Welcome to plenary four of the 2022 International Conference on Sustainable Development. We're thrilled to have a keynote address by Sandrine Dixon-DeClave, as well as the presentation of the best paper awards. Dr. Walsh, over to you. Thank you. Welcome, everyone. My name is Patrick Paul Walsh. I'm a Vice President of Education at UNSTSN, and I'm also Director of the Academic, the SDG Academy. And we're absolutely, as you all know, we're celebrating 10 years of the conference, and we are going to have the best paper awards, but after our keynote. So without further ado, I just want to introduce Sandrine Dixon-DeClave, who is the Co-President of the Club of Rome. And I believe it's the first time that women are presidents or leaders of this esteemed... Absolutely. Wow, so that's brilliant. And I know her as a TED Talk speaker, actually, that's how I know her. And I'm also very eager to get her new book, which is the Survival Kit, Earth for All, from the climate crisis. I think we all need that to kit, but I'm going to turn it over to you, Sandrine, for the keynote on our plenary. And after that, we'll have a few questions. So get the questions in on the Q&A. I'll be taking them down. And like the questions, et cetera, since we get the best ones. And over to you. Thank you so much, Patrick, and what an honor to be keynoting on this very important time of 10-year anniversary. We're also celebrating our anniversary of 50 years of the limits to growth. Whether we're celebrating or commiserating is another key question. And I think part of what I want to talk about today is very much how we've shifted our thinking around sustainability into a variety of different areas. But also most importantly, how can we create system tipping points to leverage transformational leadership? And what does that look like within the sustainability space? We've known, at least within the Club of Rome and those that read the limits to growth, that for 50 years we were risking collapse. And actually, if you look back into the limits to growth and you see the way in which the scenarios plot out particular possibilities of what the world would look like in particular in the 2020s, you can see that with continued population growth and continued extractive economy, we would actually start to face some of the tipping points that we're seeing today. And that is why it's so important for us as we sit here, all of us, some of us, including myself, that we're involved in the Rio discussions, Rio plus 20, Rio plus 10 to shift into an understanding of what does sustainability mean when you are actually in the midst of chaos? What does that mean when you're actually risking collapse because you've got compound effects? We know with Johann Rockstrom's incredible work around the planetary boundaries that we need to think through what's within the boundary and still beyond the zone of uncertainty. And we've seen that we're tipping now through those boundaries in a variety of different spheres, which is why actually with Johann we wrote our planetary emergency plan 2.0, which first asks us, if we're truly going to become sustainable, we have to first address and declare that we are in a planetary emergency. We then need to understand how of the nine planetary boundaries that keep Earth in a relatively stable state, we can actually bring them back, those that are already past those boundaries and keep those that are not yet outside of the boundaries within a habitable space so that actually human species can continue to live on this planet. What we're also seeing is that the 2020s, 2022 period has been a real wake-up call for the future that we want. We are, as I said, out now of the safe operating space across multiple Earth systems. We also have the three Cs, climate, COVID and conflict, which are creating the compound effect that we feel right now in particular in Europe with inflation and price increases, both for energy, access to food. We have the economic reset that we saw post-COVID, where many of our European, but also global states had to put in place recovery budgets and needed to start to address value chain disruption and understand what that means in terms of sustainability and resilience. But we also have multilateralism on the test bench. We see that even though China and the United States joined our climate agreements and COP, we now see very clearly that with the geopolitics around the Ukraine, we're starting to see a real shift and again a growing tension between the United States and China and obviously with Russia. But then we have activism with renewed vigor, the fact that we actually have youth in the streets saying that they want a different future, that they want to stop having climate and future anxiety, that we must work with them in order to create that future, which gives them hope. And we also have in some ways a paradigm shift where we're starting to actually see economies that are shifting to well-being economies, politicians that are actually starting to truly integrate sustainability and climate change within their policies. Again, in particular through the European Green Deal, for example, or through the Green Deal proposals that we saw in the United States. So what does this actually mean for sustainability? What does this mean for the new era of understanding how we have these interconnected global instabilities and what is that net zero impact that we have to achieve? A net zero impact which very much looks at poverty, inequality and also very much decarbonization. We need to understand and unpack the interconnectedness between the social system, the economic system, the global commons and the political system. We need to get away from still the very siloed thinking that the environment and sustainability is completely separate from economic activities. And in particular from the way in which we set up our governance. The fact that environmental ministries unfortunately still are quite weak within government systems, whereas foreign policy or economic or financial policy is much stronger and fully integrate sustainability across all of them. The reason we need that is because what we have seen through Earth for all the survival guide for humanity and our system dynamic modeling is that as wealth has gone up in many regions, well-being has absolutely gone down. That as we see that this becomes the new generation that will actually make less than its parents, a generation which is being crippled by high rates of suicide and mental illness, very much also climate anxiety and future anxiety as I indicated that we need to somehow bring together the proper distribution of wealth and understand poverty and inequity in order to start to truly bring well-being to more people across the globe. So we call this the importance of understanding our social as well as our environmental tipping points to truly shift us towards an age of well-being. It means that we need to manifest and bring together mass movements, political progress, market forces and technological disruption during this very key decade of action in order to ensure that we shift towards zero carbon, zero loss of nature, zero poverty and zero pandemics. That is the sustainable future that we need. It also means that we need to make economics fit for the 21st century, that this is not just about tinkering around the edges. This is about shifting our economic and our financial systems to truly service people, planet and prosperity. It means that we bring in social and environmental risk into financial and economic decision-making, that we expand our perspective of public goods and socialize the rewards of environmental and the social commons, that we correct the inequity between high and low income countries created by international finance and trade systems and that we start to increase the agency of women and workers to drive the direction of the economy. There are a variety of new approaches to economic well-being. Well-being economics, which are actually being practiced by five governments, which we call the well-being governments of New Zealand, of Finland, of Iceland, of Scotland and Wales, but also mission economies that we're starting to practice at the European level or green growth discussions or post-growth donut economics and beyond GDP discussions, all of which, whether you look at the OECD work on beyond GDP or some of the work that's being done by the European institutions or many countries across the globe, looking at how we can have new indicators to growth fully integrated into our balance sheets and into our economic models, what we call 21st century well-being economics that have the three columns of economic indicators, societal indicators and environmental indicators fully integrated into how we measure moving towards human development, a type of growth that gives hope as we see, for example, in donut economics, because we know that currently we have an absolute failure to meet basic needs and that we need to actually meet basic needs in order to ensure dignity. The challenge is to meet these needs within the planetary boundaries and to ensure that no one falls short of life's essentials. What I often say is, we actually have been through the greatest transformation we've ever seen when we went through COVID. For good or for bad, we knew that our governments told us we had to wear masks. We had to actually get vaccinated. That transformation forced us to be different, to go back to what was most essential to our lives and livelihoods, to the protection of our families, to having access to hospitalization and healthcare, which is a reminder that actually we can transform the communities, entire localities, cities, nations, regions fully transformed over the last two years. This is a reminder that we can apply that transformation, those skills, and we can indicate when people tell us it's just too difficult to transform. We can't have access to different shifts, capital shifts and budgets in order to facilitate that transformation. That actually, no, that's absolutely false. We've done it, but that means that we need to get back to what does it mean to be in a situation where we are in a fair consumption space, where we actually have a guiding framework in terms of our impact on the environment and the way in which we look at society's impact at large. To shift between the overconsumption that we see on a daily level, which we actually, through COVID, realized was not essential because material goods would not enable us to be happy, to be healthy, or to necessarily be wealthy. But the fact is, tapping into that now at this stage could be our greatest savior as we try to truly implement a shift from limits to growth to growth within limits. A shift that enables us actually to get to what we say is so indispensable within Earth for All. Five key turnarounds, poverty, inequality, empowerment, energy, and food. With those five key turnarounds, we can absolutely shift ourselves into a well-being economy. Two to 4% of GDP cost per annum in order to actually transform our economies to truly service people and planet, to break down the North-South divide, to ensure that we define the nature of growth in a very different way, which actually fosters people, planet, and profit, but not profit as much as prosperity. To ensure that we alleviate that poverty and ensure that we have that equity to start to have integrated super policies that have, as their core, sustainability, and the SDGs, but SDGs, which are no longer just a checklist, but are fully integrated into the way in which the economy and the financial system functions. To use exponential technologies once again, not just to give finance or to support technologies that will not serve as people and planet and prosperity, but actually to totally transform the way technologies are developed so that we can actually move towards well-being. And these are some of the shifts that we will need if we are going to move forward in an Earth for All approach. To ensure, however, to do that, we must look at language and communications. We must build a broader campaign. What we did through Earth for All was to take the system dynamic model that was already presented through the limits to growth thinking, to look at the interrelationships between those social tipping points and environmental tipping points, both positive and negative, to then stress test that against the knowledge that we have in the thought leadership across the globe, economists and scientists coming together to see how this could be tailored to their region. And now the pillar of shift which we are trying to bring forward is how then do we create a movement? How can we now all coalesce those of us who are supporting the SDGs, those of us who believe that those SDGs are core to the way in which we can build a new society that fosters people, planet and prosperity. How do we use that language and shift into a wellbeing mindset? One which is truly a paradigm shift within our economy and within obviously our financial system. So I will leave it at that because we believe that there will be critical feedback loops that will have to happen between the knowledge of what we have been speaking about now for so many years of what sustainability can be and should be through the SDGs translated into a paradigm shift within our economic, political and financial systems to foster wellbeing within the planetary boundaries so that we can remain safe. This is an upgraded world, an upgraded world towards wellbeing for more. And I'll leave it at that and hope that there will be a nice conversation afterwards. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. That's very inspirational. No, I love the, a lot of people used to talk about the triple bottom line, society, economy and environment, you know, working together. But now you're emphasizing the fourth pillar and I think coming out of RIA plus 20, you know, there are four pillars of sustainable development and governance is just so important and policies. And I love the way you're emphasizing that how policies have to have this integrated approach on the bottom line. And the other thing I'd say is for many, I'm an economist by training for many years when we saw economic growth they actually debated whether there was it was actually creating or driven by inequality. I mean, there was just so many papers, you know, and the somewhere saying what if you use the genie index, that's true. But if you use the coefficient of variation, it's not true if you put China in or take China out. But I think as a, I think we are all very clear that the global GDP growth has created within and between country inequality and there was no debate about that. And I think what you're saying now which I know you've been saying for a while is that there is absolutely no debate that the nature of GDP growth at the moment is basically using nature for free as photosource in the sink. And it's actually pushing us beyond planetary boundaries and the safe operating space for humanity. And we have to be very honest with that that it's absolutely broken. And I love that message about reform of the financial system, the economic system, integrating the kind of social and environmental aspects or constraints. And they should be constraints because it's not acceptable to have the inequality we have or it's not acceptable to use the environment for economic growth. This is not, we should be creating positive linkages to the environment with nature, capital and the way we use it for waste or something. That just shouldn't be happening. And so that was an excellent speech. Keynotes I should say. And we do have some questions. So poor e-comedy. Thank you for the interesting presentation. It seems to be an era of populism. How can the public have been motivated to engage with with this transformation that you suggest, right? So basically, where's the political will or how do we drive this through populations across countries? Thank you for a great question. And what we've tried to do through for all and many of us in particular myself are engaging on a daily level with politicians is both to bring some of the new systems thinking to the forefront and then bring in what those specific policy recommendations would therefore be. I think that within and I fully agree with populism on the rise and the risk that we may have in particular in Europe when we look at energy poverty and this is a conversation I've had directly with President von der Leyen. The real fear is that we will have a backlash because of high inflation and energy poverty and potentially transport poverty that actually some of our governments will very much shift to right wing conservative governments that then will not even support the shift towards decarbonization. What we need to do at this time and that's why poverty and inequity is so important. We need to work with policymakers, those that truly want to lead and show them the tools in the toolbox in order to enable them to take care of citizens first. Now that will be tough. We're talking obviously at the European level now of making sure that we issue checks, EU bonds, et cetera that will support the poorest in order to get through the winter. We've done some of that thinking through Earth for all create actually what we call citizen funds actually tax the commons, bring in some of that tax and those revenues in order to ensure that you properly distribute it as we see in the Norwegian case which is a much more egalitarian society where actually the global commons are shared across citizens. And actually we've seen it in some states you wouldn't expect such as Alaska that actually do the same. But we also are saying very clearly that for those that are the poorest, the low income countries, we have to think about debt cancellation. We need to think about trade deficits. We need to look at actually a minimum income of $15,000 per annum for citizens within those countries and those economies in order to stop that backlash and the potential of true populism. So if we start to service the needs of people first with planet, then hopefully actually we will stop the propensity for some governments to go to the right or to become populistic. Yeah, very good.  So there's a question from Katie and an anonymous person, but they're basically talking about in Europe we have this kind of mission, you know, the mission sort of concept, the stakeholder concept. And they're just kind of wondering how do we get the corporates, the government and so the society working together to achieve this, right? So that's one question. And then the other question is about this emphasis on the well-being economy. One is kind of worried about how narrow is it? Like does well-being economy say something about family, religious beliefs, culture, you know, other things like this and then another person is just not so convinced how, you know, the current economic system can embed these ideas. Do we not need a complete transformation of the economic system as it is? So there are two questions. Okay, so first in terms of the missions and stakeholder approaches, I actually think that this is a perfect time to bring all stakeholders as we look at the transformation. Well, we often talk about our short-term levers for long-term systems change. And where are those leverage points now? Working with corporates, especially again, if we take Europe right now, in the situation of crisis that it's in and knowing full well the gas issues and also the food issues, plus the compound effect already of inflation and COVID previous to that, we have to work with industry. We may not be able to go as fast as we would like right now in terms of pulling out of gas. And this is a conversation that I've again have had directly with many of the cabinets inside the European Commission or ministers. But what we need to do is give it a timeline. We need to be strategic. We need to say if we are in the midst of this crisis, we cannot create even more stranded assets. We may need to work with all stakeholders to ensure that, for example, there's a big risk of our highest emitters moving out of Europe right now because they don't have access to cheap energy. And because actually they're not being buffered by the impact of we're seeing from the Ukrainian invasion. So we have to work directly in stakeholder consultation between governments and industry and citizens to ensure that we buffer both industry and keep industry in the economy and at the same time ensure that citizens and the most vulnerable are not hit the hardest. This means we're going to get rid of perversities in the market. We have to shift our subsidies which actually are perverse and not enabling the transition while still create short-term buffers in order to make sure that people are not going to suffer those ramifications. It's about tax incentive structures. There are many different potentials within the toolbox of fiscal policy that we could use. Create a fiscal policy looking at our VAT structures in particular again in Europe but in some other countries as well, you may not have that differential or that buffer. And that is where you need to get much more creative and it may be in some of the other countries that it's more the debt cancellation. It is more actually working with industry in a very different way or also with citizens. At the end of the day, what we also need within stakeholder engagement is we have to make sure that it is a full stakeholder engagement bringing in citizen views through citizen assemblies and that it is still very much a democratic process not just driven by special interests. Now to come to well-being, well-being is not about going to a spa. Well-being is about assessing what actually gives us the highest quality of life. And when I say us, I mean the greatest amount of people, not just the wealthiest. One way to do that is to start taxing the wealthy, the 1% ensure that actually they do pay 10% of the taxes and redistribute that across the economy. That would be huge in any economy. But the other is to actually ensure that you have indicators that truly measure well-being. That means access to education, access to hospitalization, access to social care and social services, bringing in the care economy and the parallel economy which actually should never be parallel, ensuring that you bring more women into the economy because that enhances diversity and also ensures that women who are the caretakers in most cases of families are able then to redistribute their incomes and be able to work for a fair wage. So the way in which we look at well-being is those three pillars of real economic indicators, social indicators and environmental indicators fully integrated into the balance sheet and the economy of a country so that it actually becomes more resilient. One last fact. If you look at companies and countries that have started to build resilience through sustainability mindsets, whether it be a much greater well-being indicator level or whether it be other frameworks but that still integrate environment, social and governance factors, we have seen through COVID that it is the ESG funds that grew the fastest. It is the ESG companies that were the most resilient to shocks. Why is that? Because they have buffered their value chains. They have already seen what isn't sustainable often is what is the greatest risk in terms of assets and in terms of products and services. We've seen the same in terms of the well-being economies that have actually done quite well through COVID. Again, because they have looked at those triple pillar indicators of social, environmental and economic at the same time. Okay, thank you very much. So that's excellent. So we're going to move on to another segment but I'm absolutely delighted with that talk and there's a lot of very nice comments. It's an inspiring way to think and we look forward. You have a new book coming out. Do you want to say the title? Yes, it's just been released today. It's called Earth for All a Survival Guide for Humanity. I hope that it's on a variety of different services including Amazon. They seem to be the widest spread for most countries but we also hope that it will be in bookstores locally as well. Great, so we'll encourage all the students and staff and people in the SCCEN network broader to have a look at this book because certainly we're excited to read it and today was really excellent. So thank you very much and the link is there. We put the link to everyone who's on the call at the moment to the book. Okay, so thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye bye. So we're going to move on to the second segment. So we are going to announce the best papers and maybe that's why so many people on the call but like any good show we're not going to do them at the beginning. We're going to announce the winners at the end but what we wanted to do now in the second segment was just to celebrate in a sense the 10 years of the International Conference of Sustainable Development and I have Lucia Rodriguez with me here who is the director of the, she wants the secretaries and director of the Global Association of Masters in Development Practice Programs and we're just going to maybe just bring you through the history and the things that we noticed as IC and then maybe have a forward look on our wishes for ICST and of course, anything at all put in the chat or into the questions about the future ICST but I have Lucia here and we're actually together because otherwise we'd have to be turning mics on and off so forgive us for putting together but I'll hand it over to you, Lucia. Well, welcome everybody, greetings. So happy to see so many of you so interested in what we're going to do this first hour. So there, I've heard there's 4,000 people who have registered for this conference and about 70% of them are students. So I think it's a good moment just to take a break and just quickly remind people in terms of, you know, as Paul was saying, a little bit of the history. So let us begin with who we are. And when I say who we are, it's really the Global Association of MVP programs because we really launched the first ICSD conference and I think it's important for people to know that.  So the MVP, it does, it arises out of a shared commitment to create a new profession in sustainable development practice and one that integrates really, Paul has been saying pillars, well, we have four specific pillars and those pillars are natural sciences, social sciences, health sciences, as well as management. And in 2008, yes, 2008, we launched the Masters in Development Practice program. We launched it with a commission report that's called the Education for Sustainable Development Practice. And then in 2009, Columbia University here in New York City became the flagship program because they launched the first MVP. By 2013, we had several academic institutions that were offering the MVP around the world. And by several, I would say about 20 of them that at that time were offering the MVP. We had students and alumni that had graduated because this MVP is a two-year program, more or less. It can be face-to-face, it can be online, but definitely by then we had students. We had a mass. And so, and something that also helped us that we made us sort of ready to launch this MVP that we also had something called the MVP Summit. So every year, you know, 2008, 2009, 10, 11, 12, 13, we would hold an annual MVP summit. And so at that summit, we would share best practices, or, you know, we would talk about the curriculum. We would discuss, you know, what the students were doing in terms of the field practicum that was a required core component of the MVP. And specifically in 2013, that conference was held in February 2013 and Jeffrey Sachs, who is the intellectual author of the MVP, was invited to speak. So he came to the conference, I don't recall exactly where in the world that conference was held. In Senegal. Okay, in Senegal. So he came to Senegal and he sort of, you know, casually suggested a conference. He said, it's time, you know, this growing network of MVP programs is sharing all kinds of interesting knowledge and information. It's time to share it with the world. And being a network that's really focused on practice, we are practitioners. We said, we took that idea. And I, when I came back to New York City, and this is where we've been housed, or since we were really launched, we came, I came back to New York City. And I remember thinking, you know, well, what are we waiting for? You know, Jeff has a point there. It's really time for us to have this conference. So in five months, we launched the conference. And when I say we, it started with an idea that I sort of shared with the global members of the MVP, the leaders of different academic institutions were on board. They were offering their assistance, you know, in terms of speakers, in terms of, they were elsewhere in other parts of the world, but, you know, two or three days before the conference was actually to happen, they were willing to, you know, lend their, literally their hands, because this is what I needed. I needed them here physically to help us with this program. And so that is what happened. And then at the same time, SDSN had opened up offices in 2012. And they heard that we were really, because we're in the same building. So we're in different floors, we're in the same building. So at that time, we were sitting at Columbia University in the Center for Sustainable Development. And so SDSN launched in 2012 and they were on the fifth floor, we were on the 10th floor and we talked. We're like cousins that talk about everything that we do. As though they heard about this conference, they were interested and curious. And I remember Lauren Borreto came to my office and Lauren is one of the prime organizers today of ICSC and she said, you know what, why don't we work together on this? And thank goodness, yes, because I was at that time a one-person office. What do you think? Is that what you remembered or? No, absolutely. So my kind of memory of it a little bit was that so many of us were stuck in curriculum development and recruitment that, I mean, I think that there was a feeling that if we're an academic association, you know, one thing you could do is have a conference and we knew the students would do their capstones or thesis or, you know, we'd be writing up their projects and it's just very normal for, you know, people to come together at an academic conference, present their work. So this was nothing radical, actually. It was just saying, instead of at the summits being so involved in curriculum and certain issues, like particularly with the first graduate students coming out, let's have a conference where we can actually celebrate their work and, you know, see what type of impact and research that's actually going on. So that certainly was my memory. And in terms of, it is true at STSN that on the other side, it was, you know, students in a professional program like to think they'll get a job because they're working towards a career path. And of course, STSN in its mandate was to work with corporates and civil society and government folks in the area of sustainable development. And if we were bringing them to a conference and then we also bring the young professionals, well, isn't that a nice way to network and to actually talk about career paths and to talk about, you know, a future role in sustainable development. So I guess that's why STSN were going to be a natural partner, but also STSN, you know, had the capacity to, and Jeff Sachs in particular, had the capacity to bring in world leaders into the plenary. The capacity to rent out spaces here to funds because it's nothing as free, nothing as cheap. And certainly STSN was a good partner from that dimension as well. So that's right. That's so it was a very natural partnership and it always has been for the last 10 years, yeah. So then the first conference was held actually September 6th and 7th, 2013. It was held at Columbia University on the 15th floor. It was a nice spacious room or where we held this first conference. The theme of that conference was advancing evidence-based solutions for the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. And so I would say that kudos to STSN because they did suggest a similar sort of theme. They as an organization were working on, they had like 16 thematic lines and that really, you know, when we spoke to them as our new partners, we decided, you know, that makes sense. Why not? And most of our students had a lot of around the world have been doing research on this topic in one way or the other. So it made sense. And then the first conference we had, like again, we really created it five months. We had 400 people who attended. And to our surprise, and of course a surprise because we, most of them, yes, were MDPs, but we had other people from civil society who were there, governments who were there, private businesses that came and attended, even the U.N. sent some people to attend this conference. So that was almost a nod to us in that, okay, we're doing something right here. We need to continue this. And this is not going to be the last conference. There you recall. Yes. So again, I think one of the benefits being with SDSN was they had a focus on, if you like, the policy line. So obviously, this was a period in the post-25th, like this agenda setting, what would happen after 2015 in terms of the development agenda. And that certainly, again, would have been useful. But I think one of the good things, I don't know whether it happened by accident or it just fit it nicely, is that we've always had the conference in what's called the U.N. General Assembly. And that actually gave a lot of options because leaders of country, top corporates, top civil society people are in town, as they are now. This is generally what's called Unger Week. And Jeff, particularly working with Columbia University, found it raised the easy to move people into our planaries and into our talks. And just to give you, which is quite amazing on the keynote speakers for the first conference was Amina Muhammad. And at the time, she was working here in the Arts Institute with Jeff, had a role in the U.N. But of course now, she's the Deputy Secretary General, completely responsible for the implementation of the SDGs. So we had a lot of foresight there, I guess. And then we also brought in David Donohue, who was a new permanent rep of Ireland to the mission in the U.N. And he was actually the co-pacilitator with Ambassador Kamao Kenya of the SDGs. So basically two of the biggest architects of the SDGs were in the room on that first conference, Amina Muhammad and David Donohue alongside Jeffrey Sachs and they were the keynote. So marvelous keynotes. And I must say, Lucia excelled in terms of the way that room was presented and the food and the hospitality. So it was an absolutely very successful first conference. Yes. And more important, I think, also the commitment, the enthusiasm from the participants, you know, faculty members were really, they were there presenting their research. The students were there presenting their research and feeling really acknowledged for the, you know, experts that they were becoming. So I think that really, that was really good. And then what happened is, you know, after this first conference, we continue every year. We have ICSD and the numbers continue to increase. So from 400 to then 800 to then 1500 to 2000 to this year, 4,000 people have registered for the conference. Of course, there will be dropout, but that's really a very successful number. And one of the things that we have continued since that first conference is, you know, well, to a certain extent, face-to-face, we really like face-to-face conferences because people use this as a networking opportunity. Because of COVID, of course, we went online. But, you know, we're thinking of the face-to-face also to the future. We created a specific website for this conference. We have a handbook on the conference so that the participants that participate in this conference actually can say they, you know, they have their abstracts or even papers in this conference proceedings. So they can see themselves as published members of society. And we also brought on new speakers. Again, as a result of the partnership with SCSN, Kapucinski Lectures, which Paul can probably talk more about them, but they came and they spoke as speakers throughout the years, of course. And one of the things that we have done, and we will do in a little bit, just be a little bit patient, but what we're going to do is really the best papers, selecting those best papers and publishing them again in that conference handbook. So this is like, you know, we're encouraging students to really present. You're presenting, you have opportunities, you have other conferences around the world where you can present. But I think this is the most friendly and encouraging conference where you can do so. And you really feel respected as a professional that you are. What do you think? Yeah, so the, I mean, I think one of the great things that MDP did was we certainly disciplined the conference to be more academic in the sense we wanted these parallel sessions. We want to pay for presentations and posters. And I think a lot of QDOS has to go to the scientific committee over the years who, you know, they're very dedicated to reviewing the papers, chairing the panels, encouraging all the students to go. And I think even in the first conference, I remember Waterloo bringing the water panels. And this has existed for the last 10 years where you really get a top class presentation on water and sustainability from Waterloo, which is one of the MDP programs. But I mean, that was right across the board you had academics dedicated to putting on the program and giving the students an opportunity to present their projects. And I think that we should certainly care for that and look at that very carefully just to keep the old academic peer review and the academic way of doing things. But having said that, you know, when we bring the corporates and the UN leaders and leaders of the country into the hall, the planaries, you know, to actually have to be up to date on what's happening on the global dialogues, potentially have an influence on that. You know, I think it's very interesting and when the students are going for interviews or they're trying to get jobs just to be up to speed with these sort of things and indeed get contacts and be able to do it. So before you go on, I really also want to really re-emphasize what you've said, which is really important. Thank you to the scientific committee members. I mean, it's so true all what you've said because without them, we wouldn't have this conference. I mean, it is them who really, you know, read the abstract, read the papers, organize and facilitate the panels, serve on panels as speakers as well and the planaries. So that is really something I think, I don't know if all the conferences have a scientific committee, but we definitely, ours definitely has been helpful in making ICSEA what it is today. So thank you. So I guess future directions, I think we go back to basics in the sense of what was happening before COVID, but then we're actually going to, it's just so wonderful to have the conference going on 24-7 and virtual and, you know, you see people who would never really make it to New York putting their heart and soul into sessions and chairing sessions and so proud of the certificates of participation that they get and they're very proud of this conference. So I think we have to keep that as well. So we have a bit of thought to do in terms, like the whole world has to think about how to be hybrid, but we certainly have to think about that. I think people want to hear about the best papers on ICSEA has the juries in and here are the best papers for 2022. Yes, and I will definitely get to the best papers, but I just want to say one last thing. I think it's important that we have these regional specific conferences that parallel ICSD. I know that some countries are already starting to do that, but I hope that in the future in our plans, we really think about that and do a little bit more because not everybody, whether we are hybrid or, you know, 100% on the ground, there's not everybody will be able to travel to New York or travel anywhere. So that could be a way of making sure that they remain involved. And then so without much to do, I know everybody is waiting the first, you know, this is, and I'm going to say this is in no particular order of importance. So we have six best papers and the first one is the SDGs and value chains customized solutions for an inclusive global value chain governance by Ms. Lodivica Trippiana and Mr. Luca Osvaldo Uthello. The second theoretical aspects of the development trap in new conditions, Ms. Vera Barinova, Mr. Rob DeMere Potenshishkos and Mr. Alecander Gulov. The third one is passing the baton, understanding the public-private partnership, model of pre-primary education in Mumbai, India by Ms. Pooja Pandai, Ms. Nisha Brnaker, Mr. Avinash Reddy, Dr. Raheela Kodakiwala, and Ms. Sakshi Power. The fourth one, COVID-19 and digital learning in higher education in India, unpacking the inequity in the students' experiences by Dr. Pradeep Kumar Chahari and Mr. Amit Kumar. The fifth one, comparative studies of the impact of U.S. foreign aid on economic development in the Global South, the Middle East and North Africa versus Sub-Saharan Africa by Ms. Cecilia Gomez. And the last one, again, in no particular order of importance, sustainability priorities for modern politics and economics, Dr. Eugene Itaris. Congratulations to all of you for all your hard work. I've read some of these papers. I really enjoy them. So thank you. Thank you for working so hard. Okay, so we've come to the end of this plenary. I hope you enjoyed the keynote from the friends of Art to Art for All, and it looks like an excellent book. And we all need that guidebook or two, in case for how to deal with what's happening with the climate as we live. And I'm delighted to have that conversation about where the ICDs were celebrating 10 years at this conference. So I think I hope you found it useful, because I think myself and Lucie have been true each and every year. So we're very thankful to everyone, and SDSN and NDP in support of that share of the years. And continue to support us. And continue to support us. Thank you. And congrats to people who got the best papers, because the money you get, the best papers go on to excellent careers. And congratulations. They're already in excellent careers, but congratulations. Okay, so thank you. And enjoy the rest of the conference. And we'll see you soon. Bye-bye.


In the framework of RED or Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, MRV is the system for monitoring, reporting and verifying the effectiveness in greenhouse gaseous emission reduction. Then the reference emission labels define a benchmark scenario of greenhouse gaseous emissions that would happen in the absence of a RED project or a RED scheme. Now emission labels are calculated as a combination of what we call activities data and emission factors. So the activity data describes the types of land use changes and is expressed as a surface unit and this information is generally derived from a satellite imagery and the emission factors provide an estimate of greenhouse gaseous emissions for a given activities data. So for instance, if we know that an area is a threat of deforestation, we can assign to this area an emission factor and calculate the greenhouse gaseous emissions. And if this area isn't deforested, we can calculate the avoided greenhouse gaseous emissions. The emissions that would happen in the absence of any mitigation scheme, its reference is a business as usual scenario. So C4 is doing research on MRV and on emission labels, both on activities data and on emission factors. And in Indonesia, most of our research focuses on pitlands. So there are three reasons. The first one is that tropical pitlands are among the largest carbon pools on earth. So when these ecosystems are converted, huge amounts of carbon are released into the atmosphere. The second reason is that Indonesia is one of the countries in the tropics holding the largest area of pitlands and Indonesia is also a country where 80% of national greenhouse gaseous emissions are from land use change, with 50% of this 80% coming from fires and land use change in tropical pitstorm forests. And finally, there are significant gaps in knowledge and in the methods for quantifying carbon losses from land use change in these ecosystems. So when pitstorm forests are converted, we estimate that about 60% to 80% of the emissions come from the pits. Or we have oriented our research in providing details and accurate data on these emissions from the pit. For this, we use a general method which is proposed by the IPCC, which is called the Gain-Loss approach or Input-Output approach. So this method consists in measuring all the fluxes coming into the pit and all the flux is going out of the pit and in calculating the balance. And so to make it simplistic, we could compare this pit carbon stock to a bank account and calculate how much money is saved or lost during the year by making the balance of the transfers in and out of the account. Now if we go back to the pit, so the main carbon inputs to the pit are from litrefall and root mortality. And the carbon goes out of the pit through pit decomposition, fires, methane emissions and soluble and physical removals. In this specific project, so the three PhD students are focusing their research on one or two of these fluxes across one of the most common land use change types that we find here in Indonesia, which is pits from forest conversion to old plantations. So Sebastien Perche is quantifying carbon inputs through root mortality. Louis-Pierre Comot is assessing how much carbon is entering through litrefall and how much carbon is lost through pit decomposition. And Jody Hartle is measuring the fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide and also the losses through soluble and physical removal. In their natural state, these ecosystems are waterlogged, so you have a very low decomposition rate of the organic matter. So it accumulates and that's how the pilt builds over millennia. And once you drain it, you reverse the situation and the carbon that has been accumulated starts decomposing and emitted as CO2 or methane. So Indonesia is one of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and as I said, a great part of these emissions are from the pit. So climate change mitigation schemes in Indonesia should therefore focus on protecting these pits from forests. However, the implementation of such schemes depends on the supply of reliable greenhouse gases estimates. Especially for a scheme like red, which aims at protecting forests, it's very important. So now these estimates of reference emission levels and our potential estimates of avoided greenhouse gases emissions are not appropriate, so it's urgent now and it's very important to provide better estimates of these fluxes. So at C4, we are now four scientists involved in the writing of a new chapter for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gases Inventories, so this chapter is specific for wetlands. In the different chapters, there was a section specific for pit soils, but actually these ecosystems are so specific that they require a chapter for themselves, I mean not only repeat, but also you have other rich soils, carbon-rich soils like mangrove soils. We were able to provide emission factors for pits from forest conversion to both old Palmenakesha plantations. And now with the research that is going on on the ground in Berbak, but we are also starting some new research in Tajung Poutine in Kalimantan, we will be able to refine these estimates for the conversion to all palm plantations. And then we have also recently released an emission factor for the emissions of nitrous oxide following nitrogen application in all palm plantations on pit. So yeah, usually when we monitor the greenhouse gases from an ecosystem, we monitor carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. And so methane and nitrous oxide are very important because their global warming potential or their capacity in heating the atmosphere is respectively 25 and 300 times more powerful than CO2. So that's on one hand, on the other hand, their concentrations in the atmosphere is much lower. But in cases of agricultural systems where we have high nitrogen inputs, we can have high emissions of nitrous oxide. So we need to make sure that these are not too high, there are ways to reduce them by reducing the fertilization without reducing the productivity of the systems, actually. We are investigating this now in all palm plantations on pit because when the land has been recently cleared, opened, the soil is very poor in nitrogen. So actually the fertilization rate is quite high for allowing the palms to develop well. And so during these three, four years, we may have significant emissions of nitrous oxide. After that, they can reduce the nitrogen application because the nitrogen which is in the pit is becoming more available for the plant. So they can reduce the application. But still there is fertilization and there are emissions of nitrous oxide. In terms of pitlands, I think especially after land use change, the big story is about CO2 because the soil is completely changing of state from a water load condition to a drain condition and then this speeds up the decomposition as CO2. It's challenging to work in these virgin ecosystems, which are usually located in remote areas. So it's difficult to access through the rivers, through the swamp. And we also have to face the local biodiversity with the tigers, the snakes, the orangutans and the monkeys. But it's also challenging because there is a lot to learn about, a lot to discover. And we are really looking forward to verify our research hypothesis.


Remote sensing imagery can be used to monitor and map changes in urban areas due to population growth and urbanization. However, current indices have limitations in distinguishing between built-up and bare land. A new index, called the Enhanced Built-up and Bareness Index, EBBI, was developed to overcome these limitations by combining NIR, SWIR, and TIR bands. The EBBI was tested on images from Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, and found to be more accurate than five other indices in distinguishing between built-up and bare land. This article was authored by Iwayen Artana, ABD Rahman S. Syacher, Iwayen Sandy Adniana, and others.


Hello and happy half-term. Now, in this series of videos that I'm going to be releasing, I'm going to be doing some special half-term revision videos covering different areas of both English language and literature, especially for those of you in year 11, because remember that now this is the countdown.  Okay, so of course, these half-term lessons are basically meant to show you how to write grade 8, grade 9 model responses, but also to show you how you can really maximise your time, especially as your holidays get shorter and the time towards your GCSE is near. So in this particular revision session, I will be looking at how to write a response to the 2021 Macbeth exam. Okay, so this is the question that came up in the 2021 exams and more specifically, this question presents you with a scene from Act 2, Scene 2 and it asks you to comment and to write about the relationship of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Now, today's revision video will be slightly different to my usual ones in terms of the approach that I take, because a lot of you guys have always been saying, okay, Barbara, it's great, you know, you've been showing us how to do grade 9 model answers, but for those of us who just want to really maximise on our time, we don't necessarily have the ability to perhaps write five paragraphs to try and aim for the four marks. How can we still try to aim and write really good responses, which are grade 7 and grade 8 levels? Okay, so what I'm going to be showing you how to do is to still try to push yourself, but how you can write less, i.e. four paragraphs, which would still secure you a grade 8, which is equivalent of an A in your final GCSE. So let's get started. So now remember, when it comes to the Macbeth portion of your exam, you always have 50 minutes to answer the Macbeth question. Okay, so remember you've got 50 minutes to answer this particular question. Subdivide it into the following. Spend around 10 minutes planning, around 35 minutes writing, and then spend the remaining five minutes just quickly checking if you have made any obvious spelling errors, etc. etc. That's how I would suggest allocating your time to this portion of the exam. So let's have a look at the 2021 Macbeth exam question and how it was worded. As I mentioned, it is taken from Act 2, Scene 2 within Macbeth. Okay, you always get the extract given to you, and then you're asked to not only talk about the extract, but then also elsewhere in the play as a whole. So let's have a look at what came up within this particular extract. Let's read through it and then look at the question. So this point in the play Macbeth has murdered Duncan and returned to Lady Macbeth. Okay, so we know that this is a scene whereby Macbeth has just killed King Duncan, and we should know based on our own knowledge of the play that at this stage is really shaken. Macbeth, may thought I heard a voice cry, sleep no more. Macbeth does murder sleep. So this is really, really powerful. Make sure, of course, as I'm doing, you're reading this with your highlighter intact.  Basically what Macbeth is saying here is that I'm super traumatized after having killed the king. I don't think I'll ever be able to sleep again. How does his wife respond, Lady Macbeth? What do you mean? So she's kind of confused. She's saying, why are you so shaken up? Macbeth, still a cry, sleep no more to all the house. Glamis had murdered sleep and therefore Caudal shall sleep no more. Macbeth shall sleep no more. So he's basically saying, look, I am absolutely horrified at what I've done, having killed the king. And I just don't feel like I'll be able to sleep again because I'm so haunted by my actions. Lady Macbeth, who was it that thus cried? Why were they thin? You do unbend your noble strength to think so brainlessly of things. Go, get some water and wash this filthy witness from your hands. So Lady Macbeth here is already telling him, look, you're thinking too much into it. And then she's commanding him. She's saying, go, just wash your hands. You'll be fine. Okay. So of course, we can already see that there's a massive power dynamic between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth basically is telling him what to do. Macbeth is the one that's really shaken. Why do you bring these daggers to the place? They must lie there. Go carry them and smear the sleepy grooms with blood. So Macbeth has come back with the evidence and Lady Macbeth is saying, look, take it back to King Duncan's room and put it on his guards. Macbeth, I'll go no more. I'm afraid to think what I've done. Look on it again. I dare not. So Macbeth says, nope, no way. Lady Macbeth, in firm of purpose. So she's just saying, what rubbish? Give me the daggers. The sleeping in the dead of butters pictures. Because the eye of childhood that fares a painted devil. So this is really, really powerful. What she's basically saying here is that Macbeth, you're actually a scary cat.  And it's only children who are scared of scary pictures. If he do bleed, I'll gild the faces of the grooms with all for it must seem their guilt.  Dead bodies just look like still pictures, still shots of people and only children are scared of pictures. So she's mocking Macbeth's fear of seeing King Duncan's dead body again, as well as his sleeping grooms, and grooms meaning gods. And she says, look, I'm just going to do it myself. I'm going to put all the blood on these grooms and make it look as if they were the ones that committed this crime. So that's the extract that we're given. Now, we should always anticipate. So if you are revising for Macbeth, you should always anticipate, of course, you're going to get a question with an extract. You have to answer the question based on the extract. But of course, you also have to talk about elsewhere in the play, you need to show your awareness of other parts of the play. So starting with this conversation, keywords, explore how Shakespeare presents the relationships we're looking for keywords here between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. And we're asked to write about how Shakespeare presents a relationship in the extract. And how Shakespeare presents a relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in the play as a whole. Now, as I mentioned, guys, going to be taking a slightly different tact today with this particular lesson. I'm going to be showing you a way more simplified way of putting together your essay to still try and secure a grade eight. Okay, so this is not going to be a grade nine essay, but still grade eight is a territory. And if I were to approach this question, and especially when I'm answering and planning this, okay, so this is the initial 10 minutes of planning, how would I approach it? If I were to go for grade eight, I would literally focus in terms of structuring my essay on selecting two points from the play. Okay, so two quotations from the play related to the relationship of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as a whole. But then two additional points from elsewhere in the play so that I am addressing both bullet points. Okay, remember, each bullet point is worth half of the overall marks, we've got 30 marks, and of course, four extra marks, but really focus on the 30 marks, and therefore see each bullet point is worth 50 marks roughly. If you only talk about the extract, you're limiting yourself to 15 marks. And of course, if you don't put enough from the players, the whole you're limiting yourself. Okay, so I would suggest take two things from the extract and two things from elsewhere. But of course, also remember when you are answering this question, you need to show your awareness of general themes that Shakespeare is trying to reinforce within the play and in relation to this question, and of course, context. So here we are asked to focus on how is the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth shown. Clearly from this extract, we can see who's in charge. It's Lady Macbeth. Their relationship is inverted. Traditionally, especially during this period, the Jacobean era. Okay, so now this is context, the Jacobean era. Men and husbands were seen as in charge of the home. They were the ones that were commanding the wives to do whatever they wanted them to do, whilst it's the wives that were supposed to be submissive. However, here we can clearly see Lady Macbeth is taken on this more traditional role, whilst Macbeth is the one that's submissive. She's the one that's telling him, she's even mocking him whilst he's the one that's shocked at the site of blood and so on. So what would I select? My first point would probably be related to what Macbeth keeps on repeatedly alluding to, which is to do with sleep. Okay, so here he keeps on saying, sleep no more, Macbeth does murder sleep, the repetition. Okay, and this is a structural technique. Of course, remember, when you're answering these questions, you need to make sure you're alluding to both language and structure. So I would mention sleep, the fact that he's so haunted by what he sees. And in contrast to him, his wife is totally fine because she asks him almost like quite blasé, right? So she has this monosyllabic response. Monosyllabic means like quick syllables. You can say one word in just one clap. Okay, so her monosyllabic response. What do you mean? There's a massive contrast in their power. Okay, so we can see here that contextually, so I'd probably make a context point here. Okay, so this would be in relation to my first point, the inverted relationship in the extract. And of course, what I would mention in relation to context is this is atypical. So it's not normal in Jacobean relationships and Jacobean marriages even. Lady Macbeth's forward nature, the way she's, you know, assertive and quite composed, especially in relation to death, this would have shocked a lot of Jacobean people. And of course, also the fact that she has so much control even over her husband would have been really, really shocking. Now, I'll then just select another part of the text to talk about and especially how Lady Macbeth addresses him. Okay, the way she speaks to him. Once more, we can see that she's clearly the mastermind within their relationship. She's the one that spearheads and really, really guides how they commit the murder and how they rise to power and especially here, where she's speaking to him, she speaks to him in this imperative sentence in this command sentence, give me the daggers. Okay, so this is an imperative sentence. That's a structural point. But then also she says, the sleeping the dead butters pictures to the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil. Here she's speaking using an extended metaphor.  And what this illustrates so here, because I've talked about context, I'll probably mention theme. This illustrates how completely corrupted Lady Macbeth is with ambition. Okay, so we can see here that she's totally corrupt. She's quite brutal. She's quite blood thirsty. But she is the one who makes Macbeth and influences Macbeth to become just as equally blood thirsty as she is. Okay, so from the second part of the extract, I'll specifically mention Lady Macbeth and specifically how she is so ambitious that she is blood thirsty. Okay, and of course, here, I'm going to tie it to the theme of ambition. Okay, so this is my very, very basic plan that I'm going to be writing. These are the two points related to the extract. But of course, I've got to think about what else I will talk about from the play as a whole. I think also to reinforce how inverted the relationship is, even much earlier in the play, Macbeth initially hesitates, he refuses to kill the king. And he says, we will proceed no further in this business. He basically tells Lady Macbeth, look, I know I'd agreed initially to kill the king, but I've changed my mind. I'm not going to kill him. And then she says, what? When you just do it, then you were a man. In other words, she manipulates him into killing the king by saying, if you don't kill the king, I'm not going to see you as a man. And she speaks using these powerful, alliterative terms, right? Durst and do it. But to make him feel easily manipulated into wanting to prove his masculinity. Now, of course, what this is illustrating, again, is that Lady Macbeth is extremely ambitious, just quite controlling. And this led contextually, so to make another context point here, they said a lot of Jacobean people to see her as not being a typical woman, women are supposed to not be ambitious, they're supposed to just really dot on their husbands, listen to what the husband said. And so a lot of Jacobeans called her the fourth witch. So I'd mentioned that as my third point from elsewhere in the play and then my fourth and final point from elsewhere in the play would be well after this occurs in act five, where we see there's now a distance that grows between them. Lady Macbeth on the one hand grows crazy. Macbeth increasingly sidelines her. He becomes completely corrupted with his ambition. He also becomes very paranoid. And he even he becomes so distant from her. So rather than seeing her as somebody who he can confide in, he becomes certainly distant. He doesn't realize she goes crazy and he doesn't he's not even present when she dies. And when she's when he is told that she has died, Macbeth kind of annoyed me. He's quite irritated. He says she should have died hereafter. She should have died hereafter. What he's saying here in other words is how knowing that she decided to die at this stage. I'm right in the middle of a war. This is when now there's the war that Macduff Malcolm lead against him. And he says, I wish you should have chosen a better time to commit suicide, right? Once more, we can see that in contrast to earlier on and of course in contrast to even what we see here where Macbeth really kind of follows exactly what Lady Macbeth is telling him what to do.  And even he says, you know, there would have been time for such a word. And what this is illustrating is Macbeth now grows indifferent to his wife, Lady Macbeth, okay? And what this is illustrating and I'm probably going to talk about the theme of the supernatural is how the supernatural has completely corrupted him and consumed him. It's made him paranoid, cruel, he's become a tyrant and he doesn't even care about his wife, okay? So this is my quick plan that I'll draw up if I were to answer this particular 2021 exam questions. So not going to waste any time and as I mentioned guys, this is going to be written at grade eight level. So we're going to cut away everything else. We're going to just dive straight into paragraphs one, two, three and four, no intro and no conclusion. And usually when I'm going through especially the grade nine essays, I always suggest intro three points from the extract, two points from elsewhere before you conclude. However, we're going to cut away all of that but I still will show you how you can still write really powerful grade eight response, okay? So I'm going to start off and this is the 2021 AQA exam, okay? So this is Macbeth, the 2021 exam model answer starting off with this initial point and I'm going to relate it to this idea of ambition and how their relationship is presented as inverted. Right, so let's have a look at this first point, okay? So this is of course in relation to the first point that I'll be raising relating to the extract, okay? The inverted relationship. I'm using the peel paragraph structure. All my paragraphs are always written using the peel format, point, evidence, explanation, links. So I'm going to walk you through how I've put together this first paragraph. Firstly, it's evident that Lady Macbeth's relationship, see Lady Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship seems inverted. It's inside out, back to front. That's what I'm saying in my opening point, but I'm not done. To be sure, they go against the conventional Jacobian relationship whereby the husband was dominant and the wife and his wife was submissive. Here in my opening point I have made it really clear that number one, in relation to the question, so I'll keep on referring back to the keywords within the question, I'm making it clear to my examiner that I know how to answer the question and know what the question requires of me. I'm basically saying that the relationship seems inverted and it goes against how typical relationships were at the time. Macbeth is the submissive one, whilst his wife is the one that seems dominant. Now moving on to the first E of my pill paragraph, the evidence. Macbeth seems shaken after Kill's King Duncan as he cries, he will, evidence, I'm embedding the evidence, sleep no more, Macbeth does murder sleep. His wife simply replies, what do you mean? So of course I've quoted these three separate bits of evidence and I've embedded them. Here's my explanation where I'm going to include context. Shakespeare repeats sleep to emphasise how shaken and emotional Macbeth seems, yet Lady Macbeth's monosyllabic replies reveals she dominates their marriage. Contextually, this is how to include context. Jacobians would have been surprised at how assertive and composed Lady Macbeth is. They would have equally been shocked at how shaken Macbeth seemed. So here I'm making it really clear firstly that their relationship is quite inverted, clarifying that, I'm also including techniques really, really vital to including your writing, but I'm then also mentioning that from a Jacobean perspective, so this is Shakespeare's audience at the time, this would have been really, really shocking. Their relationship would almost have been unacceptable. So now here's the final L in my pill paragraph, okay I've opened up my point, evidence I explained and added context. Now here's the link linking back to the keywords in the question. Hence, Macbeth seems evidently dominated by his wife, who appeared to direct all his actions after killing the king. This is relating it back to their relationship. That's my first point, but of course I'm not done with the extract as of yet, so I need to now talk about how their relationship seems to be very, very heavily dominated with Lady Macbeth and she speaks to him, you know, using this imperative language and she's just very, very ambitious and of course I'm going to tie this into the theme of ambition. Right, let's go over the second paragraph. This is going to be the second and final paragraph in relation to the extract itself. Additionally, it's evident that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's relationship is dominated by Lady Macbeth, okay so of course I'm relating it back to the keywords and then the question. In fact, she is the mastermind behind the plot to kill King Duncan. She becomes impatient with his lamenting. Lamenting means that he's really, really sad, I can't believe I did this. So she becomes impatient with his lamenting and she takes the lead when returning the daggers to King Duncan's room. That's my opening point, I've made it really, really clear who dominates the relationship and how the relationship is presented to us. Now here's the evidence, the first E in my peel paragraph. She furiously tells Macbeth to evidence, give me the daggers, before mocking him by asserting that, the sleeping in the dead abut his pictures. That's my evidence. Shakespeare, now this is my explanation where I'm now going to include the theme of ambition. Shakespeare just picks her speaking in an imperative sentence to show how much he dominates Macbeth. The metaphor pictures illustrates how unmoved she is by dead bodies. Shakespeare uses a character to pick the theme of ambition as she is so corrupted by her lust and thirst for power that she becomes insensitive to her husband and even the sight of death. That's my explanation where I not only talk about the use of structure, imperative sentence and language metaphor but I equally tie it to theme. Now this is the link. Consequently it's clear that Lady Macbeth controls her relationship or their relationship even, so it becomes clear that she controls their relationship. She uses her husband as her tool to attain power. That's the second point and of course it's the final point from the extract itself. Now that I'm done with this first bullet point I'll then move on to now my two additional points related to elsewhere in the play as a whole. You will be limiting your marks if you don't do that so make sure you have at least two points from elsewhere in the play. So I'm going to move on to my third appeal paragraph and this is to do with elsewhere in the play. So now let's look at the third point relating to elsewhere in the play. Moreover earlier in the play Macbeth is depicted as being manipulated by Lady Macbeth. When he refuses to kill King Duncan Lady Macbeth cleverly controls him by questioning his masculinity. This leads Macbeth to murder the king in order to prove himself to her. That's the opening point showing and relating to how their relationship is presented but earlier on beyond the extract. Even if Macbeth, now this is the evidence even if Macbeth attempts to assert his control when he claims we will proceed no further Lady Macbeth rebuffs him so she says no. She tells him when you dust do it then you're a man. So that's now my evidence again I'm juxtaposing Macbeth versus Lady Macbeth he's trying to assert his power but then she says no I'm not listening. Her alliterative language now this is her use of alliteration when she harshly forces him to dust do it reveals a stark power dynamic. She is shrewd which means clever and she realizes that she can control Macbeth by questioning his manhood. This led many Jacobians now here I'm adding some context to view her as the fourth witch in the play. She ran contrary to the expectations of women as wives were expected to be passive and submissive. Her controlling nature led many to see her as unnatural and evil so now that's my explanation where I've delved deeper into both language techniques that Shakespeare uses but equally context. Now this is the final link thus I learned the play it is abundantly evident that Lady Macbeth controlled Macbeth in their relationship. I'll make a quick link back to the question so I'm now going to move on to my second and final elsewhere in the play paragraph okay so obviously it's going to be my fourth and final paragraph but this is the second elsewhere in the play paragraph remember that you need to try to aim one answer in this question this Macbeth question to go for at least two paragraphs for the play as a whole. So I'm now going to talk about how Macbeth is really indifferent to her he doesn't really care that she's you know and become sick and this is because he becomes completely corrupted with ambition so this is now the final paragraph. So this is the fourth and final paragraph for this essay. Finally as the play develops we witness a sudden shift in their relationship. As Macbeth becomes more consumed with his need for power he grows distant to Lady Macbeth by act five he's so distant that he seems indifferent to her death that's my opening point showing now a shift in their relationship. When Satan tells him that Lady Macbeth committed suicide he sharply states she should have died here after that's my evidence this declarative sentence is astounding unlike earlier in the play where Macbeth deeply cared for his wife by this point he seems distant and indifferent he's now so paranoid and focused on maintaining power that he casts his wife aside. Shakespeare uses this to warn his audience of the dangers of trust in the supernatural so now here I'm going from this declarative sentence to talking about the theme of the supernatural. He uses the theme of the supernatural to illustrate how trusting in the witches can completely corrupt someone. Macbeth's trust in the witches made him become a paranoid tyrannical king who did not care for his wife that's my explanation okay where I've now added the theme of the supernatural and of course I mentioned declarative sentence which is a structure point now this is my link hence the relationship between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth completely crumbles by act five once Macbeth is consumed of power he grows distant from his wife so that is how I would suggest you can put together a really really strong a really solid grade eight paragraph in four separate points okay rather a grade a essay in four separate paragraphs just quickly recap we looked at this particular Macbeth question which is part of the 2021 exam so this is really how if you don't have time to do the intro three points from the extract two points from also end conclusion you can still go for your grade eight or at the very least a high grade seven right so let's say you only have enough time to just do the three paragraphs that I would argue it's still going to give you a very good solid grade seven okay but of course as you can see you still need to layer in a lot of detail and a lot of depth in each of your paragraphs so that's all for now thank you so much for listening and do come back to tomorrow's lesson we're going to be looking at the 2021 unseen poetry


I want to hear you do this before you say it, okay? I'm Rachel Reid and I'm a speech language pathologist at Genesis Early Learning. Let's start on a stick! Phonemic awareness is the awareness of the parts of speech. So, for example, being aware that words are made up of syllables or that words are made up of different sounds. That word's rhyme. Those kinds of concepts are phonemic awareness. Good job! It can be tricky at times because it's kind of a cognitive abstract concept for kids. So we try to make it visual a lot of times. So, for example, in the class we were working on the sound. So we used a visual gesture inside a snake and tried to make it visual for the children. Also, when we were trying to work on syllable awareness, we clapped out the syllables. So we used our bodies to be aware of the different parts of words. And we also visually represented the syllables with sticks or with blocks to help the children. Oh, that's crazy!  So we had a straw and a snake and a strawberry, lots of different things that we gathered. And then we highlighted the sound as they said it. So we said, look, a snake! And then the children had a chance to practice the word too, and they would say, oh, a snake! And we all focused on using our sound. We called it our sound or our snake sound. Every object as we pulled it out just repeated that sound over and over again for the children. Get your clapping hands ready? The second area for phonemic awareness was syllable awareness. So we were reading the story, the Very Hungry Caterpillar. As we came across the different foods that the caterpillar was eating, we clapped out each of the foods to become aware of the syllables in the fruit. So when the Very Hungry Caterpillar ate an apple, then we said, OK. Apple, let's clap it out. And we all clapped together, apple. And discovered there were two parts to that word. There was one little girl we were working on the F sound. And so we played in the kitchen together, so very natural play environment. I was using the strategy Focus Practice. So I was attempting to highlight the F sound for her as many times as I could during that play time. So Focus Practice is a strategy where the whole goal is repetition. We were flipping pancakes. And as we flipped them, we said, flip, flip, flip, flip, flip. So we're practicing over and over that sound. So when you work broad-based, you target the whole class. And every child is benefiting. Also, we find when we pull children out and work with them one-on-one to the side, they might not have carryover into other environments. Whereas if we work in the classroom and work with all the children together, their skills are already transferring. They're already in the environment where they need to use their skills.


One of my videos that got the most responses is about being in a mental hole this feeling that There's nothing to look forward to in life.  That's the entire range of possibility of your life But then when you're outside the hole Then you see while there's other things that when I was in the hole. I didn't realize they were there So seems like a something that I like to remind myself I get into a bad mental state that There's always more Outside that state But I got a lot of the comments that I got were people saying I'm in a hole my entire life And I'll never get out Yeah, what can I say in that situation? I mean, I don't believe it. I don't believe that Anybody can really know that they're going to be in a mental hole forever How do you know? but at the same time What kind of things that can I say that will not just sound like a platitude Now these kind of positive thinking platitudes.  So so I don't know what to say. Of course, you know, we hear somebody having a bad mental state being very negative very have very negative appraisal of their lives and Their hope for the future just feeling this you know the expressing this like feeling of despondency and hopelessness and What do we say in that situation? so The best that I can come up with is what I call the minimalist platitudes. So it's a platitude But I don't want to have any kind of fake Message of things will things will get better because I don't know if they'll get better, you know You know, just look on the bright side. Well, maybe you can't find any bright side so I don't want to give any kind of Imagine false hope when I really don't know the situation even though I believe that there is always hope in any situation and The most minimal thing I can say is that Your chances are Non-zero the chances of your life getting better are non-zero your chances of improving your situation Non-zero, that's all I can say. I'm pretty sure that's true. I don't know how far above zero You know in some extreme cases they may even be Down there near zero, but I can say With complete honesty that I believe the chances of your life improving are non-zero. So it's a very minimal limited statement that I can honestly stand behind that I believe it no matter how extreme the situation and That's what I would suggest to anybody in that dark mental state in the mental hole That the chances of it getting better are not zero I You don't need to necessarily know appraise the situation and decide whether you're you know above 50% chance or whatever. It's just I don't know what's going to happen, but There is a real chance that things will get better. I don't know But it is always possible and that I consider to be the minimalist platitude