#307      34 min 04 sec
Firm hand: Corporations and their behaviour in conflict zones

Political scientist Assoc Prof Virginia Haufler explains how business corporations can reduce the negative impact of their presence, and even build resilience, in the conflict-affected communities and countries in which they operate. Presented by Lynne Haultain.

"The UN Global Compact has been working on business in conflict issues now for 14 and a half years. They continue to expand what they do." -- Assoc Prof Virginia Haulfer




Assoc Prof Virginia Haufler
Prof Virginia Haufler

Associate Professor Virginia Haufler is the Director of both Global Communities and Graduate Placement in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland.

Dr Haufler’s work focuses on global governance - how issues and actors are governed without the existence of a global government, particularly multinational corporations interaction with states, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations.

She is affiliated with the Harrison Program on the Future Global Agenda, and the Center for International Development and Conflict Management, and was also a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, directing a project on the role of the private sector in international affairs.

As a leading academic in this field, Dr Haufler has consulted to the UN and other NGOs, and is the co-author of Enabling Economies of Peace - Public Policy for Conflict-Sensitive Business, commissioned by the UN Global Compact.  She serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, the Advisory Committee of the OEF Foundation, and the Expert Committee of the Principles for Responsible Investment.  She is also a long-standing member of Women in International Security (WIIS), a non-profit supporting women’s careers in international affairs.

Credits

Host: Lynne Haultain
Producers: Eric van Bemmel, Kelvin Param
Audio Engineer: Gavin Nebauer
Voiceover: Nerissa Hannink
Series Creators: Kelvin Param and Eric van Bemmel

View Tags  click a tag to find other episodes associated with it.

 Download mp3 (31.1 MB)

VOICEOVER 
This is Up Close, the research talk show from the University of Melbourne, Australia. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Hi, I’m Lynne Haultain. Welcome to Up Close.  The world is shrinking and corporations are growing, with lots of them now turning over more than the Gross Domestic Product of many individual countries. As companies march into all corners of the globe, we often hear about the impact of conflict on large corporates active in high tension areas. Episodes of kidnapping, production plants and mines being taken over and the likes of supply lines and exports being disrupted Well, these are not uncommon when companies operate in conflict zones. 
But what about the impact of companies on the likelihood and the severity of conflict? What part can corporations play in reducing the negative impacts of their presence, and even going further and building the resilience of the countries in which they’re working? This is an area which has received increasing attention over the last decade or so, and at the forefront is political scientist Virginia Haufler, who is Associate Professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, and co-author of “Public Policy for Conflict Sensitive Business”, which was commissioned by the UN Global Compact. Virginia is in Melbourne as a guest of the University of Melbourne’s School of Social and Political Sciences. Many thanks for joining us on Up Close. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Thank you. I’m very happy to be here today. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Virginia, corporations are to many the elephant in the room here, in developing countries at least. They’re present increasingly; they can have an enormous impact socially, politically, environmentally. But they’re not particularly engaged in the process of development, of making those countries stronger, more robust, more self-sustaining, are they?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
It really varies a lot by company and by industry and by country. So companies are going to invest in a country if that country already is developing. That’s their favourite place to go. Although I should pause here and say that most companies go into the United States, Europe and Japan. But increasingly they are going everywhere in the world. So they are going to more weakly governed countries and in those areas their entry can have a huge impact on society. Some companies are becoming much more sensitive - probably not enough companies, but some are - to the need to engage with local communities, and to ensure that to the degree they can they don’t have negative effects on the surrounding communities. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So let’s talk about that. Where has this come from, this movement to actually engage? Is it out of corporate social responsibility? What are the drivers that are pushing companies to take that step?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Well, I think there’s a number of drivers. Part of it is the activism of very effective advocacy groups. They’re operating increasingly across national boundaries, forming coalitions sometimes of hundreds of organisations and bringing a lot of influence to bear, and increasingly viewing anti-corporate campaigns as an important instrument for them in obtaining more sustainable practices and a variety of things that we would label better corporate social responsibility. So part of it is simply the ability of activists to be more effective on the global stage and to set these agendas in front of us. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So there’s activism and then there’s the non-government organisations and others that also tread similar territory?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Well, when I think of non-governmental organisations, I’m typically talking about the activist ones in this context. They’re the ones that are launching the campaigns against companies, and increasingly putting in front of corporate leaders the demand that they uphold the norms of society. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Whose society?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Ah, that’s always the question. For many of them, they operate within the context of say UN principles on human rights, democracy, social justice. In fact, many of them are labelled, or collectively they are labelled, the social justice movement. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
There are a few other elements in here I would think, in that there is together with the activity of the NGOs the spotlight of shareholder activism and interest in their home countries, and the spotlight of multinational media, which is watching closely. Are those drivers too?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Those are, and they are certainly leveraged by the activists. So the socially responsible investment funds and investors, they didn’t come out of nowhere. They didn’t suddenly emerge. It was in part due to pressure from those same activist groups. In fact, it was very systematic on the part of some of these groups to target the financial sector as a point of leverage over companies, at least the publicly held companies. And so part of why we get this expansion in socially responsible investment funds is linked to the larger corporate accountability movement. But of course, those investment funds would not go anywhere unless there were people willing to invest. That’s sort of the other part of it. The activists and the media are bringing these issues to the attention of consumers and investors, and that’s the ultimate leverage over companies. It’s their market, it’s their investors, it’s their financiers and it’s their buyers. So we can talk today about a consumer responsibility movement in which you and I, through our decisions on what to purchase, and whether to take into account these larger social issues in our purchases, that’s leverage over the companies. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So we’ve seen the proliferation of things like certifications on the environment and on workers’ rights, those sorts of things. Are they part of this picture as well?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Yes. So there’s a lot of mechanisms out there that people have been experimenting with. And here I should point out that it is often companies and non-governmental organisations partnering on developing these systems. Certification is certainly one aspect of that, and many times it’s the strongest mechanism out there. Because if you certify something as living up to particular standards, the best systems have a third party come in and audit it to make sure that the company really is doing what it says it is. And so that’s not law, it’s not government backed regulation, and yet it has a fair amount of force. 
Beyond that there’s a lot of softer mechanisms. There’s corporate codes, where a company lays out what it sees as its own norms, principles and standards and best practices. There’s due diligence, and that has to do with company relationships with other companies. Are you dealing with bad people? Are your suppliers and partners responsible also? There are a variety of reporting mechanisms. And in fact, the Global Reporting Initiative has standardised a lot of the different environmental and social standards into one reporting practice that companies are increasingly adopting to be transparent about their commitments.

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So this has all grown up very fast, hasn’t it? I mean, how long ago did we start to put this in some sort of focus?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
It’s hard to say what the turning point was. If we go back a couple of decades, the anti-apartheid campaign clearly was one of the first and most prominent attempts to leverage corporate behaviour to get political change. So that in some ways is a model. But a lot of environmental initiatives in this sustainability field really emerged in the, I’d say late 80s, 1990s. Then it simply became deeper and more expansive over the last decade or so, even despite the financial crisis when a lot of people thought under the pressures of competition and economic retreat companies would withdraw from what some think of as an extra cost or an extra effort. But most indications are that companies - they assume that corporate social responsibility of some sort will be part of their policies. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Let’s have a quick look at the apartheid example, because it’s a really interesting one. It takes us back what, about 30 or 40 years. There was major international political response to that too. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Yes. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
I mean, certainly here in Australia and in a number of other countries there were government imposed sanctions. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Yes. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
And that was seen as an extremely clear and definitive response to the regime in South Africa. We’re not seeing that so much any longer, are we?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Well, certainly when you look at conflicts in the 1990s, UN sanctions were a big part of it. The UN imposed sanctions on Liberia, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola. So sanctions didn’t disappear. They really are a part of this current move towards a business role in conflict. But the thing is they appeared to fail. Even the United Nations commissioned an expert group to examine sanctions in the 1990s and in the year 2000. That expert group, under the heading of Robert Fowler, issued what became known as the Fowler Report, which detailed sanctions busting by everyone, and really demonstrated the degree to which the sanctions were not attaining the goals that people wanted them to attain.

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So there’s a failure here in terms of the old tactics?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Yes. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So there is a flourishing of new mechanisms, as you’ve described. But they tend to be from a number of new players. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Well, it is in the context of failures by the United Nations and the United States and Europe in the realm of sanctions and peacekeeping in the 1990s. You have Angola going through a decade of civil war; Sierra Leone, the horrific use of child soldiers. The reports coming out of a lot of places in Africa really generated a lot of concern by people motivated by humanitarian impulses that something had to happen. Increasingly they started looking at corporations and global trade in the context of growing globalisation. How do markets play into the conflicts, and if there is a market for resources that are financing conflict, is there some way we can cut off access to those markets?

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Which is a strand of the conversation that we’ll get to in a moment. I’m Lynne Haultain and you’re listening to Up Close. In this episode I’m discussing the role of corporations in conflict, especially in developing countries, with political scientist Virginia Haufler. Virginia, just to finish defining our terms if you like, conflict is one thing - and you’ve described Sierra Leone, the Congo and Rwanda and the like. And they were bitter, bloody, awful events. But it would seem to me that corporations are also active in places that are perhaps a little tense but not at that level. So how broad is this effort around what’s described as conflict sensitive business practice?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
I would say it’s pretty broad. The idea behind that phrase, of conflict sensitive business practices, is that any time a foreign investor enters a country or expands operations in a country they’re already in, they should consider not just the risk to them and their operations but how their operations pose risks for the local community. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
I think we would all have pictures in our minds of the sort of disruption or distortions that corporations can have, but can you take us through a few of the key ones that have been evident?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
When a company comes in, especially a big company, it varies by what kind of industry we’re talking about. But the most disruptive tend to be extractive companies. When they come in, everyone’s looking to them for employment, for generating economic growth. There’s a lot of demands on the company to provide services and public goods that a lot of these weakly governed states don’t have. Many times the company is the most effective institution in that country. So the expectations are pretty big for these companies. So when we think about how they can behave in a conflict sensitive manner, we want the company to ensure they’re not complicit in human rights violations, that if it’s an unstable country that when they provide for their own security that they do it in a way that does not create its own violence, and that it’s not undermining the local community. We want them to be transparent and in dialogue with the people that are surrounding their operations: their employees, the local town. So a lot of different ways that people conceive of corporations behaving in conflict sensitive fashion, it gets into the day to day operations of the company. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
From which there are always winners and losers. I should imagine that under old practices, corporations became very adept at managing what might be fairly corrupt practices or locally administered approaches, with kickbacks or whatever, in order to get their business done. That benefitted a few probably to the detriment of the many, but it was an established practice. So has there been evidence of discomfort and rejection of a change of approach from major corporations, where the previous winners no longer do?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
That’s a tough one to answer through generalisation. I should point out a couple of things when it comes to corruption. Number one, many governments did not consider it to be anything other than regular business practice, and so companies could write this off on their taxes in some countries. The United States was the first country that really said no, it’s against the law for any American company to bribe foreign officials. That has now actually been expanded, and there are now international agreements against corruption so that governments have changed, not just companies. It creates a different framework within which companies are operating. The expectations are different. But that’s not to say corruption has gone away. It’s still a very big problem in the developing world. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
I suppose what I’m getting at is where is there pushback? There are bound to be circumstances in which the sovereign state if you like in which the corporation is working is not picking up the sort of major kickbacks or financial reward or benefit of various kinds that they used to, if these are applying, if the new standard is being imposed. Is that fair?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
In some countries, yes. The leaders will pick and choose which companies they want to partner with. Increasingly we see in Africa for instance we see a preference for the Chinese companies, because the perception is that they’re not going to demand that the government adopt human rights policies, or the kind of things that a lot of Western companies and their governments are pushing on them. So yeah, there is pushback as we see China going into, particularly, Africa. Although I should note that the Chinese companies are running into trouble in some cases because they are not paying attention to local community needs and demands. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So there is an expectation at the grassroots too, now? 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
The grassroots matters if you’re going to be operating for any length of time. And the investment in Africa these days is a big investment, often times in roads and infrastructure, and that’s very disruptive. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Is this corporate social responsibility at the very pointy end, or is it slightly different from that? Is it really just an extension of the sort of stuff that companies do at home with sporting clubs and local organisations, in terms of their meshing in with their local communities? Or does it kick up another step or two, because there’s certainly reference in some of the literature to the peace-building strand to this, which would seem to be a higher order of expectation. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
A lot of the corporate social responsibility standards out there today, they’re different from philanthropy. That’s a different thing. So philanthropy would be providing funds for the local soccer club. Corporate social responsibility would be operating your company in a different way. So it gets to how you do your business in a more profound fashion than donating money or supporting community development, in the traditional way is building a clinic or a school. New building a clinic or a school could be part of corporate social responsibility if it’s done in dialogue with the local community instead of the company just sort of putting it there without the larger context being in place.  

LYNNE HAULTAIN
I heard this great phrase the other day that capitalism is a contact sport, that you play hard and you’re in there to win. Pardon my cynicism at the altruism of corporations to really do this outside of their own corporate interest. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
The argument made - and particularly I will point to the business in conflict issue area - the argument is made that it is the interest of business to operate in a stable and peaceful environment. They will be more profitable if they don’t undermine governance in the societies where they’re operating. So it’s not necessarily diametrically opposed. However, I think cynicism is warranted to the degree that you think it’s important for companies to do this out of a true commitment to human rights, democracy, humanitarian values. In some ways I don’t care what the motivation is, whether they’re sincere or not. I just would rather they change their behaviour to be more in line with social needs. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Are those regarded in some parts though, and especially in the developing world, as the Western view and the imposition of democratic type models and certain standards of governance and anti-corruption approach? That seems to me to come from a certain mindset and to have a certain superiority about it, to use that phrase. Is that problematic?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
This is externally developed standards for the companies, for the societies, for the governments. So yes, it is Western; yes it is. But I would say that most people want to have a voice in what goes on in their countries, whether we’re talking about the relationship with companies or governments. So a lot of the corporate social responsibility type initiatives that I get very interested by actually incorporate voice for the local community. So I think there is a couple of things going on here. And there is that idea that this is a Western imposition, neo-colonialism of some sort, but there’s also local demand; local demand for voice, for having a say.  
LYNNE HAULTAIN
You’re listening to Up Close. I’m Lynne Haultain, and in this episode we’re looking at the capacity of corporations to reduce conflict in host countries and what are the limits to that role. Our guest is Associate Professor Virginia Haufler from the University of Maryland, College Park. Virginia, you mentioned some of the examples that interested you over time. I’d like to take a look at one that’s had quite some coverage over the last few years, and that’s the metals and elements that we use extensively in electronics. They tend to be found it would seem in fairly challenging parts of Africa, particularly in China and other remote places. But they are now I suppose targets of rebel groups, of non-national players, and they are used to trade and to support terrorist activities and the like. Is there a role for corporations, which of course are either mining or buying those products, to try and choke that off?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
A lot of activist groups have really latched on to this and said, here we have these global supply chains that link consumers and producers across state lines. So when you’re holding your cell phone in your hand, are you complicit in violence somewhere on the other side of the world, because the raw materials that go into your cell phone are financing rebel activity. Rebels hold territory; they take the coltan, other raw materials, they sell them on world markets; they get the money to buy guns and hire soldiers and continue their violence without any incentive to end. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
And we’re seeing apparently another example of that currently with the ISIS in Iraq, smuggling oil in order to fill their coffers for the fight to come. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
These kinds of things are nothing new. I mean, for decades if not centuries raw materials have been sold in order to finance war and rebellion. So that’s not necessarily new. What is new is the way in which people are seeing this as an opportunity to choke off those rebel resources by using the world market, by getting companies - for instance the electronics companies - to get them to commit to not buy conflict minerals for instance, and to set up institutions that would help them identify where conflict minerals might enter their supply line, and how can they keep them out. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
And how successful is that effort?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
It’s still relatively new, so I’m not going to say it’s super successful yet. The model for this is the Kimberley Process which addresses conflict diamonds; in other words, diamonds from rebel-held territory. The Kimberley Process was pretty successful, and some evidence of that is that in fact some of the conflict has died down. I won’t say it was just cutting off those diamonds that brought rebels to the negotiating table, but certainly it was one factor that contributed. We saw after the Kimberley Process was established an increase in legitimate diamonds in world markets from these countries. So you know, it says something about the degree to which it regularised the industry. The Kimberley Process has some challenges, but it certifies diamonds, rough diamonds, as being conflict-free.  
LYNNE HAULTAIN
Which goes back to our earlier conversation about the focus and the public gaze on this, because certainly “blood diamonds”, very graphic term. Celebrities all over Hollywood and New York put their names to the cause and made it very clear that they wouldn’t be buying conflict diamonds. So it had that sort of leverage in the public mind. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Diamonds are kind of unique in the degree to which the value of the diamond is determined by a belief in it as a valuable thing. So the companies were very concerned that these campaigns were going to undermine the market for diamonds. It actually was the diamond industry that took the lead on creating the Kimberley Process. They wanted this to protect their market and the reputation and value of diamonds. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Which they’re very adept at given that they - well, De Beers at least - already invented the engagement ring in order to sell more diamonds. They’re very good at protecting their patch. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Very, very good. And somehow it’s not as visually arresting or as impactful for us to talk about conflict minerals and cell phones. It just doesn’t have the same… 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Graphic imagery, yes. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
… feeling. I should point out one thing though that was very interesting, watching the whole diamond campaign emerge. So it was global; it involved probably hundreds of advocacy organisations. They did a lot of very effective media presentations, but then they also pulled back a little on it, because for some countries like Botswana - a democratic state, highly dependent upon the export of diamonds - they did not want to undermine that country. They did not want to destroy the diamond market; they wanted to put pressure on companies but not necessarily end the diamond trade.

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Which is a really interesting illustration of the care that needs to be taken to focus this, and to make it very relevant both to each market and to each country. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
One of the things about looking at conflict minerals is that the different minerals have different dynamics. So gold is going to be different from tin, which is going to be different from the coltan that’s in cell phones. You look around the world and say where is coltan? Is it from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the particular areas of that country that are rebel-held territory? I should note that Australia is a major source of coltan. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
I didn’t know that, so thank you for that information. In terms of your work though, and your work with the UN Global Compact - which was set up really to promote a number of these efforts - where are we at with public policy response that will actually assist companies to take this on and to really do it properly and seriously? Because it struck me when you were talking before about the various efforts that it is about time and consistency over a period of time, and a real commitment. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Well, the UN Global Compact was founded in 2000, almost accidentally when Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the World Economic Forum basically challenged companies and said, we’ve given you globalisation and that has benefitted you; now it’s time for you to step up. Companies basically said okay, what do you want us to do. The UN Global Compact was a commitment to UN principles about labour, environment and human rights, and then later on they added anti-corruption. And the first policy dialogue they had was on business in conflict zones, because it was such a concern. And that was in the same year that the first meeting that led to the Kimberley Process occurred. So that was the particular issue on the table. 
The UN Global Compact has been working on business in conflict issues now for 14 and a half years. They continue to expand what they do. They have established local networks in a lot of different countries. So they’re getting down to small and medium-sized businesses, not just the big multinational corporations that we typically think of. They have the UN Global Compact in coordination with a lot of human rights and environmental groups, and governments have developed a lot set of policy recommendations, conflict sensitive business practices that they can promote to business, resources for businesses to use and cases for businesses to look at, to say this is how you might want to address a particular issue. 


LYNNE HAULTAIN
and interestingly they also list the five lessons learnt, which I found very intriguing and interesting, the sort of learnings that companies come away with, having attempted this in certain markets in certain countries. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
That’s how to talk to business. You give them a case and you tell them what we can learn from that case. That really is the way in which a lot of business leaders learn about what to do. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Virginia, we are seeing the turning of the circle in some ways in this instance too. Having started with the activism of NGOs and some pressure for corporations to take this up, we’re now seeing it moving back into government, which is demanding regulation and reporting around this stuff, certainly in the US.  

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
The United States, in the massive Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, sneaked in a provision - some people call it sneaking it in - section 1502, that requires all companies listed on the US stock market, which is not just American companies, that all those companies must know, identify, whether any of the materials they use come from conflict zones, whether it’s tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold. Those are defined conflict minerals and the conflict is the DRC region. It’s a reporting requirement. It requires companies to do what’s called due diligence and find out who is in their supply chain and where they are getting their materials from. 
The first reporting period was just this past year, and some companies have discovered to their surprise that they’re obtaining gold from North Korea, which - we’re not supposed to be doing any trade with North Korea. They’re under sanction. So it’s not a conflict mineral situation as the legislation identified it, but it certainly was a surprising result. A lot of companies are now being forced to really know who is their partner in their supply chain, in a way they didn’t before. Some of these companies - quite a few in fact - they do have the option of simply reporting that they don’t know, because they don’t. It’s a very complicated system in which the suppliers have suppliers who have suppliers. So they don’t know. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So they’re off the hook if they can say… 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
No. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
… we honestly do not know. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
They have to demonstrate that they did due diligence. They tried to find out whether they use conflict minerals. There is a sort of secondary reporting. Note that this legislation is all about public reporting. You have to file a report with the SEC and you have to publish it on your website, to make it available to investors. In fact a lot of this is viewed as investor protection legislation because this is a risk. But it doesn’t say you can’t use conflict minerals, it says you have to know. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Which leaves it open to, as you say, investors and consumers and the world at large to make a decision. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Yes. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
So Virginia, does this give you heart? Are you positive about the way in which corporations can invest and improve the global human rights condition?

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
I always hesitate and go back and forth on this. I think there are some dramatic changes that are going on, that the context in which companies - especially big companies that act across borders - the context in which they operate has changed in ways that set a different standard. However I don’t want to be too optimistic, given that there’s also still a lot of companies that are very selective about which principles they uphold, and there’s a lot of companies that are completely indifferent to this whole trend. But most of the people that I talk to, looking at the major significant business leaders, they do see a change going on, and corporate social responsibility is kind of baked into the system now at some level. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
It’s been a great pleasure speaking with you. 

VIRGINIA HAUFLER
Thank you. 

LYNNE HAULTAIN
Virginia Haufler is Associate Professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, and co-author of “Public Policy for Conflict Sensitive Business”, which was commissioned by the UN Global Compact. You’ll find more details of her publications on the Up Close website, together with a full transcript of this and all our other programmes. Up Close is a production of the University of Melbourne, Australia, created by Eric van Bemmel and Kelvin Param. This episode was recorded on 19 June 2014, produced by Kelvin Param and Eric van Bemmel, with audio engineering by Gavin Nebauer. I’m Lynne Haultain. Thanks for listening, and I hope you can join us again soon. 

VOICEOVER 
You've been listening to Up Close.  We're also on Twitter and Facebook.  For more information visit upclose.unimelb.edu.au.  Copyright 2014, the University of Melbourne.


show transcript | print transcript | download pdf