Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:28:26 PM To: klimat@mjv.se Hi This was compiled by our small FoE I team at the UNFCCC talks and is an update of week 1 .. its not comprehensive of all issues that people are working on – but I am hoping its useful. I am sure other CJ folks can compliment this with their own updates. You may find the Bonn briefs of use as they were produced daily on key issues and can be used with your networks and members as well as other audiences including media and other key targets. the copy below is just text because attaching pics makes the attachhments to big to send out on cjn on behalf of the FoE I team in Bonn Asad UNFCCC Intercessional, Bonn 2011 – Report Back Contents: 1. Bigger Picture 2. Policy updates: a. Targets b. Finance i. Role of markets ii. Fast Start Finance iii. World Bank c. Forests d. Agriculture e. SBI-civil soc participation 3. Press conference 4. Side event 5. Blogs – 6. Climate Justice Briefs 7. General climate justice activities 8. Young FOEE Update Bigger Picture overview of the first week, Bonn 2011 Bonn has so far revealed that rich, industrialised countries are not that serious about tackling catastrophic climate change: there’s been little talk – if any – during negotiations on increasing ambition, to the extent that Granada, speaking on behalf of the small island states, had to remind the conference that despite all the focus being on then monitoring of emissions and creation of institutions, the real end game is greenhouse gas emissions reductions. As if this wasn’t clear enough, Monday saw a new report released by the Stockholm Environment Institute and commissioned by Oxfam, showing we are still on course for 5 degrees of warming. Meanwhile, Tuvalu added extra urgency in tackling the planetary emergency, warning that we’ve almost crossed the threshold of being able to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees. With all this absent ambition, rich countries are reneging on their commitment to lead in making deep emissions cuts through a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol (KP). Instead, the emphasis has been on implementing last December’s outcome in Cancun, which allowed each country to set its own target. Japan, Russia have now been joined by Canada in rejecting a second commitment period, leading some developing countries to call for their exclusion from discussions around the issue. Wrangling around the agenda also held up the start of negotiations, with Northern chairs adding and removing items that favour developed countries without consulting (see briefing). The agendas have now been restored, but the media, some parties and more mainstream NGOs have still blamed countries who fought for it, not realising that the fight over agenda was a fight over outcomes and the sort of regime we want to see: do we want a science- and equity-based agreement that tackles catastrophic climate change, or are we going to limit ourselves to the pledge and review that came out of Cancun? The ‘pledge and review’ system is effectively deregulating the climate regime, ignoring the need for science in deciding targets and failing to differentiate between developed and developing countries – going by current pledges, developing countries will account for 65% of total emissions reductions by 2020, despite the legal obligation of developed countries to take the lead. To compound this, the EU has still not increased its target from 20% to 30% by 2020 despite already being on 17%, while the US has halted China’s renewable expansion by taking them to the WTO over subsidies, rather than trying to increase their own ambition – they’ve also done the same to India. This mirrors the US position throughout the negotiations: weaken the current system to pave the way for the next one. The attempted dismantling and reassembling of the climate regime in a Northern-friendly image is playing out in all arenas, from mitigation and adaptation to finance and technology transfer. Unity among the 131 developing countries within the Group of 77 plus China is vital if they are going to not only tackle climate change but also do so in a fair and equitable fashion when Durban comes around in December. Next week can either lay the foundations or highlight just how far we’ll have to go. Policy Updates · Low targets and no sign of ambition Analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Stockholm Environment Institute and others show current targets from Cancun will lead to 5 degrees of warming. Yet the conversation has been missing any mention of ambition. Negotiations in Bonn have been about technicalities on how to measure and report emissions, not at what level they should be set at. The ‘gigatonne gap’ – between projected emission cuts and what’s needed to keep temperatures down – is being acknowledged but not directly addressed by everyone. In a workshop, both the US and Bolivia gave presentations on emission ambitions, and while Bolivia highlighted the growing need for tougher domestic cuts among Annex I countries and the ending of off-sets, US lead negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, failed to mention ambition and focused instead on emissions accounting methods. The reality is that Annex I countries are no longer taking the lead in emissions cuts, going against the equitable principle of common but differentiated responsibility, while current negotiations mean an enormous burden will be placed on developing countries to carryout expensive and often unreliable accounting practices. That we’re only talking about developing countries monitoring their emissions rather than developed countries cutting theirs shows just how far the agenda has shifted away from equity. With negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol still up in the air, the fight for an equitable deal needs to be centre stage come Durban, ensuring Annex I countries set ambitious and targets under a second commitment period according to what the science calls for. a. Finance i. Role of markets and reforming the CDM appeal procedure · CDM appeals process to be reformed – will affected peoples have the right of reply? On Friday, climate justice organisations rallied round to reform the appeal procedure in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). At the international level, the CDM has been criticized for its inability to provide affected stakeholders with recourse where required procedures have not been properly followed. It was therefore essential that civil society made its voice heard in Bonn to enhance the process and increase transparency within the CDM, finally including project-affected peoples and communities, as well as giving civil society groups that have the capacity to monitor and review proposed CDM project activities a greater say. Civil society intervention was needed because the proposed rules would only allow appeal to projects that had been rejected (i.e. the potential project owners, who may have had their project rejected on social or environmental grounds), not against projects that had already been given the go-ahead, meaning local affected peoples were effectively silenced. We should know the result of that process soon. Otherwise Parties spent a lot of time discussing the market and non market proposals submitted in February of this year. ii. Fast Start Finance On Wednesday, the EU gave a presentation on fast start finance – the money that’s supposed to help developing countries tackle their emissions and adapt to climate change before a proper arrangement was found for 2012. In the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks, rich, industrialised countries promised to ‘mobilise’ $30 billion dollars in short-term finance by the end of 2012. This ‘promise’ was reaffirmed the following year at the Cancun climate conference. Yet of the $30 billion originally proposed by developed countries, only $16.2 billion has been actually promised, while only $12 billion has been accounted for in national budgets. Not only are the sums insufficient, there’s another problem, pointed out by Friends of the Earth Malaysia’s Meena Raman: when talking on a panel, she described the money as ‘old wine in a new bottle’. Looking at the EU’s presentation and combining it with reports to the UNFCCC, she’s right: the fast-start finance is in fact recycled money. The $30 billion is supposed to be ‘new and additional’ funding, yet out of Japan’s supposed $15 billion pledged over three years, $10 billion was already promised under its ‘cool earth’ partnership back in 2008. The US has also included in its own figure funds assigned for export credit agencies – which support US multinationals in exporting to and investing in developing countries. Globally, only $5 billion of the $30 billion may be genuinely ‘new and additional’, while the rest was either promised before Copenhagen or had already been allocated as overseas development aid but it now being rebottled as climate finance. Issues around finance are all over the negotiations – on both scale and source – but such blatant repackaging is eroding trust and leaving developing countries facing the bill for climate change, when many are still struggling to meet the basic needs of their populations: health, education, housing, energy access. Link to Janet’s blog Climate finance – old wine in a new bottle? · Future of Forests in Bonn In Cancun, it was agreed that SBSTA would develop (1) guidance for a system of providing information on how safeguards are being addressed and respected; (2) modalities for reference emissions levels and forest reference levels; (3) MRV and forest monitoring. Additionally, SBSTA has a mandate to report to COP 18 (2012) on drivers of deforestation. In Cancun, it was also agreed that the AWG-LCA would to explore financing options for the full implementation of the results-based actions and to report to COP 17 any recommendations for a draft decision. There was conflict over the SBSTA agenda, in part, because Bolivia protested the narrow framing in the agenda on just emissions and requested the agenda be broadened to reflect the multiple functions of forests and an emphasis on policies and measures (not just emissions). Interestingly, Tuvalu supported Bolivia and raised concerns about the process for negotiating REDD in Cancun. Tuvalu said “we are beyond reproach” in the REDD negotiations that all sessions in Cancun were closed despite the impact REDD would inevitably have on indigenous peoples around the world. This has helpfully generated significant pressure to ensure that the negotiations are open to civil society. Additionally, Tuvalu raised concerns about Norway as chair, citing their possible conflict of interest in negotiating an issue in which the country has already made significant investment. The agenda was then amended and adopted after taking in to account concerns raised by Bolivia. At the close of the first week, the discussion on SBSTA has really just begun. Parties raised the need to prioritize the work and possibly schedule an expert meeting(s) later in the year on key issues. Parties emphasized the importance of both the information systems for safeguards and the reference emissions level/forest reference level. In the first substantive discussion of SBSTA, there was general agreement on the importance of the system and on key principles including – accurate, consistent, comparable, reliable, complete, participatory. Some developing countries emphasized the importance of national sovereignty and national circumstances. One outstanding issue is the role of international reporting and assessment of the information provided. Importantly, there should be provisions for CSOs to provide information directly to the international body responsible for reviewing and assessing the information. Tony LaVina is chairing the LCA group on REDD. Little has been discussed but Tony has said he will not rush a decision on finance at this stage. · Agriculture must be kept out of the carbon markets Agriculture has been a contentious issue in Bonn. While large agricultural exporters want to address the technical elements now – such as counting carbon in soils – developing countries want it to stay on the long-term agenda (AWG-LCA) so all the issues relating to adaptation, including finance, can be addressed. Canada and New Zealand have been pushing for it, seeing soil carbon as a big earner if can be incorporated into the carbon markets, and the World Bank agree . So far, the G77+China have succeeded in keeping agriculture off the technical agenda (SBSTA) but the discussions are ongoing in ‘informal’, not open to civil society. There’s a risk that if agriculture gets included in the SBSTA now, it will only lead to more off-setting and more delaying of much-needed domestic action from Annex I in line with their legal obligation and the principle of CBDR.. Not only this, but it will seriously undermine adaptation efforts in developing countries as schemes will be designed with the goal of profiting from the markets, rather than successfully adapting to the already apparent impacts of climate change on agriculture. The G77+China need to remain firm in the second week, keeping agriculture out of the SBSTA negotiations and in the AWG-LCA, where – if framed correctly – it can address the enormity of the adaptation challenge with new and additional public finances. In Bonn and in Durban, it must be kept in mind that the future of agriculture is the future of food security, and the future for millions of small-holder farmers who face a problem of someone else’s making. The Gaia foundation – who held a side event as part of a day of agriculture and forest workshops that FOE was involved in – also compiled a list of reasons why soil and agriculture should not be included in offsets: · Made up numbers: difficulty in measuring soil carbon · GM carbon offsets: socially and environmentally destructive agricultural practices · Public funds for private profit: money goes to speculators, not communities · There are better alternatives to carbon offsets in agriculture See the full briefing here · Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) workshop on civil society participation in the UNFCCC negotiations The SBI workshop on participation on Wednesday was a welcome opportunity for civil society to present some of our shared solutions to problems that we all encounter, such as lack of access to informal meetings and draft documents, having to send our interventions to the secretariat well before a plenaries rather than being able to react to what is said there and having heavy restrictions on our ability to carry out actions. The response from states was broadly positive, recognising our concerns and our need to have better opportunities to engage in the negotiations. The secretariat convened a working group to look at all the suggestions made and the SBI will meet to discuss the issue today (Saturday). As to what is happening on the ground, the signs so far are mixed- observers were excluded from discussions on REDD + in SBSTA on Thursday and prevented from hearing discussions on legal form in the LCA on Friday, even though delegates had said that they expected the discussion to be open. On the plus side, in the CDM informal on Friday an observer was able to speak on the need for openness and the need for indigenous peoples and local communities affected by projects to be able to engage in the appeals process. The next week will be crucial for seeing whether/how the SBI and states take forward the suggestions made in the workshop and whether their words are backed up by action. Gita Parihar, head of the legal team at Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, presenting to the UNFCCC Secretariat on participation. As well as presenting, Gita and other civil society organisations prepared a list of key demands that was handed to the secretariat You can also read her blog here Friends of the Earth International Press Conference Friends of the Earth held a press conference on Friday looking at how discussions in the KP were progressing, the fight over the agenda and the lack of fast-start finance See the press release below, as well as some photos on the day: DEVELOPED COUNTRIES NOT SERIOUS AT UN CLIMATE TALKS BONN – Today at UN climate talks, civil society organisations accused developed countries of not being serious about continuing with an international climate change regime. At a briefing hosted by Friends of the Earth International, several analysts provided insights into the first week of negotiations. ”The delay this week on agenda issues was very important in looking at the role of Cancun in climate negotiations. It was agreed at the time that Cancun was one train-stop; not the end of the line. But some rich countries aren’t serious about negotiating climate change internationally and they’re using procedural tricks to get their way.” Meena Raman, negotiations analyst from Friends of the Earth Malaysia said. ”In Bangkok it was an agenda prepared by an American that held up negotiations, here it’s one prepared by an Australian – is that a coincidence? Taxpayers in developed countries must be outraged that their bureaucrats are coming here and playing tricks like this instead of negotiating in their national interest to stop climate change.” – Ms Raman said. ”Three countries, Japan, Russia and Canada, have announced they are not intending to fulfil their legal obligations for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. They have announced to the world that they are not serious about international climate change law and that their word does not count for much. Will anyone believe an international commitment from Japan, Russia or Canada again in the future?” Lim Li Lin, Kyoto Protocol expert at the Third World Network said. ”This is a serious matter and legal options should be explored to hold these countries accountable.” Ms Lim added. ”In Copenhagen in 2009 developed countries promised to provide US$30 billion to get a fast start on projects to protect communities in developing countries from climate impacts and to start reducing climate pollution. That money was meant to build trust and as stop-gap until the institutions were ready to deliver the far greater sums necessary in the long-run, several hundreds of billions of dollars.” Janet Redman, Director of Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, The Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington D.C. based think-tank said. ”Recent reports show that developed countries have committed to only about half of that, and evidence is emerging that less than 20 percent of pledges are new or additional to existing promises for development finance – if they were serious about the threats to vulnerable communities and about these negotiations developed countries would have already disbursed new, additional and public money.” Ms Redman said.. ”The one area where talks are progressing, on establishing a new finance mechanism known as the Green Climate Fund, there are still serious concerns about the World Bank as its trustee, given that the Bank has serious potential conflicts of interest due to its role in financing fossil-fuel based projects, and its practice of mixing roles as a banker, financial advisor and project implementer.” Kate Horner, senior analyst at Friends of the Earth U.S. said. —- NOTE TO EDITORS: Several organizations released short briefs of current developments in climate negotiations including which are available at: http://climate-debt.org/2011/06/civil-society-analysis-in-bonn/ Lim Li Lin from third World Network, and in the second picture is Kate Horner from FOE US and Meena Raman from FOE Malaysia FOEI, Global Forest Coalition, Biofuelwatch and Global Justice Ecology Project side event Simone Lovera from Sobrevivencia (Friends of the Earth Paraguay) reported back from the side event she chaired on the Saturday evening: “I particularly wanted to report back on the side event on land grabbing, food prices and carbon markets we organized yesterday evening. Considering the dreadful timeslot we had been granted by the FCCC secretariat (Saturday night!) the participation did not disappoint at all – at a certain moment I counted 30 people including a few delegates. I started by giving a broad overview of the links between the inclusion of land-related projects (esp. REDD+ and bioenergy) in carbon markets, highlighting the impacts through the case study of the Isabela bio-ethanol project in the Philippines I visited last week. Kenn Mondai and Justin Ondera of Ecoforestry forum from Papua New Guinea followed with a great presentation on the problems they have with REDD+, special agricultural business leases (SABLs), and other forms of land grabbing. Kate Horner (FoE-US) followed, giving a comprehensive presentation on the new FoEI report on the role of the World Bank in climate finance. The final speaker was Deepak Rughani of Biofuelwatch, who gave an in-depth analysis of the potential impacts of biochar and the flaws of considering biochar as a climate change mitigation (or even geoengineering) option. The FoEI-GFC-Biofuelwatch-GJEP side event was presented as a ”part 2″ of 2 side events, the first one of organized by Econexus and Gaia foundation on the Saturday afternoon. It also dealt with landgrabbing and inclusion of land in carbon markets and included presentations by Teresa Anderson of Gaia foundation of the different attempts to include land (agriculture, forests, bioenergy and other land use) in carbon markets and the risks that entails. Susanne Gura of Econexus highlighted the impact of meat consumption on the climate and how strategies to deal with this should focus on consumption itself rather than ” intensification” of livestock rearing. Camila Moreno, now with Heinrich Boell foundation-Brazil gave a convincing talks on the contradictions between Brazilian forest and bioenergy policy, Soumya Doutra of COECEDON-India presented on the impacts of climate change in Indian agriculture and Marcial Arias of the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests/GFC presented on the impacts of bio-energy production on Indigenous Peoples. All presentations that were made by powerpoint will be uploaded on the GFC website the coming month.” Friends of the Earth have also been posting blogs throughout Bonn: Day 1: Monday, June 6, 2011 Bring the march on Blair Mountain to Bonn By Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth U.S. As hundreds of conservationists, coal miners and activists start a five day journey through the mountains of West Virginia to call for an end to the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining, a similar battle to ensure a just and sustainable future is being waged at the new round of UN climate talks being held in Bonn, Germany. Instead of implementing laws on the books and standing up to corporate power, the wealthy countries historically responsible for causing the climate crisis are ignoring their moral and legal responsibility to act by dismantling the rules that have the highest chance of delivering a safe climate future. Read more: Bring the march on Blair Mountain to Bonn Day 2: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 Current pledges threaten climate chaos By Pascoe Sabido, Friend of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland Delegates from every corner of the globe filed in to the large white tent tacked on to the Maritim Hotel in Bonn, Germany. Today, negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol started again — the latest in six long years of continued stalling by developed countries. This disagreement over the future of the international climate regime has been at the root of the repeated fights in the climate negotiations over the last two years. Read more: Current pledges threaten climate chaos Day 3: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 No free speech at the climate talks? By Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth U.S. Today in Bonn, delegates are taking a first step towards understanding and fixing the remarkable limitations placed on civil society participation at the UN climate talks. Civil society representatives belong at the UNFCCC climate negotiations — they are the lifeblood of the process, giving it legitimacy and providing expertise. Needless restrictions on their ability to engage must be removed so that, instead of being a sad example of what not to do, the UNFCCC can become a leading light, showing others how it should and can be done. Read more: No free speech at the climate talks? Civil society voice must be heard in climate talks By Gita Parihar, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland As I type this on a German summer’s evening, the memory of being ”kettled” by UN Security police on a dark December evening in Copenhagen two years ago, along with the rest of the FOEI delegation, seems a distant one. Hopefully, as a result of today’s participation workshop, it will become an increasingly irrelevant reminder of the bad old days. more … Day 4: Thursday, June 9, 2011 Climate finance – old wine in a new bottle? By Marjorie Williams (International Gender and Trade Network), Janet Redman (Institute from Policy Studies) & Kate Horner (Friends of the Earth U.S.) According to a presentation yesterday by the European Union on “fast-start finance” for international climate assistance, as well as recent reports to the UNFCCC, developed countries’ finance commitments look a lot like old wine in a new bottle. There is growing evidence that little of the $30 billion pledged by developed countries at Copenhagen is genuinely “new” or “additional.” Moreover, double-counting official development assistance as climate finance not only undermines the trust desperately needed in the UNFCCC but, equally importantly, imperils the longstanding need to address poverty eradication in developing countries. Read more: Climate finance – old wine in a new bottle? Day 5: Friday, June 10, 2011 Geoengineering: carbon capture or corporate capture? By Eric Hoffman and Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth U.S. A Convention on Biological Diversity workshop and recent remarks UNFCCC secretary Figueres seem to indicate resurgent interest in geoengineering despite a current moratorium.Geoengineering experiments would be conducted by the few wealthy nations and corporations who have the funds and technology at their disposal to do so, and these experiments could have devastating effects on other countries and the global climate system. The risks of geoengineering are simply too great for it to be seriously considered at a Convention whose purpose is to stop climate change – not to allow one country to try changing the climate on its own. Read more: Geoengineering: carbon capture or corporate capture? A gap in more than just ideas By Pascoe Sabido, Friend of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland As it stands now, rich countries are cooking the books and the planet. Developed countries seem happy to be able to set their own targets to reduce climate-polluting emissions under a non-binding pledge and review system that includes a lot of ”creative accounting.” But avoiding the ”gigatonne gap” will require a different approach: only by closing down loopholes, stopping offsets and securing rich countries’ commtiments to do their fair share within a legally binding international treaty can we reduce emissions far enough to prevent the crash of the world’s ecosystems. This is a reality driven home powerfully by many developing countries — be they vulnerable small islands likely to disappear beneath the sea or some of the poorest countries in the world already having to tackle the catastrophic impacts of climate change and poverty. Read more: A gap in more than just ideas Bonn Briefings Friends of the Earth and a collection of other climate justice NGOs have produced a series of ‘Bonn Briefings’ to provide a low down on the key negotiations taking place through a justice lens, relevant updates, and a tool for campaigning. Bonn Brief #1: BIG ISSUES The first of the series kicks off by outlining the big talking points in Bonn and what needs to happen if we want a equitable, science-based treaty in Durban that’s going to address the current planetary emergency and prevent catastrophic climate change. Read briefing Bonn Brief #2: THE AGENDA FIGHT At this year’s climate negotiations there have been discussions over the agenda and little else. This is because they have been skewed against developing countries’ and the agreed rules. Fighting for a fair and balanced agenda is important for the future of the UN climate system. Read briefing Bonn Brief #3: CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION Civil society has an essential role to play in the UNFCCC negotiations. The civil society participation workshop in Bonn is a chance to strengthen the rules and their implementation for COP17 in Durban. Read briefing Bonn Brief #4: RENEWABLE ENERGY AND THE FUTURE Emissions reductions are at the core of the climate negotiations. The transition to a 100% renewable energy future must begin now in order to address the development needs of the bottom 1.6 billion who are without access to reliable energy. Through investing less than 1% of rich countries’ GDP per year, we could not only provide clean energy but bring down the price so that renewables were competitive with coal. Read briefing Bonn Brief #5: FAST START FINANCE PLEDGES Developed countries claim that they are providing $30 billion in short-term finance by the end of 2012. This was promised at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit and again in Cancun. The goal was to enable developing countries to start reducing their emissions and prepare for climate impacts, but do the numbers add up? Read briefing Bonn Brief #6: DEVELOPED COUNTRIES’ ‘CREDIBILITY GAP’ Rich industrialised countries are getting out of their legal and moral responsibility to cut climate-warming gasses through a lack of commitment and creative accounting, and are unfairly shifting the burden to developing countries. Read briefing Day-to-day climate justice action in Bonn Each day at 1:30, individuals from climate justice organisations have been meeting up to share intelligence, talk tactics and work out effective strategies to support our principles during the Bonn negotiations. A short outline of YFOEE’s key moments in the negotiations What’s already happened: On Friday, 10th June, there was a side event with other youth organisations. We were talking about the current and upcoming youth campaigns around the world. It was amazing to see how many things are coming up to be involved in. More soon on this soon! On Saturday, 11th June, participants at the YFOEE Climate Justice seminar took part in the global day of action on nuclear energy, calling Japan to quit from gambling with nuclear. See the photo below! You can read more on the issue and sign the petition here: http://www.foejapan.org/en/news/110526_2.html What’s coming up for Young FOE: Push Europe We are working with UKYCC and BundJugend to push European politicians to commit to strong carbon dioxide reduction targets. This would allow Europe to embark on a transition to a low-carbon world, with millions of green jobs for youth. We are planning an action for Wednesday and we will meet the EU delegation to lobby them for greater emission reduction targets. Heads of EU The Wednesday will be an exciting day as the handful delegation of YFOEE will meet the Heads of the EU delegation. We are preparing ourselves to stick to our points and influencing them towards our demands in the Push Europe campaign and beyond. Climate Justice seminar 40 youth delegates from across Europe come on Friday to the YFOEE/Bundjugend Climate Justice seminar here in Bonn. They have a busy agenda, full of exciting and inspiring workshops, skill shares and actions. They will take part of the Push Europe action on Wednesday on the Push Europe campaign, and they will also have their own action during the last day of the negotiations on Friday 17th June. — Support Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth Limited – Company No 1012357 Friends of the Earth Trust – Company No 1533942 Registered Charity No 281681 Registered Office – 26 – 28 Underwood Street, London. N1 7JQ

Mingelrum med bardisk

Plats för tält under äppleträd

Storsal för föredrag och folkdans