The much-anticipated recommendations for a post-2015 agenda report is bold and full of optimism, as my Oxfam colleagues acknowledge (a welcome treat in an otherwise uncertain era). I especially like the authors’ certainty that we can eradicate extreme poverty from the earth by 2030.

The new goals also specifically address a number of challenges left out of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 13 years ago, which signals to me that world leaders are really listening (a welcome, and unfortunately too uncommon, occurrence). Toward that end, the report acknowledges the interplay of conflict, violence, sustainability, governance, urbanization, and inclusive growth as not silos; but rather as a constellation of interdependent issues that must be addressed to create a more prosperous and healthy world for everyone.

Now that I’ve gushed, let me raise a serious critique about how the report addresses inequality.

Despite a growing global consensus that income inequality must be halted, the High-Level Panel did not generate targets for inequality reduction. Instead, reducing inequality is claimed to be imbued across all the goals. The Panel claims, rightly, that inequality is a national issue. For sure, solutions to inequality must happen within the cultural, political, economic contexts of countries. However, though solutions need to be tailored nationally, that doesn’t mean we can’t insist on global targets. There’s still plenty of time to develop what targets could look like. Others will agree and disagree, but I think excluding the idea this early on is premature and lacks creativity.

Further, there’s very little in the report to help countries think about ways to reduce inequality. Unfortunately, the report falls back on a tired narrative of economic growth as a be-all solution.

Who defines the post-2015 agenda? Infographic ‘Defining the post-2015 agenda’ by The Broker. View it interactively: http://post2015.thebrokeronline.eu/

This answer reflects 15-year-old thinking that’s inappropriate for post 2015 world. For instance, in the report there’s a lot of talk about inclusive growth, which inherently reduces inequality, but there’s no suggestion for how to make growth inclusive, only talk about the need to increase productivity.

Worse, the parts on inequality and growth lack any mention of the role of government. As we know, it’s committed governmental intervention and political will making reductions in inequality possible among the few countries where it’s decreasing. Along these lines, there’s no mention of policies aimed toward inequality reduction, including stronger social insurance, more efficient taxation, and cash transfers to the poor. Last, there’s a few lines on the need for deregulation, which makes perfect sense in terms of curbing corruption. However, there should equally be language about how the deregulation of labor standards over the past 30 years has contributed to growing inequality.

With regard to measuring inequality, the report encourages countries to use income quintiles. I’m happy to see an endorsement for looking at how income is distributed. Yet, as we know, in many countries the severity of inequality is between the very, very top 1-5 percent and the rest. Therefore, the Panel should encourage countries to take data collection more seriously to gain a more fine-grained understanding of the differences between the very top and the very bottom. One way to start down this path is encouraging countries to utilize the Palma measure of inequality, which is the ratio of income between the top 10% and the bottom 40%.

I’ve said it once. After reading the report, I’ll say it again. It’s time to move the discussion from absolute to relative gains.

Rice was a crisis commodity in 2008.  Something like 2 billion people rely on rice as a daily staple and prices were spiraling out of control.  Rice prices were one of the most dramatic features of the “global food price crisis” that exploded into headlines, caused riots in many developing countries, and alarm among political leaders across the world in 2007 and 2008.

Seeing the problem and recognizing the threat to international markets and political stability, the G20 leaders embraced food security as a focus, starting in 2010 with France leading the charge.  A dazzling sequence of meetings were convened and papers commissioned.

For all the concern, and at the end of all this activity, very little was actually done.  The G20 has declined to take up the structural issues around food prices and global food security. Probably the most significant accomplishment of the G20 on food security has been the creation of the AMIS, the Agricultural Market Information System.  The idea was to create a shared resource for better information on international food commodities.

So, three years later, do we have better global market information on food commodities?  Especially rice, since it’s such a sensitive and political food?

Not really.

G20 countries produce 80 percent of the world’s rice, so you might think that AMIS could give us some good information on the situation with global rice production and inventory.  But this chart shows how bad things are:

China is the world’s biggest rice producer and consumer.  What happens there dwarfs almost everything else in the market.  China is a member of the G20.  But how much rice does China have?

Here we see two estimates of how much rice will be left at the end of the 2012-2013 growing year.  China could have 45 million tons in storage at the end of the year.  Or it could have more than twice that amount.  Depends if you believe the US Department of Agriculture or the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

That’s a pretty big spread between estimates.  Either China will hold about one-tenth of global rice production at the end of the year.  Or it might hold twice that.   Or maybe neither is right;  because the truth is we really don’t know.

It’s important.  Knowing if there’s rice available – whether China might be buying or selling – determines a lot about the price of rice globally and whether the market is stable.  But we don’t know.

Comparatively small factors can have a big impact on rice markets.  India isn’t a big rice exporter – about 5 million tons a year.  But an export ban announced by India in 2007 was one of the primary drivers for panic in rice markets that sent rice prices through the roof.

If you’re an analyst trying to guess what prices will be, this is a mess.  More importantly, if you’re concerned about food security and trying to prepare for emergencies and price spikes, there’s little here that helps.  The difference between the two estimates for Chinese rice stocks could consume all global rice exports.

No one really knows or has good information. China is opaque, even though it’s a huge factor in global food prices.

AMIS doesn’t seem to be cracking that nut, much less other information gaps, like how much big trading companies hold.

So, what is the G20 accomplishing on global food security?

There is big debate going about what should happen when the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire in 2015.

I spent a day in New York recently talking about how the successors to MDGs could incorporate goals around inequality.  Other people are following the post-2015 debate closer than I am.  And others know more about inequality.  But I’m interested in how reducing inequality can be included in the next round of “post-2015” goals, and thereby be established as one of the goals of humanity.

When the current MDGs expire, most people assume that the world – via the UN – will embrace a new set of goals, and that they will look something like the existing MDGs.  For inequality, there are a few options, including:

(1) a stand-alone goal on inequality;
(2) integrating inequality indicators in other goals; or
(3) finding a more symbolic or aspirational way to support reducing inequality, without making it a measurable commitment.

It’s worth noting that some goals, like ending extreme poverty or ensuring 100% of children are enrolled in quality schools, are universal and inherently support greater equality.  To some extent, the more ambitious the goals, the more likely they are to help reduce inequality.

But there’s an argument for including a goal (or goals) on inequality in their own right, not as a secondary or incidental benefit of other goals.  For one thing, a stand-alone goal makes clear what the value-statement is and would be a powerful driver for action.

There are serious technical questions about how you could do this.  The standard GINI indicator is widely used, but has flaws that can obscure important aspects of inequality.  Other methods have also been proposed.

While I’m focused on inequality of income, or perhaps wealth, other dimensions of inequality are also important and could make alternative or complementary goals, e.g. inequality of geography, gender, or ethnicity are important and salient in different contexts.

Technical questions have technical answers.  The bigger challenges lie in the politics.  There’s a presumption that a stand-alone inequality goal is a non-starter and would be blocked by the powers that be.  Indeed, the gossip mill reports that when inequality has been proposed in the High Level Panel discussions, the UK Prime Minister has flatly refused to consider it.  But he isn’t the decider.  Or is he?

It’s depressing that the High Level Panel may neglect inequality, but there are plenty of other stakeholders and intervention points.  For example, you can have a say in the U.N. global survey for citizens. (Consider writing in “inequality” as a priority.)

The resistance of some key leaders doesn’t square with the reality that inequality rates very high as a public concern, in countries north and south, rich and poor.

It’s easy to understand why the one percent might not like all this attention to inequality,  and also why they might oppose setting an objective to reduce it.  But why would everyone else?  And why would political leaders like Cameron oppose it?

Unless they cared more about the super-rich than everyone else?

Erinch Sahan is a Private Sector Policy Advisor at Oxfam Great Britain.

Badou Allouko on her farmland, where she grows cocoa to sell and vegetables for personal consumption, in Sankro, Ivory Coast in January. Photo: Peter DiCampo / Oxfam America

In a world where demand for agricultural production is growing, but supply is failing to keep up, small-scale producers are critical to our food security. With the right investment and inclusive business approaches, small-scale farmers can be immensely productive and a reliable source of supply.

Small-scale farmers are also becoming critical to the ‘Big 10’ food and beverage companies. Oxfam assessed how the policies and commitments of the Big 10 stack up in our Behind the Brands report. We found that most of the Big 10 are missing the mark in ensuring a fair deal for small-scale farmers. This is a missed opportunity, not only because small-scale producers are central to the supply-security concerns of the Big 10, but also because rural economic development is so strongly linked to small-scale agriculture.

Here’s the development case. While the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone, 900 million people go to bed hungry each night. 80% of these hungry people live in rural areas, mostly working as small-scale producers. As Bill Gates said in 2009 at the World Food Prize ceremony:

“Helping the poorest smallholder farmers grow more crops and get them to market is the world’s single most powerful lever for reducing hunger and poverty.”

There are over 400 million small-scale farms on which 1.5 billion small-holder and landless farmers earn their livelihoods and grow their food. Some of these farmers are able to crack into the global supply chain. Too often, these ‘lucky’ few are left baring disproportionate levels of risks and costs. The vast majority are left behind, excluded by business models that fail to invest in and adapt to the realities of small-scale agriculture.

Among the Big 10, Unilever tops Oxfam’s Scorecard on farmers with a score of 7 out of 10. Mars and Nestle come equal second, with a score of 5. Unilever is distinguished mostly by its Sustainable Agriculture Code, which sets out guidelines and requirements for suppliers of Unilever to meet. As most of the Big 10 don’t deal with small-scale farmers directly, it’s the standards they require of their suppliers that matters most. Unilever’s code asks suppliers to work with producer organisations and provide training to small-scale farmers, as well as having specific clauses dealing with profit margins and local market opportunities for small-scale farmers. However, most supplier codes of the Big 10 do little nothing to single out any support or protection for small-scale farmers.

Oxfam hopes to see the Big 10 improve their policies and commitments to small-scale farmers in their supply chains. It starts with understanding the needs of these farmers and knowing where they are. Small-scale producers too often bear disproportionate risks and costs, but profits fail to trickle down. The Big 10 need to use their power and influence to stop this injustice. Most critically, the Big 10 need to make absolutely clear that they expect small-scale farmers to be treated fairly by all suppliers. Taking a strong stand on this in their supplier codes is an important step we hope more of the Big 10 take.

Who among the Big 10 will challenge Unilever for the top-score on farmers? Bragging rights is up for grabs.

***

This post by Erinch Sahan is part of a Behind the Brands blog series on Politics of Poverty that examines the seven issues relating to poverty and big food companies’ supply chains. Read more on land, women, transparency, water, workers, and climate change!

Is it better to gain absolutely or relatively?

For example, free trade agreements promise all members economic benefits (absolute gains); although some members will benefit more than others (relative gains).

In terms of poverty, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a lesson in absolute gains. In sheer numbers, we’ve halved the world’s population living below the $1.25/day poverty line, and millions more joined the ranks of an emerging global middle class.

Yet, the victory of absolute poverty gains masks the pernicious relative inequalities that have grown alongside poverty reductions.

In many countries, poverty reduction and economic growth were unequal. In China, for example, the urban poor along the industrial coast made much greater gains than those in the vast, rural interior. In other places, prejudices and discrimination excluded groups from the benefits of growth and social services because of gender, race, ethnicity, and religion. Globalization and growth accelerated the creation of new, exclusive classes of upper middle and high income earners. Yet, the impact escalated prices on food and essentials, leaving the near poor vulnerable to slipping back below the poverty threshold.

To the right of the tennis courts and swimming pools, is Paraisópolis, a favela or shanty town, outside of São Paulo, Brazil. Translated, its name is Paradise City. Source: Google Maps http://bit.ly/11tbM3X. You can see another view of the area by photographer Tuca Vieira here: http://bit.ly/W7TODA

As we gear up for a post 2015 agenda, our generation is in a unique historical position. Eradicating global poverty is no longer a fantasy. It’s within our reach. However, the next challenge is reducing chronic inequalities between those subsisting just above the poverty line, and those securely apart of the middle class, or higher.

As the UN’s High Level Panel meets in Monrovia this week to discuss the post 2015 agenda, let’s laud the MDGs for helping to deliver the absolute gains made eradicating poverty.

But, let’s not allow world leaders to shy from the difficult challenge of creating relative gains for those heretofore excluded from economic and social opportunities.

Minor Sinclair is Oxfam America’s US Regional Director.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal last week appointed Oxfam America’s Coastal Communities Program Officer, Telley Madina, as an at-large member of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection, Restoration and Conservation. Madina is one of 28 members appointed by the Governor; the commission also includes eight government officials.

Born and raised in New Orleans, Madina has been a formidable presence in Louisiana — in the State House, in New Orleans, and in the coastal parishes – building coalitions, forging relationships with industry, activists, and government officials as the former Executive Director of the Louisiana Oystermen Association.

Louisiana State Representative and Speaker Pro Tempore Walter Leger (left) with Oxfam America Coastal Communities Program Officer, Telley Madina (right), immediately after Governor Jindal signed the “Louisiana First” bill in 2012.

Madina has been working with Oxfam since 2011. Last year, he was a major force behind passage of the “Louisiana First” Law, which encourages employers to seek Louisiana workers in the state’s coastal restoration and protection projects. The new law opens a window of economic opportunity to local workers in projects planned under the state’s Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast, while providing important data on hiring, job trends, and training to help provide businesses with a better-prepared Louisiana workforce.

In his new post, Oxfam America is confident Madina will continue his great work of elevating the voices of the people most affected by the oil spill and extreme weather events.

“I’ve been working with coastal communities for years now, first with the Louisiana Oystermen Association, now with Oxfam America. I’m honored by this appointment, and I’ll do my best to raise the voices of the communities and vulnerable people across Southeast Louisiana,” shared Madina.

For several years, Oxfam America has had a unique angle on coastal restoration programs in the Gulf Coast. While many organizations focus solely on ecosystems or the economy, Oxfam America shines a spotlight on the people, those who live and work on the land and the water—especially those most vulnerable to natural or man-made disasters.

Since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in 2010, Oxfam has been advocating for the families who’ve lost their livelihoods due to effects from the oil spill. We advocate for the potential billions of dollars that BP and others will pay in fines (from $5 to $21 billion) should help to restore the environment and build more resilient communities, but most importantly, should be used in a way the best benefits the communities and individuals affected. This includes dedicating necessary funds to retrain workers who were impacted by the spill and taking the necessary steps to employ these workers as restoration projects move forward. The RESTORE Act, signed into law last July, will in fact direct 80% of those fines toward the Gulf Coast states. Louisiana, one of the states most affected by the spill and by a series of hurricanes in recent years, has a plan to stop the downward slide of the land and the people. The Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast will invest $50 billion into restoring and protecting its hundreds of miles of fragile and vital coastline.

In the next couple months, the BP trial will start. But when the money starts to flow, this is when the real challenge will begin for the governor and for Louisiana—how can the money best be used to restore the ecosystem, rebuild the economy, and help vulnerable communities recover their resilience and health?

Oxfam is thrilled Telley Madina will be at the table. Congrats Telley!

Trade can be an engine for development if its benefits reach those living in poverty. Oxfam has argued for this for more than a decade. Philip Stevens of the Emerging Markets Health Network, in a Wall Street Journal Asia op-ed at the end of last year, calls this “NGO scaremongering.”

Stephanie Burgos, Senior Policy Advisor for Trade

Stephanie Burgos, Senior Policy Advisor at Oxfam America, responds in this letter to the editor.

***

The TPP Would Be a Bitter Pill

Philip Stevens’s diagnosis of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and Oxfam’s perspective on it (“Free Trade is Good for Health” op-ed, Dec. 18) is plain wrong.

Oxfam has long been a supporter of trade for development and economic growth, provided rules are fair for rich and poor countries alike. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), however, only favors multinational drug companies through new intellectual property (IP) rules at the expense of the health of millions in developing countries.

Generic competition, which begins when monopoly protection for medicines expire, is the way countries can reduce medicine prices. New IP rules delay generic competition and thus low-cost medicines in developing countries. Poor people go without treatment or make dire economic sacrifices.

The World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines avoids recommending patented medicines, despite their public health value, because they are too expensive. Mr. Stevens cites the list as evidence that patents don’t matter, when it is precisely a testament to the unfairness of excessive IP rules. Suggesting that developing country patients should be satisfied by access to a limited range of older treatments is outrageously unfair.

Mr. Stevens defends data exclusivity because it generates profits for drug companies, but fails to mention its negative impacts on public health. Oxfam’s research in Jordan, which introduced data exclusivity in 2001 under a U.S. trade agreement, showed the measure significantly contributed to a 20% increase in medicine prices. Other rules demanded by the U.S. will also invite abuse of the patent system by drug companies, tie the hands of governments who want to negotiate prices with drug companies, and distract drug regulators from focusing their efforts on ensuring the safety of medicines.

Intellectual property rules must be calibrated to ensure incentives for innovators are balanced with broader public interests. The IP rules proposed by the US in the TPP upset this balance. This is not a matter of perception. It is right there on paper at the negotiating table.

Five years ago, the U.S. revised trade agreements with Peru, Panama and Colombia to limit the damage the agreements could wreak to public health, but deep-pocketed special interests are now holding the U.S. back.

Here’s to hoping that won’t be the case in 2013.

“We reject the notion that lasting security and prosperity can be found by turning away from universal rights…our support for universal rights is both fundamental to American leadership and a source of our strength in the world.” President Barack Obama, May 2010 National Security Strategy.

President Obama has made it clear that security does not exist without respect for the rights of people throughout the globe. Tragically, this statement is currently at risk of being eroded by some in the administration who do not want to be restrained from selling or giving arms to bad guys.

This is the final week of the historic effort to develop a global Arms Trade Treaty. Governments have been huddled together in overcrowded rooms until the early hours of the morning hammering out a text. The goals of the negotiations are clear: develop a treaty that would prevent arms transfers to places where there is a substantial risk that the weapons will be used to seriously violate human rights or the laws of war. While the majority of states, including all of the US’ closest allies, are pushing for strong text that would prevent irresponsible arms transfers, the Obama administration is publicly stating that it wants loopholes in the treaty that would allow human rights to be ignored when national security interests are at stake. Specifically, Ambassador Donald Mahley said to the United Nations on July 12, that “it would be inconsistent with the principle of sovereign national implementation to require that [human rights and humanitarian law] criteria take precedence over criteria such as regional stability and national security.

Since when was adherence to the laws of war and protecting human rights an adversary to national and global security?

Most of the world ardently wants an Arms Trade Treaty. Millions of people have stood up and called for governments to put an end to the irresponsible arms trade and to develop rules of behavior that puts human rights and the protection of civilians at the center of arms trade decisions. The most heart-rending appeals are from the civilians who have endured the chaos and horror of unregulated combat, irregular combatants, and loose arms flowing over borders and from hand to hand.

Nepal: Maoist insurgents gather in Rukum district. It is estimated that the Maoist guerrillas of Nepal have around 10,000 hard-core fighters, including many women, backed by 50,000 'militia'. The prevalence of small arms that are affordable and easy to carry and use has changed the landscape of warfare, allowing women and children to be recruited as combatants. Credit: Ami Vitale

The US agrees with a treaty in principle. Secretary Clinton has clearly stated that an Arms Trade Treaty is needed “to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them.”

It seems to me that the US statement calling for human rights to be demoted below national security is heavily influenced by those in the administration’s national security team who want freedom to transfer arms to whom it wishes, even if the arms will be used in ways abhorrent to American values and interests. I am not naïve. I know that addressing national security always calls for some balancing of interests. However, the current US proposal would not only be in contrast to the Obama administration’s recent practice, but also allow nondemocratic or authoritarian governments who do not have the same reverence for human rights and want to sell or give weapons to war criminals or armed groups.

A treaty that does not clearly state that arms transfers to actors committing atrocities against their own people is unacceptable behavior is not worth having at all.  For example, what will keep Russia from claiming national security need when confronted with its arms transfers to Syria if the US creates a loophole in the international law?

According to President Obama, “the US has a commitment to an international order based upon rights and responsibilities.” It is time, Mr. President, to show that commitment and tell those who are opposing strong human rights provisions to get on board with your national security strategy and support a strong Arms Trade Treaty. The US has an opportunity to lead and to craft a global order based on the rule of law and human rights. It must seize the moment and support a strong treaty today. With only 4 days left for negotiations, time is running out.

Farmer Kassa Danfakha stands in his field during the dry season; Bembou village, south-eastern Senegal. Credit: Brett Eloff/ Oxfam America

I blogged two weeks ago about the ongoing Sahel food aid crisis and my colleague Anna Kramer has provided a great infographic outlining the key causes and facts. Today, at a meeting being organized by the European Commission, governments, UN agencies, and INGOs (including Oxfam) are meeting in Brussels to discuss the crisis and chart a path forward.

Much of the focus of the meeting will undoubtedly be on meeting immediate emergency needs and filling the appalling funding gap that remains between what governments have identified as needed in the region and what aid has so far been committed. Of the 1.5 billion requested so far, only $642 million has been committed by donors. The US has provided $308 million. But, with such a large gap, it is clear that all donors—the US included—must give more. All of this of course assumes that this additional assistance can be used in creative ways to get assistance to people in need on time, which is now. Perhaps this a manageable task in some communities, but clearly harder in other places such as northern Mali.

Efforts to ensure a successful harvest are also badly in need of funding at the moment. Farmers and pastoralists are again looking forward to the rainy season which is expected to begin in the days and weeks ahead. The onset of the rains usually signals hard work as farmers go to the fields to prepare and plant their crops, but only if they have seeds.

In Senegal, seeds for key crops such as groundnuts appear to be in scarce supply. After the poor crop last year, farmers had few seeds to save. And what seeds they have managed to keep have become a tempting source of nutrition as other food has run out. Without immediate assistance to meet emergency needs and enable farmers to plant and pastoralists to maintain their herds, the cycle of hunger will continue. This is the discussion in Dakar and Niamey, and other capital cities in the region where hunger has taken hold. It will also be on the agenda for the Consultation.

Recovery activities—helping to rebuild assets that have been depleted during a crisis period—such as emergency input distribution are embedded in drought disaster response. The Consultation is also slated to tackle issue such as this in terms of the emergent (and in vogue) concept of resilience building. In a conversation eerily similar to one that took place earlier this year with regard to the Horn of Africa crisis (and where the US launched a multi-stakeholder partnership), the EU is slated to announce a partnership on resilience for the West Africa region.

However it is defined (see here for one example)—whether to signal the need to bridge the gap donors often face between humanitarian aid and long-term development programs; focus attention on government-level early warning systems, preparedness, and response; or to support community-based efforts to assess, prepare, respond to and recover from shocks—the concept of resilience may be a useful one to organize around. (For an interesting Q&A covering some of these issues, see this transcript from a recent USAID-sponsored event.) But governments and other stakeholders need to clearly define a shared framework for understanding and analysis of how resiliency will be operationalized at the community level and how it layers with other development effort to sustainably improve food security and reduce vulnerability over time. The danger is that resilience becomes a fad that garners attention in the short term without attracting the resources needed to bring about transformative and lasting results.

Representatives meeting at the European Commission High Level Meeting on the Sahel must address both of these issues. It’s a tall order, admittedly. But one that can’t be ignored.

Oxfam is aiming to help 1.2 million people across seven countries with programs that include cash transfers and cash-for-work initiatives, veterinary care for the livestock on which many families depend, and access to clean water and sanitation. We are also campaigning to change the root causes of this crisis. Find out how you can support our efforts.

When you think of Smucker’s, jelly and jams typically come to mind, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. The J.M. Smucker Company is actually a leading distributor of Folgers and Dunkin’ Donuts coffee brands (who knew?), with coffee accounting for 40% of the company’s net sales and nearly half of its profits. That’s a whole lot of coffee, considering that the company sells and manufactures many other widely-used household brands like Crisco, Jif, and Pillsbury.

Coffee crops are highly sensitive to weather and temperature fluctuations making it particularly vulnerable to climate change. This past year the cost of coffee skyrocketed following increased demand and poor harvests in high-producing countries like Colombia and Brazil.   In 2010 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new guidance for publicly traded companies, requiring companies to disclose climate change risks, such as physical risks to a company’s assets and supply chains. 

Disclosing these risks will create much needed transparency to help investors understand how companies’ supply chains, and the communities that support them, could be impacted by increasingly extreme weather and other likely results of climate change.

Read the rest of this entry »