Global Change Scholars Program stories and events

Seminar 7(B) was led by Dr. Britta Denise Hardesty, a renowned research scientist with CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, based in Hobart Tasmania. She specializes in understanding marine debris, plastic pollution in particular. Dr. Anya Phelan, the academic coordinator of the GCSP Program, led the previous talk on plastic pollution (in Indonesia) on September 17 - giving us an excellent an eye-opening understanding into the depth and complexities of the plastic problem.

We had an incredible talk on the reality of the world's plastic problem,from the view of an optimist. The price to pay for plastic use, bans across the world on single use plastic and steps taken by countries in this direction. Dr. Hardesty's optimistic view was truly refreshing and full of hope. 

She also emphasized on our impact as PhD students and GC Scholars and the importance of creating research goals that align with the challenges faced by the world today - giving more depth and meaning to our work. 

We thank Dr. Britta Denise Hardesty and Dr. Anya Phelan for their enlightening and encpuraging words - was a true privilege to get to see what passion and perseverance towards our goals is capable of achieving. 

This week, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg gave an overview of his research revolving around how climate change has impacted the health of coral reefs across the world and how his career has evolved to where he has become a prominent researcher in the space of climate science.

He started his career as a researcher interested at examining ocean ecosystems, but noticed significant change in certain species over the 1980s and 1990s which lead to his involvement in researching how climate change has impacted ocean systems.

Around 500 million people are directly supported by coral reefs around the world and the destruction of reefs would have a severe impact on their livelihood through reduction in food availability and tourism.

It was startling to see how the predicted increase in coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef from the 1990s had started to accelerate in the past five years – as modelled by Professor Hoegh-Guldberg decades earlier. 

Even more stark was the fact that at 1.5 °C of global warming, 70-90 % of the world’s corals will be dead by 2100, with over 99% dead with 2 °C of warming, while the current commitments to curb emissions put the world on a track to warm by 3-4 °C.

However, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg says this does not mean that efforts to protect the oceans should be abandoned. In the event that warming is not as extreme as current trajectories suggest, he looks at this as an opportunity to ensure the 10% remaining coral have the best chance at survival. By identifying where the least exposed reefs are through climate and ocean modelling, it is possible to introduce measures to better ensure their survival. 

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg closed by talking about some of his latest work in his involvement with creating an analysis for ocean-based climate action areas to fight against climate change. These included five areas to address and their associated impacts which would assist with reducing the annual net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by 21%. The areas were;

• Ocean-based renewable energy
• Ocean-based transport
• Coastal and marine ecosystems
• Fisheries, aquaculture and dietary shifts
• Carbon storage in the seabed

The suggested actions in each of these areas can be viewed in the full report at https://www.oceanpanel.org/climate.

As the first wave of COVID-19 breached the shores of Australia, governments went into overdrive trying to balance the health and safety needs of the community, while also unrolling initiatives to keep businesses afloat.

The situation gave birth to COVID Safe plans – ensuring companies had thoroughly considered all touch points for customers and employees, and implemented strategies to the best interest of the community and their own economic survival.

The global response to the coronavirus pandemic raises a key point – business strategies play an important role in avoiding serious global issues that are dangerously escalating.

According to UQ Business School sustainability researcher, Dr Anna Phelan, who recently completed an ocean plastic study in Indonesia, a coordinated effort towards a circular economy is urgently needed to ensure that Australia’s closest neighbours do not drown in a sea of plastic.

“A Plastic Stewardship Plan, if structured into a business like a Covid Safe plan, could help businesses improve resource efficiency, cut costs, support sustainable waste management and improve the resilience of local supply chains,” says Anna.

Seeded by the UQ Global Change Institute, and in collaboration with the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Anna’s most recent research confirms the urgency of reducing single-use plastic in global supply chains and examines plastic pollution through the eyes of the local people.

The study examined the use, disposal and local consequences of single-use plastics in remote island communities in two archipelagos of South Sulawesi, Eastern Indonesia.

“The crisis facing the world’s oceans from plastics is well documented, yet there is little knowledge of the perspectives and experiences of coastal and remote communities shouldering the impacts of ocean plastic,” Anna explains.

The research identified a complex set of factors contributing to extensive plastic leakage into the marine environment and demonstrated that plastic waste was outpacing mitigation efforts.

“The findings highlight the integrated role producers and manufacturers can play, and the downside of attributing the blame on communities in emerging economies,” says Anna.

“Remote communities simply cannot recycle their way out of this complex global environmental problem. Regions with minimal waste infrastructure require circular systems and responsible supply chains with non-plastic alternatives.”

More than just a recycling problem

Previous research identified that millions of tonnes of plastic waste leaks out of the worldwide consumer market and into the ocean each year, and that ineffectively managed plastic waste generated in coastal regions is most at risk of entering the marine environment.

This is because the rising standard of living in emerging economies is expanding the fast-moving consumer goods sector, and waste management infrastructure cannot keep up.

“At the household level, a typical Indonesian village generates about 4000 kilograms of rubbish per week, with plastic waste increasingly growing in proportion,” says Anna.

“Our study discovered that on average, 2000 kilograms of rubbish per week may leak into the ocean just from one village.”

“In Indonesia alone, there are thousands of similar coastal communities struggling to manage their own household waste, as well as vast quantities of plastic waste brought in on ocean currents.”

Globally, recycling rates for plastic are low, with only an estimated 14 per cent of plastic packaging collected for recycling. Furthermore, exports of recyclable materials from developed countries results in a significant transfer of waste pollution.

A plastic literacy survey conducted as part of the study showed that 48 per cent of respondents said they frequently burned their waste, exposing themselves to dangerous fumes.

“There is little the coastal communities can do to manage plastic waste effectively unless they’re presented with better choice architecture, both on the supply side and in disposal options,” Anna cautions.

Responsibility on manufacturers and business to lead a change

“Producers and manufacturers can no longer focus only on low-cost packaged products without taking responsibility for the outcomes.”

In New Zealand recently, a new government policy announced the burden of waste management would be shifted from communities and councils back onto those who manufacture the products. It targeted businesses producing harmful products such as tyres, plastic packaging and electronics.

Those businesses will work with the New Zealand government to create ways to recycle, dispose of or repurpose their own products. For example, there may be a levy applied to the product, waste pick-ups arranged, or customers could drop products back to the store.

A coordinated policy between government and businesses, striving for innovative solutions grounded in systems thinking could be a viable answer, Anna believes.

 “Like our research, this takes a systems-based approach, encouraging businesses to think about the design of their operation and business strategies, which government could help support.”

Transitioning to a circular economy

A Plastic Stewardship Plan can help businesses reduce single-use plastic and incorporate circular economy principals.

The circular economy model moves away from the linear take-make-waste approach to one that designs out waste and pollution, keeps products and materials in use, and regenerates natural systems.

This economic model helps improve resource efficiency, cut costs, support sustainable waste management and improve the resilience of local supply chains.

According to the World Economic Forum, New Plastics Economy, 95 per cent of the material value from plastic packaging – equating to US$80-120 billion annually – is lost to the economy after a short first use.

One example of a circular economy business in play is a partnership between Timberland and Omni United, a tyre manufacturer and distributor, to produce footwear using recycled tires. Once the OImni tyres have reached the end of their product life, they are shipped to a recycling facility and turned into crumb rubber. This crumb rubber is processed into sheet rubber for the outsoles of Timberland shoes.

"Building a circular economy approach into a Plastic Stewardship Plan for businesses is a game-changer, as it doesn’t just increase environmental sustainability, it takes a future-focused approach to ensure economic sustainability too,” says Anna.

Reference

Phelan, A. (2020, October 6). Avoiding a different kind of pandemic – why businesses need a Plastic Stewardship Plan. Momentum, The Business School Magazine. https://stories.uq.edu.au/business/2020/plastic-stewardship-plan/index.html

This week, the Global Change Scholar team were fortunate enough to listen to a spirited presentation on crop science by Prof Ian Godwin. Ian’s work focuses on the use of biotechnological tools for crop improvement, and his presentation explored the global challenges stemming from the singular problem of how we are to effectively feed the world’s growing population.

What was discussed?

Ian is a proponent of widening the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and, insodoing, dispelling some of the myth and misinformation that has hampered the global uptake of genetically modified (GM) crops. Prince Charles, for one, has warned that the cultivation of GM crops is the biggest environmental disaster of all time, and the Australian Organic organisation has baulked at certifying GM crops as organic, in part, because there are no long-term studies on human health, or so they claim.

However, in comprehensive, meta-analytic research from Goettingen University, researchers have shown that the adoption of GM technology has:

• Reduced pesticide use by 37%
• Increased crop yield by 22%
• Increased farmer profits by 68%.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, research has shown that the yield and profit gains through the cultivation of GM crops are considerably higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

So, with the help of his pioneering research in the use of GM and gene edited techniques, Ian emphasised to us that the sustainable production of crops into the future will depend on our willingness to grow and consume GM food.

“There’s no point curing mice. They’re not even grateful.” This quote, by Ian Frazer on the development of the Gardasil vaccine, captures the essence of Associate Professor Tim Kastelle’s presentation to the Global Change Scholars: that while research that stays in the lab may be interesting to the researcher, the real impact of research comes from bringing it to the world. In Kastelle’s presentation, he applied his decade plus of research on innovation processes to provide the Scholars with best-practice methods to do just that, and to do it successfully.

According to Kastelle, there are three parts of innovation: new ideas, making them real, and unlocking value. Innovation most often falls over because most new ideas fail to create value—and this happens because researchers fail to validate the value of their ideas in advance of developing them.

So how do we, as researchers, correct for this problem? Kastelle’s ON Prime program has some evidence-based answers for startups. There are three components to this program: a business model canvas, customer development, and agile engineering. And while these may be targeted towards startups, they are just as relevant for us as PhD researchers looking to translate what we do at the university to positive impact in the world. For us, this might look like applying a business model canvas, whether our desired impact is to profit off a successful idea, or to influence policymaking, or to improve the lives of others in any type of way. Our customer development might look like interviewing the target audience for our research, and really understanding the nature of the problems that they face. And finally, agile engineering is essentially rapid prototyping: trying our ideas out with our target audience at various stages of development to see if they serve their end user. 

Ultimately, innovation is a non-linear process, and we can’t wait until we feel our research within the university setting is finished before bringing our ideas to the world. We must incorporate innovation at each and every point of our research process in order to realise the real impacts in the world that we seek to achieve. 

On September 1^st the UQ Global Change Institute Director, Professor Rachel Parker, gave an inspiring presentation on The Role of University Research in Driving Global Change. Their talk critically evaluated the role that universities have had in society and our economy to date, ignited discussion around the future of the role that universities play and finished up with some advice for us, budding young PhD students. Herein, I will summarise the talk and the group discussions that ensued.

The role of universities has changed significantly since The University of Sydney, Australia’s first university, was founded in 1851. Teaching and education was the initial focus of universities and later it shifted to research. Fast forward to the past 30 years or so, and role of a university is focused on being a driver of economic growth with a large emphasis on industry impact. In the knowledge economy of today [1], the focus tends to be on innovation and developing new technologies for an improved world rather than on understanding fundamental theories.

University innovation hybrids have and will continue to strengthen the innovation systems that fuel the economy drive. These include science parks, start-up incubators and university-industry research collaborations and some examples which drove recent IT and biotech revolutions include GPS, the internet, touchscreens, Bi-Pharmaceutical inventions, Apple’s Siri, mobile phones, Google Earth, Google Translate and Google Search.

The history of university roles and outputs led into two important points:

• A large part of academic research today is focused on societal impact, yet research is largely measured by research impact and citation metrics, and
• The aforementioned IT and biotech revolutions were largely popularised by the industries which distributed them rather than the under recognised, government funded, university research which underpinned them. To dig further into tracing the history of research and innovation that has led to the technology of today, see the works of Mariana Mazzucato [2].

The modern innovations driving the growth in our world have promised great future. Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, has said that artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechology, biotechnology, material science, quantum computing, additive manufacturing, materials engineering and synthetic biology will:

• “Raise income levels and improve the quality of life for populations around the world.”

• “Foster a society which is classless and ageless” and
• Create a “new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of identity.”

But will this utopian future eventuate? And are we delivering on these promises?

The US economist, Robert Gordon once said: “Technological advances of the ‘special century’ (1887-1970) increased productivity, facilitated reductions in the hours of work, increased standards of living and extended life expectancy “at a pace never been before in human history.””

In light of this, Professor Parker raised two questions: Is progress stagnating? And is research and innovation focusing on the right questions? Professor Parker believes that there is a global drive for university research to take a more challenge based, transdisciplinary and impact focus to research. Further, we should be focusing on the ever more pressing global challenges including inequality, poverty, climate change, food and water insecurity, waste, collapse of ecosystems, global pollution, pandemics and failures in good governance.

The first step in this direction is to start considering social innovation alongside technological innovation. To date much of innovation that drives the world is technological. When it comes to these global challenges, which are still waiting to get their piece of the current innovation boom, we need to realise that science and technology are not always the right, let alone, only solutions.

Approaching research and challenges with a transdisciplinary approach and considering them from both technological and sociological viewpoints will be the key to making progress on large-scale global challenges and the future of research.

Professor Parker is passionate about the impact and context social science can provide to the technology and natural science fields of research. They encourage one to question:

1. Are we focusing on fixing the right problems? And,
2. How do we decide which problems to focus on?

Parker believes that better university-industry collaborations are not the answer to such questions.

On applying this big picture thinking to our own research, Professor Parker left us with three question:

1. What is the global change to which your research will contribute to?
2. What are the missing parts? Is there another discipline or point of view that you should consider? And if so,
3. How can you make that happen?

References / Further Reading

1. Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30, 199-220.
2. https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/

This week the GCI Global Scholars were treated to a challenging and engaging presentation from ecology conservationist, Professor Martine Maron.

What was discussed:

Biodiversity conservation in particularly human-dominated landscapes is a multifaceted but centrally important global problem, particularly if we are to maintain the health of the environment that supports human life and wellbeing.

However, existing national conservation laws have proven to be insufficient for the task of adequately protecting biodiversity in Australia. And, in some cases, have been shown to have had a counterintuitively negative impact on biodiversity due to the myriad of conceptual flaws besetting the current iteration of biodiversity offsetting policy.

After large-scale review, governmental agencies have been slow to amend policy if, indeed, any such attempts have been made at all.

The question then is “how can we set clearer and more efficacious environmental standards for biodiversity conservation?”

Martine and her team argue that we need to reframe the current “no net loss” paradigm away from ‘relative losses’ and towards a focus on net loss prevention in absolute terms. We need, therefore, to establish biodiversity conservation targets which ensure that the biodiversity of a given area is no worse off after development than if that development had not occurred in the first place.

The question then becomes “how do we get this done?”

For Martine and her colleagues, the answer lies firstly in understanding the mechanisms that drive species loss from fragmented or degraded landscapes, and then improving offset policy through the development of defensible and transparent systems for accounting for conservation gains and losses.

The Global Change Scholars had the privilege of hearing from Prof. Heather Zwicker; the executive Dean from the faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

What we discussed:

The University of Queensland graduate school survey showed only 36% of HDR students responded to the survey examining how COVID-19 has impacted their HDR studies- overrepresented by international students (8%), and students holding UQ scholarships (15%).

Preliminary findings from the survey suggest that the predominant challenges facing HDR students is not access to funding, but instead challenges surrounding the use of funding, e.g. resource and equipment access. Sense of connectedness and community amongst students was lost as people were made to quarantine, with half of all surveyed students feeling a loss of connection to peers, and a third feeling isolated and lacking support. Not surprisingly, rates of mental strain increased as students continued with study under extremely uncertain circumstances.

Silver linings from quarantine and exponential online opportunities have resulted in increased availability of resources to minorities; people with disabilities are more easily gaining access to online conferences, and woman caregivers are easily able to take zoom meetings at home. Interestingly, COVID-19’s effects have had gendered disparities; woman disproportionately makes up teaching staff and early career researchers at higher education institutions. The strain of converting teaching modules to online formats has significantly impacted woman’s abilities to keep up with pre-COVID19 research outputs, and early career researcher output has also been stunted through the pandemic.

Questions posed to the 2020 global change scholars cohort: Collaboratively, how could your research positively impact the post-COVID world?

Discussions/ideas for collaborative research:

• Levels of governance and implications for improving green/energy/food/waste for local communities
• Public perception of science; race to the COVID vaccine, how the public understands the scientific process inextricably linked to public trust in vaccines
• Antimicrobial resistance; increased use of sanitisation during the global pandemic will increase antibiotic resistance
• Difficulty with collaborating between interdisciplinary specialities. More collaboration opportunities for graduate students.

Problems with hyper-specialisation in university culture; should universities be catered more for problem-solving with interdisciplinary teams put together for specific issues, rather than niche departments?

Everyone had a great time on Zoom as Mr Santow gave an exceptional​ talk about Human Rights & Artificial Intelligence.

Here's what we have learnt and discussed: 

The Challenge of Modern Surveillance

• The Australian Human Rights Commission came to look at a project on technology for the following reasons:
  • Whilst there are benefits of AI and machine learning that can lead to economic development and make communities more inclusive, insufficient attention is being given to the risks and harms which are very serious
• Issues with AI - Machine Learning & Image Recognition:
  • Positive example: Anna Ridler's tulip artwork (photo 1)
  • Machine works from the truth you input into the database – faulty input results in errors as machine cannot 'think' for itself. High degree of subjectivity during the process of labelling (opinions of those who have labelled within data input of the machine learning process will be carried through into output) 
  • Facial recognition - 1 to 1 recognition (not so controversial)
  • 1 to many facial recognition (controversial) e.g. Social Credit Scheme in China (photo 2)
  • Used increasingly in policing/law enforcement within Western countries. E.g. London Metro Police have been trialling use to identify criminals yielding large number of false positive results (98% inaccurate). Errors in the system were identified and corrected in due course yet human rights violations can occur in that time. London police are increasing the use of facial recognition. 
  • Gender shades research. Technology fairly accurate for white/middle-aged men BUT very inaccurate in people that didn’t meant that description e.g dark skinned women
  • The Next Frontier? – labels for how attractive someone is, how trust-worthy they are – machine learns from these subjective views. Biometric Mirror project. Interest in getting this information yet rubbish science behind it
  • Regulation: Law & Ethics 
    • Need to be applying law to new technologies more rigorously  
    • Aust. Human Rights Commission discussion paper – calling for protections to community when used in high stakes areas e.g. policing (call for moratorium on facial recognition) – final report to be released end of 2020
• 

On 27 September 2019, we had a privilege to hear from Dr Sue McAvoy and Professor Bill Bellotti. Establishing and maintaining sustainable food production and food security is a major global challenge. Sustainable food production is fundamental for establishing food security, which is defined as when all people at all times have access to safe, sufficient, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.  

In her seminar, Dr Sue McAvoy presented to the Global Change Scholars her multidisciplinary research in estimating the potential disruption of artificial red meat produced from stem cell technology in the traditional meat industry. She highlighted that artificial meat may help to sustainably manage protein demand in the face of population growth, as it requires less water and land to be made, and produces less greenhouse gases than traditional meat sources such as cattle. However, the implementation of artificial red meat as a major protein source is limited due to constraints on the volume of product which can be produced, the higher energy footprint during production, and the current unknown effects of removal of cattle from farmland will have on the respective ecosystems.   

Professor Bill Bellotti then presented his research on interventions aimed to improve food security and sustainability in India, China and Indonesia. Bill underlined the impact of interventions on the livelihoods of people in farming communities by improving cropping systems and resource utilisation. Bill outlined the importance of empowering individuals and communities through improving food security. His research enabled women in India to transition from roles of labourers to farmers, to researchers, to inventors and innovators, and finally to teachers within their communities. The men also form a major part of the solution for food security within these communities, by supporting and facilitating these transitions of women’s roles.  

On Tuesday 28 August, The 2019 Global Change Scholars cohort had a double session, including an informative session about the Internship Program with Harmony Jones, and an interactive Seminar by Helen Ross, Professor at the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland.

Harmony James from the Graduate School provided an introduction to the Placement program, one of the activities that are part of the Module nº 5 of the Global Change Scholar Program. The scholars could clarify all their questions related to this experience in order to plan their next module.

After this session, Professor Ross conducted an interactive seminar about Community Development and Resilience. The first activity allowed to open the discussion, giving the scholars the opportunity to present their thoughts about the meaning of Resilience from an individual, a community and an environment view. Then, Professor Ross presented a stimulating talk about current research developed in this area, clarifying the scholars' ideas. With this background, they worked on an example of how to build community’s resilience. Organised in groups, the Scholars chose three scenarios: the Amazonas rainforest communities threatened by the fires, dairy farming communities facing several risk conditions, and island communities vulnerable to the effect of cyclones enhanced by climate change. Guided by professor Ross, the scholars identified key factors related to these critical topics and worked on the design of a community development process to help these communities to build their resilience.

The Global Change Scholars were treated to special guest lectures from ABC Radio National Host, Robyn Williams AO and Dr Ashley Hay of the Griffith Review. Robyn discussed the out-churn of misinformation and what we should do to combat it for scientific communication. He shared fantastic examples of modern scientific communication, from books to popular podcasts so we can all stay up-to-date. He called for a push for innovation in reaction global climate change and ensuring the research we conduct branches out to the right people, so we can all make important strides for change.

Dr. Ashley Hay also gave a beautiful presentation on the parts and pieces of stories which resonate with us all and the power of words on the page. She focused on sharing excerpts from one of her favorite pieces of creative non-fiction writing, "Ghost Species and Shadow Places" by Cameron Newman. In his story, Dr. Hay says Cameron "thinks like a historian" and intertwines all the previous chapters of the story of the birds on Lord Howe Island. His story did not begin with him, but with the researchers who first started observing how seabirds were consuming plastics, and the effects that this had on their populations. 

With their new set of reading lists, podcasts, and fresh copies of the latest Griffith Review, the scholars thanked their speakers and were inspired to engage more in sharing their own stories through a variety of outlets.

On 11 July 2019, we had the pleasure of participating in a leadership and engagement workshop with Professor Karen Hussey, Director of the Centre for Policy Futures. Professor Hussey provided valuable insights on the governance landscape and how as academics we can best position ourselves to ensure a voice for our research.

As we mapped out the four quadrants of the governance landscape in Queensland (political, policy, community, and interest groups), stimulating discussion emerged about both the decision-making processes in place and how an understanding of that process, along with some networking, can allow us to motivate and create change.

On 19 June 2019, we had our inaugural event ‘Create Positive Change’ at which we welcomed over 150 UQ staff members, Global Change Scholars (2017, 2018, 2019 cohorts) and their friends and family.

We showcased 30 Global Change Scholars (30 Ideas in 30 Minutes) as they presented one-minute presentations on how their research at UQ is creating positive change. We also had a privilege to hear from Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, AO as he shared his expertise on the topic of ‘Grand Societal Challenges and Global Trends’.

This event was beautifully wrapped up as we celebrated the successful completion of the GCSP for the 2017 cohort.

On 30 May 2019, we had the honour of hearing from Professor Winnifred Louis and Associate Professor Kelly Fielding on the topic of “Psychology and Behaviour Change”. Their talks focused on changing human behaviour to tackle environmental problems. This involved promoting and implementing change by understanding people’s behaviour; identifying what the drivers are, how people make decisions and why they support certain policies, with the goal to develop effective behaviour change programs with evaluated interventions. Key learnings:

Historically we have looked at how the environment affects us, nowadays how we impact on the environment. We want change, but not necessarily in our own lives. We want action, but not necessarily act ourselves. We’re not good at knowing why it is what we do or don’t do. We look towards other people’s behaviour, which is seen as accepted and we, not always consciously, do the same behaviour.

However, change IS possible. A big part of the solution is changing human behaviour. We can take learnings from the past, learnings from each other from countries around the world. Technology can be part of the solution, recognising its limitations (consumption growth, rebound effects). Drivers include the involvement of knowledge, values, responsibility, attitude, control, habits and norms. Change can happen in the face of a crisis, and can be influenced by radicalisation and leadership. For change to happen, it requires uptake and support, willingness and engagement, at the personal level, organisational level and governmental level.

Further discussions led to more insights from the speakers and the group on how to make the change on a personal/individual and group level, involvement and understanding of communities’ context, and the actions now for the future to involve the political wheel-power and build momentum and regulation.

Thank you to the speakers, for we can take these learnings on changing human behaviour to drive positive change for the environment but also apply these learnings to our own and related disciplines.

Further reading:

• Model for encouraging pro-environmental sustainable behaviour - Steg & Vlek (2009)
• Community-based social marketing - McKenzie-Mohr
• DIME model: Louis, Thomas, McGarty, Amiot & Moghaddam (2016-2018)
• Psychology of democracy (2015), psychology of dictatorship (2013) - Fathali Moghaddam
• International relations and political violence - Erica Chenoweth

On Monday 27 May the 2019 Global Change Scholars participated in their first workshop with Professor Robert Costanza and Associate Professor Ida Kubiszewski. Discussion focused on the wellbeing economy and re-focusing economic goals to include traditionally non-economic sources of value, measuring wellbeing and the shortcomings of current economic measures, ecological economics, and uncovering the value of ecosystem services. Scholars then took a hands-on approach and developed their first systems models of the global food system.

The 2019 Global Change Scholar cohort has now been finalised and is comprised of 30 students from 21 different schools and institutes across UQ. Our new scholars recently commenced their 18-month journey with the program and we are excited to learn more about them.

View their profiles

Photograph by Bernadette Hyland-Wood

The Module 3 Showcase for the 2018 cohort took place on 27 Feb 2019. Drawing on the exploration of global trends in Module 1, Scholars produced multi-media projects that communicated both the value of their research to a broad, non-specialist audience, and demonstrated its importance in relation to particular global trends. The night was a huge success, genuinely inspiring and at times deeply moving. A true testament to the talented and dedicated 2018 GCSP cohort.

Photographs by Bernadette Hyland-Wood

In November, the 2018 Global Change scholars participated in a media training workshop. Some images from this event are below.

Professor Tim Dunne, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of UQ, gave us an insightful, intriguing, and incredibly thought-provoking presentation on the nature of war in the 21^st century. Starting with a brief overview of the character of ‘old wars’, Professor Dunne went on to explain the differences between justifiable and unjustifiable 21^st century wars, and the interesting distinction between political and privatised warfare. “Thinking about the rationality of war, in old wars, the idea is generally that you go to war and when it ends you’ve met your war aims. In 21^st century wars, there’s a big question around whether any of the antagonists actually want the war to end.”

In his seminar, Professor Bill Bellotti presented to the Global Change Scholars Cohort his research in China and India on sustainability and food security. He described how his project improved farmers’ livelihoods through efficient use of resources in crop-livestock farming system and with innovative cropping systems. Another key method of his research was the creation of women self-help groups, and education and empowerment of farmers, so they can be the creators of innovation – “These women went from being labourers, to farmers, to researchers, to teachers” said Professor Bellotti.

Professor Bellotti also underlined the importance of listening to people. We have to make sure our research is relevant, we have to get out in the real world and talk to those who are impacted by our research.

We can’t be sustainable unless we get on top of how we produce food. What can we do as individuals? Become informed, eat responsibly, reduce waste, reduce waist, consume meat in moderation, support local food production, grow our own, reduce ‘junk’ food consumption.

SEMINAR HIGHLIGHTS

• Professor Bill Bellotti talked about his research in China and India on sustainability and food security.
• The project aim is to improve farmer livelihoods through efficient use of resources in crop-livestock farming system and with innovative cropping systems.
• Satisfying results in India have been obtained by the creation of women self-help groups and by educating and empowering farmer, so they can be the creators of innovation – “These women went from being labourers, to farmers, to researchers, to teachers” said Prof. Bellotti. Men were not excluded, they are part of the problem, so they have to be part of the solution.
• It is important to listen to people and make sure our research is relevant. Get out in the real world and talk to those who are impacted by your research.
• We can’t be sustainable unless we get on top of how we produce food
• Childhood stunting: nutrition-specific (immediate determinants of maternal and child nutrition, adequate food and nutrient intake, feeding, care giving, low infectious diseases) vs nutrition-sensitive (underlying determinants of maternal and child nutrition, food and nutrition security, support for others, primary health care, food safety, hygiene, food marketing, women’s empowerment, education)
• What can we do? Become informed, eat responsibly, reduce waste, reduce waist, meat consumption in moderation, support local food production, grow your own, reduce ‘junk’ food consumption (win-win for health & environment)
• Food is very cultural. Rituals and events around respecting environment that has produced food. There is a lot of indigenous wisdom around food that we’ve lost and we need to bring back in.

Written by Chiara Carnevali.

It was a fantastic event, enjoyed by all on 4 October. The 2017 Scholars presented to the 2018 Scholars on various topics including PhD research, sustainable business ideas and internship experience.

Professor Flannery is an Australian zoologist, environmentalist, and writer who was named Australian of the Year in 2007 for his role as an effective communicator in explaining environmental issues and in bringing them to the attention of the Australian public. He has published more than 140 peer-reviewed scientific papers and has named 25 living and 50 fossil mammal species. His 32 books include the award winning The Future Eaters and The Weather Makers, which has been translated into more than 20 languages. He has made numerous documentaries and regularly writes for the New York Review of Books. In 2011 he was made a Chevalier of the Order of St Charles, and in 2015 received the Jack Blayney Award for Dialog from Simon Fraser University, Canada. In 2013 he founded he founded the Australian Climate Council, Australia’s largest and most successful crowdfunded organisation and is currently a professor at Melbourne University Sustainability Institute. His most recent book, Atmosphere of Hope. Searching for solutions to the climate crisis, deals with carbon negative technologies and is published by Harper Collins.

This year in June, the 2018 Global Change Scholars embarked on a four day retreat to Lady Elliot Island, a coral cay located at the southern tip of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Situated within a highly protected ’Green Zone’ the island is a sanctuary for over 1,200 species of marine life and is known for its abundance of manta rays, turtles, amazing array of spectacular marine life and unspoilt coral reef. In addition to direct wildlife encounters, the scholars had a unique opportunity to meet a team of dedicated individuals working in harmony with nature for the benefit of future generations. Among other accomplishments, the Lady Elliot Island Eco Resort has reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions by introducing a combination of solar and gas technology, water desalination and various strategic behavioural adaptations on the island. In conjunction with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), Lady Elliot Island has developed the first dedicated Climate Change Trail and Tour around the island to highlight the impacts that climate change could have on a coral cay eco system. 

Reflections from the Scholars

Jessamine Hazlewood

“Friendship, interconnectedness and wonderment; these key terms summarize my experience at Lady Elliot Island. This trip presented unique opportunities to challenge ourselves, to appreciate the beauty of the natural world, but also to reflect on our own research projects and to see how our projects fit into the big picture. However, most importantly, this trip to LEI provided me an opportunity to connect with the other global change scholars and to form friendships and memories that I will cherish forever. 

Importantly, the retreat facilitated interdisciplinary communication and exposed me to different perspectives and ways of thinking. From stargazing on the shore, to intense games of foosball to gracefully losing at Pictionary, I feel like I have formed stronger bonds with my GCSP cohort and it has reinforced that I am not alone in the pursuit of scientific understanding….”

Rafaan Daliri

“….I was reminded that resources are limited and renewable energy is both possible and reliable. I was educated on the need for collaboration, empowerment and responsibility. I was encouraged to reflect on the volatile, uncertain and complex nature of the world we live in and galvanised to promote sustainability. Lady Elliot Island managed to teach me things that 12 years of schooling and three degrees at university had neglected. And so, with Lady Elliot Island as the spark that has incited my passion for transformative education for a sustainable future, I continue my journey. A journey in pursuit of ‘purpose’, in the hope to find my role and my place within the perfect design of our natural world and to encourage others to do the same.”

Niclas Lundsgaard

“…The island provided a bonding experience like no other, and at times I swear I felt a tangible presence in the air as thirty bright minds came together and shaped thoughts and ideas that no single mind could – a collaboration that is only possible because every individual in that room was as passionate as the next, and all selflessly gave their time in discussions that were not planned and were not scheduled and were not compulsory. Because we all genuinely believe in creating change for a better tomorrow. LEI was a poignant reminder to us all of what we have to lose if we don’t act now, and in that sense it catalysed those passionate group discussions we had. It was a touching experience, one that I will not forget.”

Anna Hickling

“It was inspiring to sit back and listen to my peers critically evaluate global problems. Our reflections on how we can contribute to improving global outcomes were meaningful and provided a foundation for projects moving forward. It is very rare to have a group of individuals from all over the world, specializing in different disciplines, to come together and collaborate on how we can tackle the biggest problems in the world.” 

Shastra Deo

 “…Hearing from Peter Gash cemented the fact that Lady Elliot Island’s legacy is built on narrative and memory-making. Though we’d heard a great deal about the processes and difficulties that went into making human life sustainable on the island—the desalination and water-treatment processes being of particular interest to me—I still wanted a “why” that countered the simple human desire to live near and swim in the reef. What Peter spoke of was stewardship. Throughout history, Lady Elliot Island was a site that people took from, with no regard for the health and sustainably of the creatures who lived there, let alone the island itself. Now, Peter claims, he and his staff give to the island, and the island gives back in turn…

…If, as author Michael Joyce claims, “[e]verything can be read, every surface and silence, every breath and every vacancy, every eddy and current, everybody and its absence, every darkness every light”, then we must speak and write the language of Lady Elliot Island—through which it speaks its history, its needs, and its potential future(s)—and the language of all things on this earth, in every possible dialect: the historical, the scientific, the poetic, the photographic, and so on. That is a part of stewardship.”