97,98] (p. 42; p. 8), including the Tuvalu Education Sector Plan (TESP) III 2016-2020 and the revised 2019 Tuvalu National Curriculum Policy Framework (TNCPF). However, a mismatch exists between government policies and frameworks since critical issues within government policies and frameworks relating to stewardship call for incorporating biodiversity conservation, climate and disaster risks, and adaptations into policy, strategies, and plans at all levels of government (see SG7, PO2.1 and KSA1.4.4 in Table 7). Table 9 overleaf shows regional and international policies and frameworks echoing the call.

Table 9. Broad goals of national, regional & international policies on environmental stewardship.

Source: [1,40,41,42,54,97,98,108,109,110,111,112].

Table 9. Broad goals of national, regional & international policies on environmental stewardship.

Source: [1,40,41,42,54,97,98,108,109,110,111,112].

When determining whether existing environmental stewardship-related government policies prioritise capacity building in schools, TNBSAP, IENRP, and NEMS all advocate for stewardship capacity building through formal school instruction (see Table 10); however, Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu and Te Kete do not emphasise developing stewardship skills through formal elementary and secondary school (see Table 7). When national policies are compared to regional and international policies, there is an apparent misalignment due to a lack of specific guidance on stewardship education in national policies. Regional frameworks such as the PIFNCPA and FRDP (see Table 11) make explicit references to capacity-building through formal education, as do international frameworks such as the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) 2022-2030, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2021-2030 (see Table 12). This underscores the importance of achieving vertical alignment between national, regional, and international policies to foster cohesive and coordinated efforts towards environmental stewardship education.

Table 10. Capacity-building references in school-related environmental policies.

Source: [97,108,109].

Table 10. Capacity-building references in school-related environmental policies.

Source: [97,108,109].

Table 11. Capacity-building references in regional environmental frameworks for schools.

Source: [40,54].

Table 11. Capacity-building references in regional environmental frameworks for schools.

Source: [40,54].

Table 12. Capacity-building references in international environmental frameworks for schools.

Source: [41,42,110].

Table 12. Capacity-building references in international environmental frameworks for schools.

Source: [41,42,110].

5. Discussion

The study aimed to understand the status of environmental stewardship education in Tuvalu’s elementary and secondary schools. Document analyses found that national policies provide only sporadic support for formal education, emphasising environmental stewardship. Environmental stewardship and biodiversity are closely related but are not explicitly specified as learning outcomes in the recently adopted outcome-based curriculum. Additionally, there is a mismatch between national policies and those at the regional and international levels.

In the global context, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2021 and the newly endorsed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework urge the integration of biodiversity education into formal, non-formal and informal educational programmes. The Sendai Framework calls for incorporating disaster risk knowledge in formal and non-formal education and empowering children and teenagers to contribute to disaster risk reduction through educational curricula. The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13.3 calls for increased education, knowledge, and capacity for climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning, resulting in responsible, resilient citizens. These recommendations have garnered support from scholars who advocate for integrating crucial concepts such as biodiversity [99], disaster risk reduction [100] and climate change [101] across all educational programmes.

On a regional scale, the Pacific Islands Framework for Nature Conservation and the Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific promote conservation education and emerging forms of education to improve awareness of climate change, hazards, and disasters, and capacity for adaptation and risk management. It also emphasises the development of capabilities for conserving terrestrial and marine ecosystems and using renewable energy in schools and communities to build resilience.

At the national level, Tuvalu has developed its TNBSAP, Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu, and Te Kete, which set out the country’s priorities until 2030. The TNBSAP encourages the formulation of biodiversity-relevant curricula streams and incorporates the teaching of biodiversity at all levels of schooling. Te Kaniva calls for integrating climate change and disaster risk management into the school curriculum. At the same time, Te Kete Strategic Priority Area 1 does not mention any capacity-building through formal primary and secondary education.

Key international and regional policies emphasise the importance of educating students at all levels about environmental stewardship. This prospect was promoted by Bennett et al. [91] and Potter [102] as ‘an education for the 21st century’, while Thorne and Whitehouse [21] argue that it is a critical component of education in and for the Anthropocene. Rogayan [11] remarked that “environmental stewardship must be developed in every student to globally make a difference towards the resolution of some, if not all, problems in the environment” (p. 10). These have been reflected in Tuvalu’s environmental policies, such as the biodiversity and climate change policies. A closer examination of what is happening in Tuvalu’s schools in 2022, 6 years after the TNBSAP’s implementation period ended (and while it is still in use until the revised version is ready), and two years after Te Vaka Fenua o Tuvalu and Te Kete has been in place, reveals a different picture. Several arguments are advanced:

A. Mismatch Between National Policies and Educational Integration Goals

The most important finding is a mismatch between national sectoral policies, where the demand for incorporating biodiversity at all levels of schooling and the mainstreaming of climate change and disaster risk reduction into school curricula is not currently reflected in existing education policies or school curricula. This suggests that the public sectors are not functioning in tandem as expected due to a working in-silos culture in which knowledge and information sharing across organisational boundaries is restricted. Without information, crucial priorities may be excluded from critical government programmes.

B. Challenges and Opportunities in Tuvalu’s Education System

The Education Department in Tuvalu has adopted an outcome-based curriculum (OBC), which emphasises learning and teaching guided by pre-determined, predictable, and highly specified curriculum content and objectives. This upholds a foreign education system that is irrelevant to Tuvalu by perpetuating the practical perspective that education should prepare pupils for employment after school. There is a 24-60% unemployment rate in Tuvalu [103], with the majority of paid employment in-country being provided by the civil service. Other major forms of employment include fisheries, merchant shipping and seasonal fruit picking in Australia and New Zealand. The educational system should focus on relevant life skills, which would prepare school leavers to engage in productive activities within communities, including environmental stewardship. This is particularly relevant as there is now a shift in the focus of multi-lateral funders to support Nature-based Solutions [17]. Craney’s [104] study found that the education systems in Fiji and the Solomon Islands continue to perpetuate colonial origins, which are incompatible with the people’s demands. OBC restricts teaching and learning to predictable outcomes, resulting in a lack of creative and original ideas, leading to homogenous groups of followers rather than trailblazers [105] (p. 322).

However, the Tuvalu National Curriculum Policy Framework (TNCPF) represents a significant move away from the prevalent focus on Western scientific interpretations, which have overshadowed local environmental practices and beliefs. Traditional ecological knowledge, vital for adaptation, is often sidelined in educational curricula [17]. This omission disregards centuries of indigenous wisdom on sustainable environmental practices. Current formal educational provisions have failed to address the specific climate change impacts and adaptation needs of Tuvaluan communities. This disconnect further diminishes the relevance and effectiveness of climate education initiatives. The TNCPF represents an opportunity for Tuvaluans to see their own experiences and insights reflected in the education they receive. It also offers space for community participation in PBE and CBE in formal education where crucial local insights and perspectives have previously been excluded. For example, “life skills” for someone living in Nanumea, Tuvalu, are practical rather than theoretical – hands-on learning experiences are crucial for developing actionable adaptation strategies and improving environmental quality [106,107]. Additionally, community-inclusive and participatory approaches to ESE are essential for developing effective adaptation strategies rooted in local community needs [17].

C. Policy Inconsistencies and the Call for Political Will in Educational Reforms

Another issue is the inconsistency of policies within a government agency between education policies and school curricula. The TESP III and the TNCPF 2019 encouraged incorporating environmental stewardship-related issues in the school curriculum. However, disaster risk reduction has not been mainstreamed, and climate change was briefly referenced in the geography and biology curricula in Year 13. The findings of this research are consistent with those of [18], who highlighted that policy priorities are not always reflected in school curricula.

In order to achieve the full potential of the TNCPF, there needs to be political will to implement policy priorities and invest in educational reforms focused on ESE. Political will is also required to obtain funding, lobby regional implementing agencies (e.g. SPREP and the Pacific Community) and development partners (donors such as the European Union; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit - GIZ; Australian Aid; NZ Aid have all provided ODA for formal education projects in the Pacific region), and purge the influence of postcolonial education agendas and prioritise indigenous knowledge, community involvement, and culturally appropriate formal education practices to foster relevant environmental stewardship.

D. The Call for Early Introduction of ESE at Elementary Schools

The most important critical details in this research are that the most influential environmental stewardship-related teaching currently occurs at the upper secondary level, particularly in Year 13, a student’s final year of upper secondary education. MEYS statistics from 2023 show that pupils in Year 13 make up only 28% of those who began in Year 1 in 2010. Additionally, these students are only introduced to environmental issues through two electives, geography and biology. Glackin and King [63] (p. 12) reported that geography is an optional GCSE subject that only 50% of students choose to take, leaving the other half of the population with very little environmental education after Year 8. ESE provision needs to begin at elementary schools in Tuvalu. ESE must be introduced at the primary level as this would be transformative in terms of increasing the resilience and adaptive capacity of communities – targeting primary-level education would have the most impact on improving community resilience [17].

E. Insufficient Environmental. Education Integration and Methodological Gaps

Fifth, currently, less than 2% of time is allocated for instruction on environmental stewardship, and activities for pupils to learn in (experiential learning) and with (affective learning) nature are absent from the curricula. Additionally, none of the curricula incorporates methods of instruction that foster self-identity, social action, alternative lifestyles, fundamental mapping skills, and environmental stewardship behaviour such as caretaking ethics, ecological activism, or avoidance of consumerism attitudes.

We used analyses of only environmental stewardship-related policies and curricula to understand the status of environmental stewardship in Tuvalu schools. Future research should include testing of educational materials, pedagogies congruent with environmental stewardship, teacher delivery and effectiveness, and students’ perceptions of environmental stewardship education, monodisciplinary or infusion curricula, school leaders’ perceptions and school ethos for inclusion of environmental stewardship education (ESE). Our analysis found significant misalignments between national policies and educational goals, emphasising the lack of integration of EE and methodological gaps. These findings highlight the urgent need for reforms to address inconsistencies, prioritise the early introduction of ESE in elementary schools, and elevate the importance of indigenous knowledge. Such reforms would foster community resilience and prepare future generations for sustainable environmental practices. The results of this study are valuable to both academic and policy discussions. They illuminate systematic problems, support changes, and encourage inclusive and prosperous EE and sustainability approaches. Additionally, they provide actionable insights that can drive meaningful change for policymakers, educators, and researchers alike.