By Professor Elizabeth Bomberg, Deputy Director of GESA and Professor of Environmental Politics, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh

Thanks to a collaboration fund between the Universities of Sydney and Edinburgh, sponsored by the Partnership Collaboration Awards Programme, our two associated institutes (Sydney Environment Institute and Edinburgh’s Global Environment and Society Academy) were able to host an excellent workshop this summer on ‘Sustainable Materialism.’ Our focus was on flows of materials (including food, energy, clothing), through our everyday lives and if/how these flows and practices represent a new type of environmentalism.  The delegates gathered at the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation (ECCI) in Edinburgh were amazingly diverse, representing disciplines of politics, environmental science, ecology, law, arts, architecture, literature, music, economics, sociology and more.  Eleven papers analysed the people and groups engaged in environmental practices – food movements, community energy, sustainable crafting and fashion – and explored their motivations, forms, diversity and impact on social change.

After co-organiser David Schlosberg introduced the main theme of sustainable materialism,  Gordon Walker examined social practice theory, suggesting how a focus on practice as a unit of analysis (cycling, gardening, etc.)  provides a nice antidote to the more traditional  individualist, behavioural framings of action. His paper successfully applied the approach to understanding the shared commitment to sustainable practices, and he made a very good case for its use. However, the ensuing discussion probed the role of agency, motivations and identity, all of which remain somewhat ambiguous in social practice applications.

Next up was a  series of super case studies: Sherilyn MacGregor on ‘urban commoning’ in Moss Side, Manchester, and Lisa Heinz on sustainable fashion.  The main discussion questions here concerned neoliberalism: what shapes ‘sustainable’ fashion choices; do they really challenge consumerism?  Similarly, to what extent do local initiatives simply compel overburdened communities to take on work that the state used to provide (clearing up alleys)?  Do such practices represent a ‘slippery slope’towards the commodification of sustainable activities?  , MacGregor recognised the danger, but her robust response also outlined the empowering character of the alley greening as a counter to paternal council approach to behaviour change.

An architectural dimension featured next with Lee Stickells on green buildings in the 1970s counterculture in Australia, and Tahl Kaminer on collective ownership of Israeli kibbutzim.  Amazing visuals in both cases.  These presentations promoted fascinating discussion about: land ownership (relevant also to the Scottish case) how to define ‘the collective’ as well as tricky questions of coloniser and colonised land and how/whether we could think of these examples in a decolonised perspective.  Another foundational question (did design affect collective practice or vice versa?) prompted broader discussions of the relationship between space and time, and structure and agency.

Session 4 explored micro-practices. These included community sustainability projects and the economic localisation of product and consumption they bring (presented by Wouter Spekkink);  an in-depth study of radically de-centralised, small-scale egg initiatives (Arunima Malik) and a study of community energy and its putative links to energy justice by Annalisa Savaresi.  The discussion included eggcellent questions and egg puns galore (Walker was the main culprit) but also a serious discussion of the key role of intermediators (in local markets and energy especially) and a critique of the ‘romantisation of the local’ (that is, the tendency to conflate ‘local’ with ‘sustainable’).

The last session stepped back again and allowed us to compare practice-based environmentalism with a more traditional type of environmental action (Joost de Moor). That in turn led us to explore the challenges for social movement scholars and how they might better understand relations between everyday life and social change (Luke Yates).  A rich discussion followed, including fundamental questions such as what is ‘political’ (both ‘troublemaking’ and ‘service provision’?), the processes of disengagement from national (or global) to the local, and a tendency to view ‘political’ narrowly. David labelled the latter as pure hogwash (delicately put), bemoaning the perception that ‘if you’re not protesting you’re not doing politics’. In short, media and researchers’ focus on ‘protest events’ and social movement organisations misses huge swathe of political activity, yet that neglect may in part be down to participants themselves:  people’s own political activity is invisible to them.

It was amazing how much was packed into one day. Moving forward, the group would like to synthesise the cases and findings discussed then take these further, exploring in more depth what are the implications for taking the material as a starting point of social change. An edited volume of papers is planned, along with a follow-up roundtable at an upcoming conference.

Elizabeth Bomberg  wishes to thank MSc student and workshop participant Laura Berry for notes on the workshop.

Note: this blog appears courtesy of Sydney Environment Institute

Elizabeth Bomberg is Professor of Environmental Politics at the University of Edinburgh, Deputy Director of the Global Environment & Society Academy, and Co-Director of the MSc programme in Global Environment Politics and Society.  Her primary teaching and research activity falls into the broad area of comparative environmental politics, with particular substantive emphasis on climate change, faith-based activism, shale politics and community energy.  Elizabeth’s recent publications have appeared in Environmental Politics,  Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Local Environment and Science of the Total Environment

By Joanna Wright

MSc Carbon Management 2015-2016

Claire Hamlett

I woke up several times during the night last night. A few times because of the fluctuations in temperature: the heating couldn’t be turned up or down, so instead was being turned off and on again every once in a while when the carriage got too hot and then when it got too cold. Another time because I drooled on my neck pillow. And a final time when someone stepped on my bare toe with the heel of her shoe.

This is how I spend two nights a month: sprawled in a chair on the sleeper train between London and Edinburgh, part of a longer journey to get me from Nijmegen, the Netherlands, where my husband is a post-doc, to Edinburgh, where I’m doing my PhD. The rest of the trip involves a 3 hour train between Nijmegen and Brussels, changing in Roosendaal, and 2 hours on the Eurostar between Brussels and London. The whole lot takes about 12 hours door to door.

Why would I willingly subject myself to such an arduous journey twice a month when I could make it from city to city using the modern marvel of air travel in a mere 5 hours (including travel to and from airports, queuing for security, and browsing WH Smith’s book collection without any intention of buying anything)? I’m glad you asked. It turns out that if I took a return flight from Edinburgh to Amsterdam (a 830 mile trip), I would be responsible for 0.11 metric tons of carbon emissions. But a round trip by train, covering a distance of 1500 miles, puts me in debt by 0.04 metric tons. Over the course of a year in which I make the trip every month, that’s a saving of nearly a ton of carbon.

My PhD is in environmental ethics, so the decision to travel by train instead of plane was a simple one (otherwise my conscience would be gnawing at me unbearably and I doubt I’d be able to look my supervisors in the eye). But, despite my uncomfortable sleeper train experiences, taking the long route instead of the convenient one has really cemented my belief that train travel is just superior to flying. Here are my reasons, some of which apply to train travel in general and some of which are specific to my journey:

1. If the train bumps or rattles or makes other weird noises, I hardly notice. If a plane does that, I immediately start making my peace with a god I previously had no belief in.
2. Turning up a maximum of 20 minutes before departure. I am someone who is perpetually cutting it fine when it comes to being on time. I do not like having to turn up several hours in advance of a main event. Even on the Eurostar, I find that I go through security quicker if I turn up later than the recommended 45 minutes prior to departure, since by the time I reach security everyone else has already gone through it.
3. Going through London means I get to stop off there for weekends quite regularly to see my family and friends, which has the added bonus of breaking up my journey into two more manageable chunks. If I were to fly, I’d bypass London entirely and my life would be poorer for it.
4. Trains are just more comfortable. Okay, not all trains. I find Cross-country ones weirdly humid, and on First Great Western I’ve often wondered if the other passengers decided to have a food fight before I got on. But the ones I take between Nijmegen and Edinburgh are usually pretty clean, with much larger and comfier seats than one can get on a plane in economy class. Also if you’re sitting next to someone with a cold, there are ways to escape them on a train. Not so on a plane, where their germs are just getting mixed up with everyone else’s and recycled through the air-conditioning.
5. Lounge and cafe cars. My favourite thing to do on the Eurostar is spend most of the journey in the cafe car sipping sparkling wine and eating overpriced French snacks.
6. Thinking time. Train journeys are a slower alternative to plane journeys (except horrendous long-haul flights of course), and that means more time to fill between start and end point. For me, this has been invaluable thinking and daydreaming time. Watching the Dutch countryside slide past the window for several hours helps my brain to slow down and relax enough to work out thesis problems that might otherwise vex me for days.

Environmental ethicists talk a lot about the ways humans can forge a positive relationship with nature. Often they’re referring to spending time in nature, literally getting our hands dirty, but in our everyday lives, I think this can also mean finding value in the changes we need to make to have less impact on the planet. Environmentalism needn’t all be about sacrifice, the things we can’t or shouldn’t do. It can and should be about gaining something too. So while some people might consider my extensive train journeys to be a sacrifice of convenience, for me it actually makes travel which is necessary for my life right now much more enjoyable than it would be otherwise (despite the fact that I sometimes think the sleeper train should be renamed the sleepless train). But it’s nice to have a massive carbon saving as motivation too.

Dr Annalisa Savaresi

Overview

Since the first establishment of the scientific evidence for climate change, little progress has been made in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate the problem. The pathways along which governments pass in gathering scientific evidence and negotiating climate change mitigation measures is tortuous and riddled with potholes. Assistance in this complex and often fraught process comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For several years, this body has gathered evidence aimed to support the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in identifying the causes and projected impacts of climate change, as well as possible action to avert it. In this discussion we will explore how effective the interplay between these institutions has been, and what is the outlook for the future, in the aftermath of the historical adoption of the Paris Agreement at the 21^st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 21) held in December 2015.

The IPCC process

Since it published its first Assessment Report in 1995, the IPCC has been held up as a shining example of how a collective of scientists can inform policy debates affecting the global environment. The 4^th Assessment report even won the IPCC the Nobel Peace prize, jointly with Al Gore. The Assessment reports are commissioned by governments worldwide (hence the Intergovernmental Panel title) to cover climate change science, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change and climate mitigation. The 4^th Report whilst winning many plaudits, including the Peace prize, was held up to detailed scrutiny and criticism by some. The famous ‘climate-gate’ and ‘glazier-gate’ episodes, and personal attacks on the integrity of contributing scientists, left a stain on the IPCC’s reputation even though the supposed errors or dubious practices were largely subsequently disproven.

The hype and pressure put on the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen raised awareness of the climate change debate considerably. The release of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the run up to Copenhagen created huge media attention and provided ammunition for “sceptics” who caused mass doubt in the public about climate change science. Moreover, the IPCC fourth assessment report came under fire, notably for their claim, now shown to be wrong, that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. This corresponded with a large increase in “sceptics” speaking out against climate change in the media and on the web. This clearly had an effect on public opinion about the legitimacy of climate science and even the integrity of climate scientists. A poll conducted by the BBC between November 2009 and February 2010 showed a 10% increase in people who did not believe in climate change and a 6% increase in people who believe that it is happening, but only due to natural causes.

So, now that the 5^th Assessment report has just been released (see web address), nearly 20 years after the first report, perhaps it’s time to take stock of the IPCC process itself. To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to climate mitigation policy? Is it still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve the ultimate aim of addressing the climate change problem? The IPCC is likely to continue in some shape or form, but what this should be in supporting the drive to limit the climate change problem is not so clear.

Questions:

To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to addressing the problem of climate change?

Is the IPCC still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve its goals?

To what extent do governmental climate negotiations take account of scientific evidence?

Background reading:

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf The IPCC Summary for Policy makers of Working Group 2 of the 5^th Assessment Report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm a viewpoint from Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) and Dr. Jerome Ravetz (Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University)

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html IPCC flooded by criticism

IPCC: Cherish, tweak or Scrap? Nature 463, 730-732 11 February 2010 (attached)

IPCC Seeks ‘Broader Community Engagement’ to Correct Errors Science 12 February 2010 (attached)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5967/780-a Stop Listening to Scientists?

International climate change negotiations

Ever since 1992, Parties to the UNFCCC have attempted to agree on measures to deal with GHG emissions in a way to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. According to the IPCC, such a level requires keeping the increase in global average temperature below 2° C, as compared with pre-industrial times. The UNFCCC, however, has struggled to keep the world within the limits indicated by the IPCC. The main instrument adopted to stabilize GHG concentrations under the Convention, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, imposed emission reduction targets only on developed countries. With growing emissions in developing countries, like China and India, however, scientists have warned that only reducing emissions in developed countries is not enough. Since 2007, therefore, UNFCCC Parties have been entangled in difficult negotiations on further measures to reduce global GHG emissions.

In December 2015, COP21 brought to a conclusion this long cycle of negotiations, by adopting a new climate treaty, the Paris Agreement. The agreement enshrines a reference to the 2°C goal identified by the IPCC, and even an aspirational reference to a 1,5°C goal. In order to achieve this outcome, the agreement requires all Parties, and not just developed ones, to make efforts to reduce their emissions and to submit information on the details. In doing so, the Paris Agreement consolidates a bottom-up pledge and review approach to climate change action. This approach entails that Parties unilaterally declare action they intend to undertake to reduce their emissions, to be subjected to an international review process, both at the individual and at the aggregate level. Implementation of the agreement will furthermore be assisted by an expert-based, facilitative compliance mechanism. And while it is already clear that Parties’ pledged action remain far from consistent with the 2° C goal, in theory at least there will be means to revise and increase the level of ambition.

Though not perfect, the Paris Agreement can be regarded as an expression of political will to tackle climate change in a way that brings together actors at all levels, in conformity with the all-encompassing nature of efforts required to address this epochal problem. In this regard, the Paris Agreement seemingly marks the emergence of a cooperative spirit that breaks away from the rancorous rhetoric that has long characterized international climate diplomacy. Whether the Paris Agreement will prove fit for purpose, and how it will be implemented, remains to be seen. In this regard, the adoption of the agreement is just the beginning of a new regulatory season in which States will flesh out the rules for its implementation. This new regulatory season will begin in 2016 and will reveal whether COP21 has indeed marked a new beginning. At least for the time being, however, the outlook for international climate governance is certainly the most hopeful it has been for quite some time.

Questions:

Is the Paris Agreement a success?

What are its main advantages and disadvantages?

What questions does it leave undressed?

Background reading:

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (2015) http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/cop-21-paris-summary-12-2015-final.pdf

Daniel Bodansky Reflections on the Paris Conference (2015)

http://opiniojuris.org/2015/12/15/reflections-on-the-paris-conference/

The Economist, The Paris Agreement Marks an Unprecedented Political Recognition of the Risks of Climate Change (2015) http://www.economist.com/news/international/21683990-paris-agreement-climate-change-talks

UK Committee on Climate Change, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Paris Agreement (2015) https://www.theccc.org.uk/2015/12/21/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-paris-agreement/

David Victor, Why Paris Worked: A Different Approach to Climate Diplomacy (2015) http://teachingclimatelaw.org/compendium-of-commentary-on-the-paris-agreementcop21/

“We now have a large alumni network around the world working on climate change. Many of these alums will be at the Paris COP and this time it is their job to be there.“

Prof. Dave Reay

Six years ago this month we were busy finalising plans for the University of Edinburgh’s delegation to COP 15 in Copenhagen. A large delegation had been out together made up of staff and students from our new MSc in Carbon Management. Hopes and excitement were high. Discussions in lectures centred on what the COP might deliver for business, policy and regulation, while every coffee shop meeting ended up in discussion of who was going to which ‘must see’ side event.

In the event COP 15 was a triumph for our students, despite being an abject failure for the global climate change negotiations.  Partnering with the Scottish Government and the British Council, our delegation led a day of discussions at the COP around Scotland’s role in tackling climate change. The students met a host of state leaders, made some wonderful contacts, and delivered a set of speeches that had every delegate in the place on their feet applauding.

This time around the pre-COP discussions here in Edinburgh have been no less engaging, yet our plans for the Paris COP have taken a very different shape. We now have a large alumni network around the world working on climate change. Many of these alums will be at the Paris COP and this time it is their job to be there. From advisors to the French Presidency, through national negotiators, to NGO leads and energy consultants, Edinburgh’s alumni now represent our most powerful impact on the climate negotiations. Current staff and students will of course be there too, but with a University of Edinburgh delegation that is outnumbered by its former students in Paris.

For the negotiations themselves, I’ll be following two key elements very closely. The first is the issue of ‘stock taking’ – effectively the proposed mechanism whereby every nation’s INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) is reviewed every 5 years to assess its efficacy in the context of the best scientific evidence. If Paris fails to deliver an agreement that will avoid 2^oC of post-industrial warming (i.e. ‘dangerous climate change’) then this mechanism is the best game in town to bridge the emissions gap. How it would work and, crucially, who would do this stock taking will be the subject of much discussion. Scientific bodies such as the IPCC have been suggested and certainly such assessments would need to be clear, independent and scientifically robust.

For me, the other crucial element of the Paris negotiations is that of capacity building. It has been referred to several times in draft negotiation texts – options that may be debated include the creation of a specific ‘capacity building mechanism’ that will more directly deliver financing. Certainly, capacity building must be addressed if the myriad contributions, commitments and targets that will whirl around the Blue Zone in Paris are actually to be delivered around the world.

This need is most obvious in the developing world, but applies in every nation. Without it, even the best efforts to increase climate change resilience and decarbonise energy systems risk being hobbled. Through our undergraduate, Masters and PhD programmes Edinburgh and universities like it are already helping to grow such climate change skills capacity. Innovations such as online learning and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are further extending our reach, but there is a lot more to do.  Helping potential students around the world to overcome the many financial, social, and physical barriers to education that they face is, I believe, the most important challenge for universities in the coming years.

Six years ago we left Copenhagen frustrated with policy makers and inspired by our students. In Paris this year some of those students are now themselves the policy makers. Whether this will help bring about a robust agreement remains to be seen, but it’s at least one small step towards the capacity building that will one day deliver global climate security.

Dr Laura Jeffery

Dr Laura Jeffery

Until the end of the 20^th century, most Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were relatively small-scale conservation zones in coastal waters. The past decade has seen a proliferation in the designation of ever larger MPAs. Mega MPAs measuring over 100,000km² now already comprise the vast majority of the total area covered by MPAs worldwide. But why are the world’s powerful leaders – including Clinton, Bush, and Obama – competing to create ever larger MPAs?

The states party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have agreed on a target to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020. Mega MPAs clearly help governments as they seek to reach this (repeatedly deferred) target, but do they offer effective protection? Proponents argue that the smaller border-to-area ratio of mega MPAs means that the area of well-protected ocean in the middle is increased while the border zones exposed to external threats are reduced. But critics point to a range of problems associated with mega MPAs:

Challenges to surveillance and enforcement: Size and remoteness pose particular challenges for effective surveillance and enforcement of mega MPAs, where surveillance vessels cannot effectively patrol such large areas, and remote sensing technologies cannot track illegal fishing vessels that do not have satellite tags. Environmental NGOS (eNGOs) have reported widespread illegal fishing within numerous MPAs, including illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (Ecuador).

Diverting attention from real challenges: Most mega MPAs have been designated in remote areas with little human habitation, but this means they are not ideally located to address the real challenges facing the world’s oceans, such as overfishing, tourism, and pollution. A good example of this is the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument designated around the uninhabited and relatively unexploited northwest Hawaiian Islands (USA).

Vulnerability to commercial interests: Seeking to meet ambitious targets without threatening economic growth, governments are likely to protect areas that already have low economic value. Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve, for instance, covers deep water that sees little fishing activity at present, and leaves the most valuable commercial fishing areas unrestricted.

Undermining social justice: By banning resource use within vast areas, mega MPAs risk undermining social justice in terms of equitable access to economic livelihoods. The UK’s Chagos Marine Protected Area, for example, seems to have been designed to entrench UK sovereignty over an Indian Ocean territory also claimed by Mauritius, safeguard the security of the US military base on Diego Garcia, and harm the displaced islanders’ campaign for their right of return to the Chagos Archipelago.

Diverting resources from existing MPAs: Promoting mega MPAs may divert attention and resources from improving the management and effectiveness of existing or smaller MPAs. On the other hand, however, mega MPAs such as the Chagos MPA and South Georgia and Sandwich Islands (UK/Argentina) were designated alongside a network of smaller coastal MPAs around the UK mainland; Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve was designated alongside smaller MPAs in areas of high resource use.

Discussion Questions

• Can national solutions such as mega MPAs effectively address global challenges?
• How can remote mega MPAs be effectively monitored and enforced?
• Does vulnerability to commercial interests undermine mega MPAs?
• Do remote mega MPAs divert attention from the real issues?
• Do mega MPAs undermine social justice?
• Do mega MPAs divert resources from smaller MPAs and MPA networks?
• Can MPA networks and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) offer effective solutions?

Indicative Readings:

• MPA News. International news and analysis on marine protected areas published by the University of Washington.
• De Santo, E.M. 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management 124: 137-146.
• Leenhardt, P, B. Cazalet, B. Salvat, J. Claudet & F. Feral. 2013. The rise of large-scale marine protected areas: conservation or geopolitics? Ocean & Coastal Management 85, A: 112-118.
• Singleton, R.L. & C.M. Roberts. 2014. The contribution of very large marine protected areas to marine conservation: giant leaps or smoke and mirrors? Marine Pollution Bulletin 87: 7-10.

Dr Laura Jeffery is Lecturer in Social Anthropology in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, and has research interests in island ecologies, human–environment relations, and the politics of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). She has recently published on WikiLeaks evidence in judicial review of the Chagos MPA, debates about environmental guardianship of the Chagos Archipelago, and ‘coconut chaos’ and the politics of restoration ecology.

Who are we?

The Global Environment and Society Academy (GESA) is a network of experts collaborating to develop innovative solutions for the world’s most challenging problems.

Led by Professor Dave Reay and Dr Elizabeth Bomberg GESA operates as one of four University of Edinburgh Academies, including Global Health, Global Justice and Global Development. The Academies were developed to find innovative solutions by bringing together experts from many different academic fields. We have faculty and student members across Geosciences, Informatics, Law, Art, Landscape Architecture, Business and Education, with teaching responsibilities and research interests in environment and society.

What do we do?

We tackle the nasty issues! We do this creatively, we collaborate, we look through many lenses as we set out to tackle global environmental challenges. This approach of multidisciplinary collaboration means we develop and encourage collegiality across the University and beyond; an approach that builds a vibrant Global community of talented people at the forefront of addressing environmental issues.

What can GESA do for you?

Whether you are continuing from Undergraduate study or returning to full time study, this will be an intense year of study and personal and academic development. Of course you’ll have your MSc programme group but wouldn’t it be good to have a place where you can meet Postgraduates from other disciplines, explore the multiple perspectives and work together?

Through our GESA Masters Network, we encourage and develop just that kind of collegiality across the University and beyond. We have a very active community. Some of the events you can attend as a GESA member include Reading Groups where you can hear the views of our expert speakers and meet our PhD Facilitators who come from a range of disciplines.

We host events that look at developing your research ideas, often putting you in touch with the right people to advise on topics. We can offer help with presentations skills, networking, employability skills, internships or work -based projects, particularly those with an interdisciplinary focus. As our network extends we find that many of these post-Masters opportunities are supported by a GESA alumni network that continues to build lifelong connections

While you are here with us in Edinburgh we are really interested in helping develop your projects and we can sometimes provide funding for these. Since taking up my post in June I’ve been helping some of our Masters Network students with their GESA supported projects such as our online discussion platform where students can develop ideas, share and discuss news items or write blogs. Another student project is the GESA Legacy Forest, which hopes to offer the chance for every GESA student to plant a tree when they graduate, truly an initiative in the GESA spirit.

I’ve also enjoyed working to provide seminars, photography competitions and Keynote speeches from some of the most prominent and respected experts within their fields.

What can you do for GESA?

Bring your enthusiasm, bring your discussions, bring your ideas and projects. Turn up, take part, make lifelong connections and really get the most out of this year. This is your Academy; it is what you make it.

Best of luck for this exciting year ahead, please do get in touch, I’m looking forward to our year ahead.

Rachel

Rachel Chisholm

Academic Facilitator for GESA

global-environment-society@ed.ac.uk