Call for Applications: Corporate Social Responsibility Programme specifically designed for underfunded NGOs and corporate partners

The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme is a new initiative designed by Grassroot Diplomat to engage corporations in building sustainable and meaningful relationship with grassroots organisations. Grassroot Diplomat is calling for applications from underfunded NGOs and youth networks requiring policy research and development of projects. Grassroot Diplomat aims to select clients that are suffering from financial hardship but require independent diplomatic research assistance in their policy-related project. All projects under this programme will be expected to be paid for by corporate partners engaged in CSR.

Clients will receive:

- free assistance with research and development

- access to influential decision-makers

- contacts with reputable and well-known company

- full sponsorship that will cover cost of service required by Grassroot Diplomat

- 25% donation to sustain project

Corporations will:

- pay the full sponsorship fee

- gain significant access to influential members of government

- increase its reputation with consumers

- be provided with human interest PR stories and marketing opportunities to networks

- leverage its market in the diplomatic and government sector

For more information, please visit: www.grassrootdiplomat.org/csrprogramme

This programme is opened to all types of businesses looking to further their CSR portfolio. However, the programme is limited to the number of clients it can take. You may only apply if you meet the eligibility criteria. You may wish to refer to services provided by Grassroot Diplomat: www.grassrootdiplomat.org/services

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

This programme is strictly available to clients who are undergoing financial hardship. We are only able to take on clients who require assistance on the growth and development of a project that is relevant to the mission of Grassroot Diplomat. Your project must:

•              be based related to policy (e.g. human rights, peace and security, health, migration… etc.)

•              aim to make a positive impact to society

•              not be led by a government institution or official

•              not be served as a financial instrument for personal gain

•              be independent of any arms trade, defence proliferation or profiteering motive

•              not be political in nature

•              not discriminate against age, race, gender, sex or religion

•              require research, development or diplomatic engagement provided by Grassroot Diplomat

How to join the programme

If you feel that your project is eligible for this programme, please send your project outline to: info@grassrootdiplomat.org answering the following questions:

•              Name and mission of organisation

•              Objective and outcome of project

•              Who will the project benefit?

•              Why do you need assistance of Grassroot Diplomat and which service are you interested in?

•              How will you assist your corporate sponsor?

•              How will you promote your project after this programme ends?

•              Are you engaged with any partners? If not, which organisations would you wish to collaborate with?

•              Please provide a financial statement of your organisation

Due to the popularity of this programme, all clients are asked to pay a refundable deposit of £300 ($480 USD) to secure their place.

Please note: It may take up to 12 months to secure a corporate sponsor for your project. In the unlikely event of not finding a corporate match, the deposit will be returned to you in full. Should your project be chosen, Grassroot Diplomat will keep the deposit and donate 25% of the sponsorship fee to your project.

Understanding the Oil Market

With the Middle East and North Africa uprising, the prices of oil in many developed countries have spiked, with critics urging for countries like Saudi Arabia to turn the taps on its oil reserves in order to keep prices reasonable. Others have argued that the world would be a better place without a commodity that pollutes the Earth and causes wars to erupt over vulnerable and scarce resource with only thoughts of capitalist greed and corruption amongst ruling families and political elites. While I agree with both, I read an interesting commentary from Alan Duncan - International Development Minister and adviser on oil supply - in a parliamentarian magazine (The House), which I wanted to share as a means to better educate readers on the complexities of the global oil market.

In his commentary, Alan Duncan addressed how dependent we are on oil in running our daily life, for without the supply of oil, "the world simply would not go round". Amidst the current upheaval in Libya, commentators are looking towards Saudi Arabia to solve the supply problem, but switching from Libyan oil to Saudi oil isn't as simple as possible. Duncan states that there is no such thing as 'the oil market', rather that there are many markets within it, each with their different significance. According to Duncan, there are well over a hundred different qualities of crude oil, each with different characteristics affecting the diet of an oil refinery. Some crudes are heavy and good for making bitumen, others are light and better for making petrol. Some are full of sulphur, whereas others share the runny consistency of washing liquid or hardens like butter. Libyan oil is made up of lighter low-sulphur which cannot easily be substituted for Saudi crude that does not share the same property. Also, many factors - such as shipping costs, insurance rates, demurrage rates (price paid for a ship's delay at port) - affect the prices of crude rather than straightforward supply volumes.

In closing, Duncan warns that we are living in dangerous times and the factors which could influence the price of oil, and hence the unwelcome cost of filling our car at the petrol station, are affected by much more than scarce resource and conflict in the originating countries. And such factors complicate the nature of a simple switch over from one type of oil to another.

Libya: To kill, or to be killed – that is the question?

Since the grassroots revolution to overthrow dictators in North Africa, it seems that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya is less willing to be toppled by his people like Zine El Abidine Ben Ali or Hosni Mubarak. Referring to Wikileaks and Twitter as the ‘Kleenex Revolution’ that holds no force, Gaddafi is determined to maintain territory via the use of military strength alone. While the world speculates on how long Gaddafi can carry on shooting his people down, my concern is mainly focused on the weapons that the Libyan army is carrying as the Western demise.

Arms trade is a source of deep-rooted capitalism and security, and unfortunately, Western countries like the United Kingdom rely heavily on the arms industry as a form of national income. Sourced from an article in the Guardian newspapers, the United Kingdom was responsible for gaining an armed export license worth €58.9m from Libya, soon after the Libyan arms embargo was lifted in October 2004. While our government is urging Gaddafi to leave quietly, I shake my head at Western countries that preach justice and democracy whilst hungrily exchanging arms contract with autocratic regimes. Italy is noted as Libya’s top arms exporter, having secured an income of €276.7m over the last five years with France and the UK following second and third.

One of the major global issues that have become part and parcel of everyday diplomatic discourse is the concern over human rights. The pressure of international opinion reinforces the pressures within individual countries for safeguarding human rights and the respect for the individual. As emphasised by United Nations doctrines, the respect, promotion and endorsement for human rights is the hallmark of a democratic society, placing special responsibility on democratic nations to uphold human rights domestically and abroad. Yet the willingness to trade arms forfeits the responsibility to protect, and avoiding the commitment to guarantee that British weapons will not be used against repressing local civilians is not a legitimate excuse to act 'innocent' against the atrocities that is befalling the Libyan people today. 

UN Intensive Training

In July 2010, I was accepted by the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University to participate in an intensive training course at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. This unique opportunity enabled me to learn about the workings and political dynamics of the UN from a combination of 19 top-tiered UN officials and practitioners.

Since its creation in 1945, the UN is till the only organisation that brings together 192 nations as tact for political intervention and preventive diplomacy. Unique for its peacekeeping capabilities and humanitarian assistance, members rely on the UN when no other options are available to them. This is true of Africa as 70% of UN time is spent on African matters. As a member unit, 150 countries participate in peacekeeping by sending troops or contributing financially. Developing countries like Bangladesh and Ghana are leading in troop contribution, whereas members of the Security Council and member donors like Japan concentrate their efforts in financial aid. Even then the UN is in a fragile state as a result of reduced political support and shrinking funds. In recent years, UN bases and blue-helmet troops have been attacked by terrorists as they no longer accept the UN as impartial party. Now, UN bases look more like armed camps which ultimately sends the wrong signal to rogue actors.

The biggest scepticism shown towards the UN is surprisingly by the United States. Before Barack Obama’s presidency, the tone of US statements was confrontational and self-serving. US public opinion of UN work was superficially shallow and widespread. In an effort to shift public attitude of the US-UN relationship, President Obama has opened up engagement with the UN by resuming financial support to particular UN missions, and accepting to host the 64^th General Assembly this September. Nevertheless it is clear that the UN is doing a poor job in relaying positive news of its missions to the public. The most current media spectacle is generated around Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon’s public perception. A week before this training, a highly controversial document known as the Alhenius Memo had described Moon as being a spineless, deplorable leader compared to Kofi Anan. Depicted as the “invisible man”, UN members are pondering whether Moon was the “wrong” Asian candidate for the job. This week, officials have confirmed that Moon is likely to secure a second term in office, unless China and Russia change their mind.

On a positive note, the UN is leading on “global goods” issues such as emissions of greenhouse gases, global health, and cross-bordering diseases. One of the biggest focuses for many UN offices is the Millennium Development Goal (MDG). While the main MDG targets will not be met in 2015, the general poverty level has been halved since its initiation. In collaboration with corporations, the UN Office for Partnership is working to leverage investment in developing countries so that local governments can establish social security for its people through infrastructure, governance, and education. The three pillars of the UN – development, peace and security, and human rights – is central for rebuilding a failed nation. However, many practitioners have argued that these pillars exclude underlying problems that inevitably lead to insecurity. Like a vicious cycle, human security cannot be sustained without tackling poverty, corruption, human and drug trafficking, preventable diseases, deforestation, climate vulnerability, arms trade, and gender discrimination. Much of the poor rely on these methods to survive. Development cannot happen without combating weaknesses that can potentially break the political infrastructure. The UN must integrate these issues into the three pillar system, or else root problems will continue to hinder any achievements.

Stigma and discrimination is the biggest killer for change, specifically for issues linked to HIV/AIDS, women’s rights, trafficking and global health. According to the UN Secretariat office, about 33.4 million people are living with HIV of whom more than 30 million live in low and middle-income countries. There has been a decline in AIDs due to prevention education to help change attitude of sexual behaviour in African youths, yet the problem is being crossed over border through human-drug trafficking and the sex trade. This is certainly true of Eastern Europe. Currently, Russia is giving no money to HIV prevention owing to stigma and discrimination barriers. Even the US still suffers from HIV stigma dating back from 1981, when the disease was called the “gay cancer”. In relation to the MDG, mothers are most stubborn in allowing their children to be vaccinated in fear that the needles will make their child sicker. Nigeria has the biggest number of polio as mothers are unwilling to immunise their children due to cultural and religious beliefs.

Involving women in the political and educational development is becoming ever more important. Although Security Council Resolution 1325 (SCR1325) was initiated to involve women in all aspects of decision-making, it seems that even the UN is slow to adopt. Currently, there are 21 female ambassadors to the UN, and 5-6 women are leading peacekeeping operations. This is an improvement but taking into account that 192 countries are UN members, such a number is far and short off target. When considering applicants for a senior position, 1 out of the 3 recommended candidates must be a woman. The author of the Ahlenius Memo was shortlisted for top appointment but she refused as felt discriminated to be shortlisted because of her gender. The question begs whether female appointment is an issue of equality or a struggle over principle or power. Ban Ki Moon supports SCR1325 but without NGO pressure, implementation will continue to be side-stepped by member states.

During training, the biggest surprise for me was to learn about the UN Democracy Fund. This office was set up in 2005upon Kofi Anan stating that democracy is a human right. This is all well and good but as a Western concept, I doubt that democracy will be accepted as a norm for every society. China is a clear example. Chinese foreign policy revolves around compromise and this is evident in their peacekeeping contribution. Anan had defined the basis of sovereignty as ruled by the people and if the sovereign violates their rights, the UN has the right to intervene. China may not agree with this definition, but as a compromise to support conflict prevention, China is willing to contribute troops. Democratisation is an internal matter. The agency cannot do its work without the aid and support of local governments and civil society. At present, 4200 NGOs are accredited to the UN. UN staff is too few and resources are limited, therefore the UN rely on NGO relationship to drive and support the organisation. It is clear that the best way to work with the UN is to join a UN-accredited NGO.

For more information on how to work for the UN and the speakers I have met, please email.

Straight-shooting Marrakech

As one of the most popular tourist destination, I was excited to experience a weekend in Marrakech. At first, I didn’t understand what was so fascinating about this city until we were bombarded by countless palm trees and camels, the scorching 50°C heat, and the vibrant and populated ‘suk’ (marketplace) that seemed to amplify the Morocco’s exoticness.

Unlike Rabat, the trip to Marrakech was purely for pleasure, despite the unbearable heat and 2-day bus ride from Ifrane. As part of the tour, we visited the Bahia Palace designed by the architect Muhammad al-Mekki of Marrakech, the Royal Tomb, the olive garden, and the Medersa Ben Youseff. The architecture of the Medersa Ben Youseff mosque was incredibly beautiful. The traditional Islamic art sculpting of the walls and ceilings truly added an ornate feeling to the already serene and beautiful monument.

Apart from the traditional sightseeing offered by Marrakech, I felt intrigued to explore the famous suk – the Jamaa-El Fna Square, where you can watch snake charmers, storytellers, henna artists and musicians. We came here twice, once in the dead heat of the afternoon and then in the more comfortable evening, which was when the marketplace came to life. A quick walk through the square would take 20 minutes on average with the constant distraction of local traders desperately seeking attention away from their competing neighbours. As a country that is extremely reliant on the tourist trade, the suk is the perfect tourist trap. We were warned by our tutors that Marrakech would be filled with imitators who pretend to be the Blue Men of the Desert, like the man I met in Chefchaoen, and to not buy items blindly without haggling down the price.

Considering that I live in a London borough scattered with Indian fashion stores, negotiating prices for goods wasn’t a new concept for me. However I recognised that my British upbringing in being polite to avoid confrontation made me an ineffective haggler. Although the prices of many items were jacked up for tourist, I felt guilty in persuading traders to knock off £2-5 off my purchase when I knew I could afford it. My colleague, Anca Sol from Romania, had a very different approach in to negotiating, which I have dubbed the ‘straight-shooter negotiation technique’.

The ‘straight shooter’ technique is a very direct approach – you name a price without any room for negotiation, full stop! If the trader disagrees with the price, you walk away and look elsewhere. The advantage of this technique is that it is 100% effective if the right pressure is applied. However, such a technique can quickly lead to an ill-feeling of anger by the other party to the point where they will never want to do business with you again. The ‘straight shooter’ technique isn’t for everyone – and it most certainly wasn’t for me.

OYW: Global Business Plenary

"There is nothing wrong with the poor...poverty is created by institutions” - Muhammad Yunus

Youth polls suggested that global business should play a key role in the alleviation of poverty yet many of us agree that certain aspects of multinational corporation behaviour is to our dissatisfaction. Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus presented how he created Grameen Bank, lending out $27 to 42 women as a solution to Bangladesh’s poverty. Therefore he created a bank that helps poor women living in villages who have no income. Women play a big part in social business as key communicators within their villages, and in present day Grameen Bank has over 80 million borrowers whereby 90% are women. Entrepreneur Bill Liao also gave a testament to how business is shaping indigenous societies. He is currently involved in reforestation projects as a way to take responsibility for the rectifying damage caused by his generation.

In following, a plenary session based on global business was led by OYW Counsellors, Elio Leoni-Sceti (CEO of EMI Music), Graeme Sweeney (Chairman of Zero Emissions Platform), Ken Costa (Chairman of Lazard International), Osvald Bjelland (Chairman of Xyntéo), Benita Matofska (Head of Global Entrepreneurship week), and Dr. Santanu Das (Founder of TranSwitch Corp).

Son of Mongolian Prime Minister, Battushig Batbold stressed a positive that technical staff should be given opportunities to work abroad as part of a global placement to share skills. Swapping staff across borders will not only enhance intercultural diversity but create fuller global synergy. Diptesh Bose (India) also agreed that sharing information in all areas can be better disseminated through the use of internet. At the height of the digital age, this tool must be used to its greatest potential. Coming from a country where crime and theft is high, Christina Lopez Guevara from El Salvador suggested the best way to reduce poverty is to not start small businesses within the country but through the integration of global businesses. Governments are responsible in creating a healthy environment for investment thereby corporations should make ‘the eradication of poverty’ part of their business mission.

16-year-old, Adrian Lo (China) turned business on its head, urging businesses to change solely from being for profit to sustainability. He suggested to up the national minimum wage to improve productivity of workers and incorporating the “re-think” role of society, “re-design” business model, “re-build” new world without poverty into the business mainstream. Niece of former US President, Lauren Bush stated that ignorance in a globalised world is no longer a viable excuse. Every six seconds a child dies of hunger yet even with the assistance of global aid, the number of malnutrition children is growing. As the founder of FEED, Lauren has created a business enabling one designer bag purchased by a consumer to feed one child for a year, which opened up the issue of how profit is directed. Deniz Çıkış (Turkey) coined the term ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) as “window dressing”, highlighting its ineffectiveness towards the Millennium Development Goals.

Burt’s Bees are a great example of how embedding CSR framework in the business model is a positive step forward in all aspects. Acting as the only ‘zero waste’ US company, Burt’s Bees mission takes into account materials used in its products, its people, humanitarian and environmental operations. Delegates speaking on the floor panel were incredibly insightful sharing views on fair trade, ethical leadership, corporations adapting CSR within a political framework and philanthropic investments. Inspired by the level of agreement from delegates, I will be drafting letters to global coffee and chocolate companies urging them to support fair trade. This will be completed in due course but we, the consumers, should demand free trade.

Draft Resolution (to be amended): In the belief that multinational corporations have a fundamental responsibility to behave ethically, we call upon global businesses to define and act on their role in the fight against poverty.

Q&A with the Board of the Adaptation Fund

Copenhagen, Friday 11 December

The science of climate change is unambiguous with increasing burdens on the poorest people in the world, who are often hardest hit by weather catastrophes, desertification, and rising sea levels. Helping the most vulnerable countries and elements of societies, the Adaptation Fund (AF) was created to drive funds to help nations struggling with the consequences of climate change. Chair of the AF board, Jan Cedergren and the Vice-Chair Farrukh Iqbal Khan presented the work of the AF followed by an intense round of questions and answers.

The Adaptation Fund Handbook focuses on transparency and capacity-building issues in financing developing countries to meet the cost of adaptation. To gain access to funds, vulnerable developing countries can nominate domestic institutions for accreditation through the National Implementing Entities (NIEs) that is responsible for endorsing projects and programs of the recipient. Countries also have the option of going through Multilateral Implementing Entities (MIEs), which is a new approach to international cooperation, providing the opportunity of direct access to resources. However the board members had admitted that limited funds that are available to the AF mean that projects have to be prioritised to urgent cases. While the process in obtaining funds can be bureaucratic, the board assured that all projects are reviewed thoroughly according to AF guidelines. Allocation of funds are reviewed every 5 years, however the board is currently establishing an evaluation system to manage results that are agreed upon.

There were some concerns on how vulnerable communities can access funds, following rumours that allocated money go straight to corporations that operate within communities. The board stated that detailed reports are fed back to the AF, but I felt the answer given was vague. The World Bank is often mistrusted with the lack of transparency with the way finances are spent, yet the World Bank is responsible in handling the AF trust fund and system which then reports back to the AF board.

Transparency is always a concern with directing funds to right places, however the board declared the use of funds is becoming more of a bottom-up, country-led approach, therefore making it easier for community leaders to use the money where they believe is best spent. The board said, “We do give emphasis mainly on our cooperation with the national strategies. Our strategic priorities are the basis on how to confront the situation in those countries and ameliorate the adaptation levels. But what we mostly take into account is the enhancement of capacity-building, transparency and financial assistance.”

UK Know-How leading the Low Carbon Transition

Copenhagen, Friday 11 December

As a British citizen living in London, I thought it smart to start my COP15 tour by attending an event related to my own country. Hosted by UK Trade & Investment, a panel of experts explored how the UK’s unique political, structural and economic conditions are perfect for fostering a low carbon future in business and industry. Leading a low carbon transition means business opportunities across all sectors as introduced by panelists who represented a cross section of business industries.

Michael Ward (UK Trade Investment) stated that businesses are at the heart of delivering solutions for climate change as there are facilities and resources to collaborate on an international level. However there was clear consensus amongst the panelist that London is one of the best places to start a low carbon – climate friendly business. From his own experience, James Cameron (Vice Chairman of Climate Change Capital) was able to set up his climate change business less than ten years ago as there was continuous flow of capital in London. The UK is a hub of low carbon innovation. Catherine Bremmer (Head of International Development at the Carbon Trust) highlighted key factors of the UK economy that allow companies to be “born global”. London has a developed financial district which has links to major global cities. Low carbon industries are supported by broad government agenda, building synergies cross-sector. The UK has a stable political system that has consensus in climate investment projects as supported by the Boris Johnson’s Mayor of London Green Development Plan. Furthermore the UK has natural resources such as offshore wind potential to make low carbon society which the private sector is leveraging to its advantage. Successful business opportunity includes strong research and development capability, partnership with business and academia and creativity which exists within the UK.

Paul Dickinson (CEO at the Carbon Disclosure Project), “When I look at climate change, all I see are investment opportunities” leading him to discuss the telepresence project supported by his business. Telepresence, like modern day Skype, is replacing face-to-face global meetings to video conferences thus cutting carbon emitted by air travel. This is not a new idea however businesses are taking advantage of old ideas and using these as alternate low carbon methods of modern communication. Peter Head OBE (Director and Chairman of Global Planning for Arup) stated that integrated approaches are important in creating successful low carbon ventures. Research should be used “intelligently” by combining new and existing information and fed to world communities.

Martin Powell (Director of Projects at the London Development Agency) discussed the London 2012 Olympic project and how they are re-developing London into a low carbon society. While I did not agree with some of his statements (as I live in the area where the Olympic stadium is being built) it was interesting to see his vision of ‘green’ London in the near future. With the current developments in progress, Martin believes that London should reach a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2026. He also said that the way we spend our money is the most important democracy in the world, and this, as many activists may agree, could be the solution in reducing consumer carbon in the West.

Put People First

After 35,000 people joined the March demonstration calling for decent jobs, public services for all, the end of poverty and inequality, and a green economy, Put People First held a ‘counter conference’ while the G20 met in London. The conference had a large number of speakers focusing on the banking failure, promoting the ‘Green New Deal’, and creation of jobs. The first session looked into the failure of a paradigm with links to the financial crisis and climate change. Session two focused on alternative ways of working followed by a breakout session looking into how to mobilise people. Plenaries I attended were chaired by Jesse Griffiths (Bretton Wood Project), Bhumika Muchhala (Third World Network), Sargon Nissan (New Economic Foundation), Glen Tarman (BOND) and Owen Tudor (Trade Union Congress).

The financial crisis has undoubtedly effected employment rates, green economic plans and increased inequality within society. The crisis has transformed from being a private sector disaster to a public finance catastrophe. Diane Elson (University of Essex) talked about the need to re-regulate the financial market as cutbacks made in public expenditure are being fuelled into saving the banking industry. A bail out of £35 billion has gone to banks who will continue to invest in arms trade and fossil fuel industries, with an addition £6 billion rewarded in bonuses which is unfair and unjust. Ellie Smith (People and Planet) revealed that an astounding £54 billion was invested solely by the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) in extracting fossil fuel. Public cutbacks are being felt mostly by women, particularly migrant women who work in health services, care homes, social services and the like. agreed that a new economic paradigm for global market is needed, where rules on deregulation is not written by corporate elitists. John Hilary (War on Want)Andrew Simms (New Economics Foundation) commented that we currently have a finance system that wrecks the “triple crunch” of climate change, food insecurity and the finance crash itself. Out of the £35 billion being given to banks, the UK government have only invested £1.4 billion to climate change projects.

To control levels of climate change, the carbon market was formed to help industries regulate their emissions by selling, buying and trading pollution rights across countries. However, Larry Lohman (Corner House) concluded that this scheme has turned into the new ‘cash cow’ particularly for energy traders and hedge funds that are losing focus on actually caring for the environment. Fund managers are said to be “obsessed” with short-term price movements which can potentially put long-term climate projects in danger. With that in mind, Catherine Howarth (Fair Pensions) believes that business investment in climate change could potentially trigger the next financial crunch if the carbon market continues to operate the ‘Cap and Trade’, and ‘Carbon Offset’ system. Owen Epsley (Friends of the Earth) pointed out that the carbon market was built by bankers for bankers, and such climate finance will one day “burst” if it continues in this current route. According to Billy Hayes (Communications Workers Union), progressive taxation is required on rich corporations to meet public expenditure demands and third world debt should be cancelled to help developing countries grow.

Lidy Nacpil (Jubilee South) said that the impact of climate change is felt more when in poverty as the lack of money creates food shortages. In a globalised world, food staples are being imported more and more whereby rice eating countries are producing staples to export to rich countries leaving them with no food. Localising food production will solve a lot of problems such as transportation that creates CO2 emissions. However, there needs to be a reorientation of consumption and production in order to create fair use and equality in funds and materials. As a great influencer of European capital markets, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (ex-Danish PM) stated that looking into countries GDP is not a good way of measuring well-being – a system which is in place by many global governing bodies. Vimbai Mushongera (Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions) agreed that GDP does little to highlight countries growth. People in poor countries like Zimbabwe are silenced by their government and cannot empower themselves to make vocal contributions. 80% have no platform to speak when undertaking economic survival and have no input to government policies that can potentially help people meet their basic needs.

With the lead up to COP15, Bronwen Smith-Thomas (WWF) reminded us that we need a legally binding treaty that sets out long-term goals for investors that can be backed by the government. Jonathan Stevenson (Climate Camp) listed a series of events that Climate Camp will engage in during the COP15 negotiations, highlighting the necessary need for active citizen participation. As a way of taking alternatives forward, Deborah Doane (World Development Movement) suggested the D-Day method: “Demonstrate, Differentiate, Democratise” as a way to make our voices heard. Also, pressure needs to put on banks to act responsibly with government monitoring.

Ditch the plastic cup...

I am an avid fan of the Java Chip Frappuccino, returning to Starbucks at least 3-4 times a week. With my political work in civil society, I am increasingly aware that I am one individual who is not ‘doing my bit’ for the environment. While volunteering at the office of “Friends of the Earth”, I was impressed with how little rubbish is thrown out; ignoring the plastic cups I used accumulating in the recycling bin.

Recently, I had purchased a self-design tumbler from Starbucks to encourage the ‘re-use’ philosophy. I asked the clerk to put the Java Chip in the tumbler and I was amazed with the reaction, as if I had asked the clerk to lick my arm. When I returned to the same store a second, a third and a fourth time that week, I received the same look, while receiving comments on how amazing my tumbler looked. I had customised it with my Street Fighter character, Ryu, my unusual inspiration. Passers-by would stop to ask where I had bought my tumbler and what a good idea it was once lecturing them on the gravity of climate change.

I take a strong stance in wanting coffee houses to discard plastic cups, especially when there are no facilities to recycle them. I am even more determined in making these unique tumblers fashionable and an environmental trend setter, which inadvertently will make individuals aware of how every action has a consequence. Above is a photo of me with my unique tumbler, and I hope I can encourage others to be as creative as I am trying be.