Wednesday, December 19, 2007

New Year, No Resolutions on Climate Change

After the dramatic conclusion of the Bali talks over the weekend, MADRE produced a new commentary, illustrating some of the obstacles still to come. Here is an excerpt:

    Thanks in large part to pressure brought to bear by other delegates, the US representatives finally signed the Bali Action Plan. But what sort of a plan is this? The best that delegates in these climate change negotiations were able to say is that the path is open for progress in 2009, when a presumably more amenable US administration will be in office. In short, the Bali Action Plan represents the lowest common denominator of government positions and barely advances the climate agenda... (read more)

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 14, 2007

Climate Change Has a Woman's Face

As the conference in Bali draws to a close, we thought this would be a good opportunity to recap a few of the key issues that MADRE emphasizes, such as the failure to include a gender perspective in climate negotiations and the need to employ a human rights framework in all strategies to address climate change. Amid dismal reports that US pressure has prompted negotiators to remove language referencing a specific target of 25-40% emissions cuts by 2020, this video, featuring Yifat, reminds us that the human face of climate change is a woman’s face.

Women’s leadership must guide the process of responding to climate change, and MADRE is proud to support this leadership. MADRE will continue to be engaged in the climate justice movement, and we are organizing an event in New York next month to continue this crucial discussion. If you are in the New York area, come hear from women working locally and globally to create community initiatives and international policies that address climate change and promote human rights and social justice. The panel will take place on January 24th, 2008 at Kimball Hall, New York University, from 10:30 am - 12:30 pm.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Indigenous Peoples Denounce the New Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

The World Bank can’t get a break. Despite every attempt to clothe their profit-oriented, short-sighted projects in the guise of “climate-friendly” programs, global civil society has been watching and has called them out on every turn. Yesterday, World Bank President Robert Zoellick—who you may also remember at the former US Trade Representative—held a press conference to announce the launch of the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Meanwhile, NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations gathered outside to stage a protest of this initiative.

It’s bad enough that the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is just carbon trading by another name, which does more to increase the profits of polluting companies than to reduce carbon emissions. But these projects actually threaten to worsen climate change, by focusing on mono-culture tree plantations instead of preserving the biodiversity of existing forests. You can read more of our analysis on this particular approach to reducing deforestation here and here.

Even while paying lip service to the principle of free, prior, and informed consent protected by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in practice the World Bank has trampled this standard. When Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, asked the World Bank why it had failed to consult with the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus on its proposed Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, their answer was revealing. She was told point-blank that the project was “too abstract for Indigenous Peoples to understand.”

Only after this appalling rationale was exposed did the World Bank agree to hold consultations with the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus. But this tendency has been consistent in the larger proceedings of the Bali climate change conference. A civil society statement rejecting the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility can be found here.

In other news today, the negotiations in Bali shifted into high gear over whether to include mandatory emissions targets—a measure opposed by such big polluters as the US, Canada, China, and Japan—and with the end of the conference on Friday fast approaching. The draft text for the meeting currently references emissions reductions of 25%-40%, and even this weak “non-binding” language has sufficiently raised the hackles of US delegates to prompt an absolute rejection.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 10, 2007

Climate Change on International Human Rights Day

This weekend, trade and finance ministers from 32 of the world's richer countries descended on Bali. There's no clearer sign of the direction that the UN climate change convention negotiations are moving in. An estimated 184 million people in Africa alone could be dead from climate change within a few decades. Clearly, it's time to formulate economic policies in keeping with the Earth's environmental limits. Instead, US and European Union trade ministers are in Bali clamoring for poorer countries to lift their tariff barriers on "environmentally friendly" products like wind turbines and hydrogen fuel cells (even though the UNFCCC obligates industrialized countries to undertake technology transfers to enable other countries to develop along a less carbon-intensive path).

In other words, it's business as usual, with the North's same-old trade agenda driving global environmental policy. As Nicola Bullard, senior researcher at Focus on the Global South, a Bangkok-based think tank, said, "The U.S. and the E.U. are trying to profit even after having polluted the world."

We arrived back in New York today, on International Human Rights Day—a particularly good moment to consider that technology transfers, and many other adaptation and mitigation projects being considered this week Bali, are not charitable contributions from the industrialized North. They are in fact human rights obligations. That's because impacts of climate change, such as hunger, homelessness, lack of sanitation and healthcare, displacement, and loss of culture are internationally recognized as human rights violations.

The principle of compensation for victims of pollution is firmly established in international environmental law. So are principles of human rights, like the right to a means of subsistence, the right to property (not only property that you own, but also land that your culture and physical survival depends on), the right to health, the right to culture, and the right to life. All of these rights—enshrined in international instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (signed 59 years ago today), and the International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights—are violated by governments that fail to redress the impacts of climate change.

The global track record on climate change needs dramatic improvement in order to promote human rights. Developed countries, and especially the US, must stop dragging their feet on setting up mandatory carbon emission cuts. But they also need to make sure that the policies they do put in place don't create a whole new set of human rights violations. That's exactly what's happening now with policies like industrial-scale agrofuels, the CDM, and so called "avoided deforestation." Women, in particular, are being harmed in the places where these policies are being put into effect.

We've focused a lot on this gendered dimension of climate change policies in the blog so far. And today, on International Human Rights Day, we want to emphasize that climate change should not be viewed an opportunity to promote free trade, but as a human rights issue. Human rights is the framework that can best protect women and families in the places most effected by climate change and generate solutions to protect us all for the long term.

Sphere: Related Content

How Carbon Emissions Cause Human Trafficking: The Human Rights Connection (Plus Video)

It is no secret that critical dangers—such as hunger, climate disasters, and drought—now confront people across the world, and that these threats are exacerbated by human-triggered climate change. But in the official meetings in Bali, there's been little discussion of the fact that women are disproportionately threatened by climate change.

This is true both because it's women's responsibility to provide their families with food, water, fuel wood, and other natural resources being destroyed by climate change; and because women have far fewer resources to survive and adapt to climate change. This year, governments have finally started discussing the pretty obvious fact that poor people will be the ones hurt first and worst by climate change. But few are talking about the fact that 70% of poor people worldwide are women.

During our many meetings, briefings, and discussions here in Bali, we have emphasized the need to infuse issues of gender and social justice into the climate change discussion.

To drive the point home, MADRE organized a public panel alongside the official discussions. We were joined by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; Simone Lovera of the Global Forest Coalition; and Anastasia Pinto of the Centre for Organisation Research and Education in India.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz laid out her critique of the dominant scheme being promoted as a solution to climate change: the carbon trade. Simone Lovera spoke of the human rights violations perpetuated by agrofuel plantations in Paraguay. And Anastasia Pinto talked about what happens to many women and children in the immediate aftermath of climate disasters. Here's what she had to say:

"The first ones to reach the disaster scene are not the rescue workers, the police, or the humanitarian aid agencies. The first ones to arrive are the traffickers. They descend within 24 hours and are gone again within 72 hours—just as the aid agencies begin to arrive. The traffickers simply sweep the area, picking up dazed children who are wandering about lost and young women who are frantically searching for their babies. Everyone is desperate to escape the area, so people go with them willingly. Once the women and children—some as young as three or four—realize that these men are not taking them to safety or helping them find their families, it is too late. By then they have been pushed into the most damaging, hazardous, and soul-destroying work there is. Climate disasters are a golden opportunity for this industry."

Below we've posted a few videos from the MADRE side event.

Simone Lovera, on the effects of agrofuel plantations on Indigenous Peoples:

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, on the faulty logic of the carbon trade:

Yifat Susskind, on the dangers of widespread agrofuel expansion:

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 8, 2007

PS About Deforestation

Want more information about deforestation, climate change, and women's human rights? Click here for more of MADRE's analysis and to get a glimpse of the message that we have been conveying here in Bali.

Here's a hint about the root of the problem:

"Our enormously productive economy…demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and selling of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption…We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever-increasing rate." Read on to find out who said that.

Sphere: Related Content

Global Trade Rules Damage Climate and Biodiversity

The severe endangerment of the orangutan has made news headlines, and so have the efforts of those trying to save the lives of the remaining few. But the degradation wrought by climate change on the whole range of our planet's life—from tiny microbes that form the basis of our ecosystems on up—is a catastrophe less often denounced. Climate change is accelerating the eradication of more species than have been lost at any other point in human history—more than 140,000 each year. This loss of life threatens to radically alter conditions for human survival.

Women across the world have been at the forefront of movements to protect biodiversity, with their knowledge of seeds, genetic resources, and agriculture. This MADRE analysis details why biodiversity is a women's issue and explains how government policies, particularly global trade rules, are threatening the survival of the planet as we know it.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 7, 2007

Behind Closed Doors with Yvo de Boer

Yvo de Boer is a very busy guy this week. But yesterday, Yvo (as everyone seems to call him), who heads the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat , invited 50 representatives of non-governmental organizations (environmental groups, trade unionists, youth groups, and last—but hardly least—the private sector) to meet with him. It was a chance to hear his views on how the negotiations are going and for "civil society" to put its own concerns forward. I was there, representing MADRE and the Gender Caucus here in Bali.

To be honest, I was afraid the session might be deadly boring. If you step into the wrong meeting at this climate change conference, you find yourself in a pit of opaque UNFCCC jargon, accompanied by endless charts and graphs presented with a jumble of acronyms that pass for language around here. But the meeting with Yvo was anything but boring. For one thing, he told jokes. Here's a sample:

Someone asked how many more of these meetings would be held this year, considering that developing (read: exploited) countries simply can't afford to come and don't have enough qualified personnel to participate effectively. "We're assessing the cost of enabling developing countries to attend future meetings," Yvo assured us. "Of course, if they don't have the personnel, it won't cost too much!" Yvo giggled, but the man from Ghana sitting by me was not amused.

In fact, developing countries—and poor people in general—are marginalized in this process. When Yvo began his talk, it took him all of about 20 seconds for the words "private sector" to come out of his mouth. A lot of his commentary was devoted to the importance of reassuring corporations that the carbon markets will be going strong for decades to come. A guy called Nick Campbell sitting with Yvo on the stage nodded approvingly. He is the representative of the International Chamber of Commerce, "coordinating the voice of business in Bali," as he explained.

According to Nick and Yvo, the private sector and its booming new carbon market is key to saving the world. You see, the UN Adaptation Fund, which is supposed to finance projects to help people survive and adjust to climate change (though it has yet to give out a penny) is financed by the carbon trade (through a 2% levy on transactions). Never mind that the carbon trade itself is actually accelerating climate change by turning carbon pollution into a valuable new commodity, thereby creating incentives to produce more of it. If this sounds to you like they're making the problem worse in order to solve it, you're not the one who's crazy.

Anna Pinto, an Indigenous activist from India, raised a question that Yvo clearly didn't like. She asked how the Secretariat that he leads is going to protect the rights of people who are harmed by the carbon trade and its "Clean Development Mechanism." CDM, as it's called, is the process by which polluting companies with cash to spare (overwhelmingly based in the Global North) can continue to emit carbon in exchange for financing projects (overwhelmingly in the Global South) that absorb carbon.

CDM does nothing at all to address the root causes of climate change (burning fossil fuels and destroying forests). Its goal, in fact, is not to reduce emissions, but to reduce pressure to cut emissions by giving polluters an easy alternative. CDM also creates a host of problems for communities where projects are implemented, which is what Anna was asking about.

In India, Uganda, Colombia, Uruguay and many other places, the human rights abuses associated with CDM are becoming legion. In fact, most of the community-based and Indigenous Peoples who have come to Bali are here to raise that very issue. Yet, Yvo's response to Anna was categorical. He simply said there are no victims of the CDM.

That's not what members of the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus have to say. But they were not represented in the meeting with Yvo de Boer. We found out afterwards that they were forcibly kept out. That's right—barred from the room by armed security officers. Today, the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus held a protest in response.

Given that we are on the verge of ecological collapse, you might think that world leaders would want to hear from the one global constituency that has successfully managed and maintained the world's most delicate ecosystems for millennia. But no. Let's face it, there's just not much money to be made from community control of forests or low-carbon agricultural technologies.

Finally, I myself got to ask Yvo a question. I asked what he is going to do to ensure that women's perspectives and issues of social justice and human rights are advanced in the UNFCCC process and in the document that governments will commit to next week. Yvo's answer: "I have no idea."

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Seeing REDD

For those who have become familiar with the lush green landscape that surrounds the Bali conference area, the notion that Indonesia has been ravaged by deforestation may seem a bit bizarre. Yet, rapid deforestation has resulted in the destruction of some 72% of Indonesia's original forests and has pushed the country to the rank of the world's third highest greenhouse gas emitter.

This trend plays out in other contexts across the globe, with deforestation accounting for at least 17% of global carbon emissions—and some estimates put that figure higher. Deforestation not only strips the landscape of the carbon-cycling capacity of forests, but inflicts a range of other consequences, namely the destruction of ecosystems and environments upon which people, particularly Indigenous and forest peoples, depend.

Enter the "solution" being put forward by the UNFCCC, or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process, called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, or REDD. (Just a few of the many acronyms routinely tossed about in UN discussions on climate change). Much in the same vein as many other commercial fixes at the center of these debates, the REDD proposal relies on the market to reduce deforestation by providing incentives to businesses and corporations.

Here are the steps: a business emits carbon. It can offset its emissions through buying credits from the carbon market. These funds are used to reduce deforestation.

Sound simple? Not really. Because this system is plagued by vague definitions and recurrent abuses. Who gets to decide on how much a forest is worth and assign a particular price tag? Who gets to evaluate or measure how carbon emitted in one area translates to carbon absorbed elsewhere? Who actually receives the funds? Does the REDD mechanism actually reduce climate change, when its very design excuses the continued emission of carbons? Isn't a forest more than just an accumulation of carbon, but also a complex ecosystem and source of biodiversity? These questions raised by forest communities around the world, if answered truthfully, point to the deep flaws of REDD.

WALHI, an Indonesian environmental organization, has already pointed out many of these dangers. They also illustrate how REDD, with its proposals to cordon off forest areas for preservation, will cause the displacement of Indigenous Peoples who live in "protected" areas. All this, despite growing evidence that Indigenous Peoples are better able to manage and preserve the forests they rely on.

Check out some great organizations that are working on the issue of deforestation and climate justice:

Global Justice Ecology Project
World Rainforest Movement
Global Forest Coalition

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Upside Down World

This morning, Fatin, a young woman from Bangladesh, showed us pictures of the immense destruction that last month's cyclone caused to her village. Cyclone Sidr was the worst on record, killing at least 3400 people and leaving survivors devastated. Researchers from the Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies attribute the unprecedented intensity of the storm to—you guessed it—climate change. In fact, Bangladesh is experiencing worsening droughts, floods, and salt contamination of its drinking water from rising sea levels. As Fatin told us, "the climate change predictions that world leaders are discussing in the Convention Center are already happening in Bangladesh."

That's the message that many civil society organizations from the Global South are bringing to Bali. Climate change is here now, so it's not enough to talk about reducing greenhouse gases in the future. The world's poorest people, who are most threatened by the results of carbon pollution, need help today. This help is not charity. It's their human right—and governments are obligated under international law to provide it.

In the climate change jargon, such help is called adaptation. The UN has created an Adaptation Fund to enable poorer countries to adjust to a warming world. It's supposed to finance projects like infrastructure to guard against floods (like the levees New Orleans was supposed to have), improved water supplies for drought areas, and new agricultural techniques. But so far, the Adaptation Fund has only collected $67 million dollars—less than people in the US spend on suntan lotion each month, according to Oxfam. Meanwhile, the actual cost of effective adaptation is somewhere around $100 billion a year.

So how are the world's poorest countries making up the short-fall? For the most part, they're not. But there are some countries that have no choice but to take action now. Yesterday, we spoke with Amjad Abdullah, a government delegate from the Maldives. He told us that his country is literally building a new island on higher ground to accommodate thousands of citizens who have been washed out of their homes by the encroaching Pacific. They are financing the construction by borrowing more money from the industrialized countries that caused climate change in the first place. The finance minister of Fiji has also asked for more loans to help deal with the effect of rising sea levels. Countries that have cash to spare—thanks to their carbon-based economies-are happy oblige.

So apparently there is money to be made not just from "mitigation" (or reducing carbon emissions, which is the flip side of the adaptation coin) but also from addressing the impacts of climate change on the poor.

Something is obviously wrong here.

Instead of increasing the debt burden of countries that have been made poor through slavery, colonialism, and the economic arm-twisting of "free trade," the industrialized countries need to be held accountable for the damage that they have caused by changing the Earth's climate through carbon pollution.

In fact, it's the rich countries that owe a debt to the poor. Industrialized countries have used much more than their fair share of the Earth's atmosphere as a "carbon dump." The World Rainforest Movement calculates that, "On a per capita basis, the US currently uses twelve times what it should be entitled to, and the UK nearly six times its share. Bangladesh --one of the most vulnerable countries to sea level rise and other climate alterations-- is ten times below its quota, Sudan 15 times, Tanzania 22 times." Call it a Carbon Debt and consider that it is much larger than the financial debt of the highly indebted poor countries. If the world were not upside-down, governments would be meeting in Bali to figure out how industrialized countries are going to repay their Carbon Debt. We know of a village in Bangladesh where they could begin.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 4, 2007


Check out this exciting new project by OneWorld, a virtual Bali conference experience that allows you to interact with participants at the conference, including journalists, environmental advocates and more. I just interviewed with them a few hours ago, detailing why climate change is a women's issue and taking questions from viewers from around the world. Log in to see who else they have coming up!

Also, Yifat did an interview yesterday for KPFA's Morning Show, to talk about the initial developments in the climate change discussions, and you can listen to it here.

Sphere: Related Content

Who speaks for you in Bali?

Walking into the Bali International Conference Center, the official venue of the UN climate change negotiations, you enter an exhibition hall filled with booths of all the organizations hoping to get their say on climate change policy. All of the big environmental groups are there, as well as some development agencies and a few human rights organizations. Ensconced among the dozens of civil society booths are a few that make you do a double-take. The World Coal Institute, for instance, and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (bet you didn't even know they had one of those!). Representatives of the industries that brought you global warming are not just tabling in the lobby. Unlike most of the Indigenous Peoples' and human rights organizations present, these guys are in the negotiations themselves.

It's not surprising, then, that there is an eerie contrast between the sense of urgency about climate change felt in places where MADRE works, such as Nicaragua and Sudan, and the bent of the official negotiations, where governments are mostly talking about setting up talks instead of putting in place the emergency measures that MADRE and many other groups are calling for.

Part of the problem is the starting point for the negotiations themselves. Instead asking how climate change can best be controlled while promoting human rights, many corporate-sponsored government delegations are busy trying to figure out how global warming can be turned into an economic opportunity. Enter carbon trading, the dominant "solution" being put forward in Bali. The emerging trade in carbon credits is so profitable that Bloomberg Markets recently referred to climate change as a "growth industry."

That doesn't mean that there are not government delegates acting in good faith. In particular, representatives of countries that are bearing the brunt of climate change (like the small island states of the Pacific that are literally disappearing as sea levels rise), are giving it their all. But the revolving door between government and industry—particularly in the richer countries—means that some of the most powerful delegations are effectively surrogates for carbon-polluting corporations.

Take the US, the largest economy in the world and the last holdout on Kyoto now that Australia has committed to sign on. Have those of you in the US checked out who is representing you in Bali? Meet James Connaughton, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, as described by Jim Hightower:

"A former lobbyist for utilities, mining, chemical, and other industrial polluters, Connaughton, represented the likes of General Electric and ARCO in their effort to escape responsibility for cleaning up toxic Superfund sites. Now he heads up pollution-policy development for the administration and coordinates its implementation. He has led the charge to weaken the standards of getting arsenic out of our drinking water, and he has steadily advised Bush to ignore, divert, stall, dismiss, and otherwise block out all calls for action against the industrial causes of global warming."

Those of us working to infuse a human rights and gender perspective into these negotiations have our work cut out for us. The good news is that we are here in Bali; and while we may not have as much of a voice inside the official talks as we should, we are building the political momentum to sustain a global climate movement that can force the change we need. We just hope we can do it before Tuvalu is completely underwater.

Sphere: Related Content

Who's in charge of the climate change agenda?

After a long trip, we have hit the ground running here in Bali. Today, we joined the thousands of representatives and observers from governments, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to answer the question: what steps are we–as a global community–willing to take to address climate change?

Perhaps the real question is: who gets to decide? Whose vision will we be following? For women around the world, the answer so far has been cause for concern. Neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the two central documents in this debate, even mention gender or address the different ways men and women are impacted by climate change. This MADRE position paper explains some of these key issues, such as:

  • How the vast majority of "natural disasters" strike in poor countries, while worldwide, women make up over 70% of people living in poverty.
  • How droughts and floods, which are worsening with climate change, intensify women’s workload, as women are typically responsible for securing clean water for their families.
  • How women's health and their status within households is particularly threatened by effects of climate change, such as food shortages, because of women's limited access to health services and their significant responsibility for agriculture.
The most recent United Nations reports confirm what women and their families in the Global South already knew – that climate change is here, and it is hitting developing countries the hardest.

The need for urgent action is great and widely recognized. The executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Yvo de Boer has said, "The science is clear. We now need a political answer." In the coming days, the hope is that governments will commit to launch negotiations for a long-term climate deal. The key question is whether countries, and especially the US, which is the world's biggest economy, will agree to mandatory limits on carbon emissions, a prospect the Bush Administration has consistently rejected.

Indonesian civil society organizations such as the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) criticize most governments' narrow-sighted approach to climate change, which relies mainly on commercial fixes like carbon trading and ignores the inequitable burden of climate catastrophes in the global South.

The truth is that most of the discussions at the Bali International Conference Center, where governments are meeting, are focused on charts and graphs depicting temperature projections and global economic markets. But climate change is much more than a scientific or economic matter. The real face of climate change is a human face—a woman’s face—and the crisis needs to be addressed within a human rights framework. That’s the message that MADRE will be delivering in the coming days in Bali.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 1, 2007

En route to Bali

MADRE's work with women and families around the world beats at the heart of the movement to reset the course of the world. In communities where we work - in Sudan, Iraq, Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, Guatemala, Kenya, Peru, Colombia, and Panama - women experience the global crisis of climate change on a daily basis. They face wars, environmental destruction, poverty, and gender-based violence. Yet, they reject catastrophic end-of-the-world scenarios because they know that change is not only possible - it is already happening.

It is the women themselves who are creating this change.

Tomorrow, we will travel to Bali, Indonesia for the UN Conference on Climate Change and lend our voices to the continuing international debate on what we need to do about climate change. We know that time is running out to reverse the trend of rising temperatures, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, deteriorating biodiversity, and other dangers. We also know that sustainable solutions are within reach and that women in communities around the world have already begun to implement them.

This blog will serve as an on-going record of developments at the conference and of MADRE’s analysis on the issues of agrofuels, biodiversity, deforestation, natural disasters, and more. You will hear our perspectives on what government representatives are saying and not saying, and you will learn why climate change is a women's human rights issue that affects us all.

Stay tuned for our next entry in a couple of days after we land in Bali!

- Yifat Susskind, MADRE Communications Director
- Diana Duarte, MADRE Media Coordinator

Sphere: Related Content