[ECA] Planning for PESC-4

Agnes HALLOSSERIE agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr
Mon Apr 3 17:37:05 CEST 2017


Dear Belgian Team,

Thank you very much for your great contribution and thoughts on the planning of PESC!

1. We made good progress last week on discussions with the IPBES TSUs for capacity-building and for the regional assessment, regarding how to articulate PESC and the regional review on the ECA draft with PESC. The review with the NFPs is an IPBES-led process so they will handle the invitations on that regard. This will be simple for NFPs who registered to PESC by the deadline already, but the other NFPs will be mobilized through an invitation letter by IPBES Secretariat, with an extended deadline for registration. The Secretariat knows that we have a total of 20 spaces for NFPs in the "decision-makers" group. We keep of course a diversity of stakeholders as this is one of the key features of PESC, and there are also 20 spaces for academics and 20 for other stakeholders (private sector, NGOs…), which are all full since we closed registration. The review process with NFPs will be handled by IPBES TSU members as this is part of their capacity-building activities, but we, as PESC organisers/facilitators, can align our work with the other break-out groups on the same model. The official invitation to NFPs by IPBES for this review workshop will be helpful for PESC to achieve its objective of mingling NFPs with other stakeholders and encourage them to participate to the extent they wish to the ECA network. Indeed, few NFPs attended previous PESC even though they are targeted in the broad term "stakeholders" as described in previous PESC documents.

2. The work of the break-out groups will need to be carefully planned indeed, in order to produce relevant outputs. As I understand it, it will also be a first time for IPBES to conduct such a regional consultation on a draft assessment, so I don't know how far they are in planning the sessions. I think your suggestions are very good and the idea was indeed to have a good introduction by IPBES on the review process: what is a valid comment, how to submit it etc; and by the assessment authors to know what they are needing most from this review process. Therefore, a fairly long time is dedicated to this introduction to the SOD and review process on the first day of the meeting, before breaking up into groups. It will also be very valuable to send some preparatory guiding questions to the participants, NFPs and others alike, at the same time they access the SOD. I will forward your suggestions to the TSU and see with them whether they have also developed something on their side, so that we can start preparing the facilitation material.

Thank you for offering help in facilitating the sessions! Based on our experience at PESC-3 last year, it would be good to have 2 persons per break-out group, to share the tasks of facilitation and of note-taking. As mentioned earlier, Group 1 is facilitated by the TSU so I suggest willing ECA members facilitate Group 2 and 3, based on the IPBES chapters they would be most comfortable with: chapters 1 to 3 or chapters 4 to 6. It was suggested that the NFP group focuses on the SPM but based on the discussion with CLAs in order to identify where they feel further work and input are needed, we can focus on some chapters only and/or focus on the SPM in the other groups too. In all cases, participants will be encouraged to submit their comments through the official IPBES channel. NFPs' comments won't be taken into account if they do not submit it on behalf of their country (so not collectively as NFPs participating in PESC) and other stakeholders' comments will be sent on behalf of PESC if we address IPBES' requirements regarding transparency and harmonization of comments (I am currently discussing with IPBES Secretariat on that matter). More, further detailed comments can be submitted by any Government or stakeholder before, during or after PESC as well, on their own.

Eva (Switzerland) and Rainer (Germany) and Jonas (TBC, Germany) offered to facilitate break-out groups. One or two of you could come to support them. It has not been decided yet who is working with which group. Do you have a preference?

As a reminder, chapters correspond to the following:

  *   1: Setting the scene
  *   2: Nature's contributions to people and quality of life
  *   3: Status, trends and future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning nature's benefits to people
  *   4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in the context of different perspectives on quality of life
  *   5: Integrated and cross-scale analysis of interactions of the natural world and human society
  *   6: Options for governance, institutional arrangements and private and public decision-making across scales and sectors

I'll keep adjusting the concept note and programme in the coming weeks as discussions go on. Thanks again for your input!!

Kind regards,

Agnes

De : <estelle.balian at gmail.com<mailto:estelle.balian at gmail.com>> on behalf of Estelle BALIAN <estelle.balian at naturalsciences.be<mailto:estelle.balian at naturalsciences.be>>
Date : lundi 3 avril 2017 15:32
À : Agnes HALLOSSERIE <agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr<mailto:agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>>
Cc : "h.eggermont at biodiversity.be<mailto:h.eggermont at biodiversity.be>" <h.eggermont at biodiversity.be<mailto:h.eggermont at biodiversity.be>>, "elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de<mailto:elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de>" <elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de<mailto:elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de>>, "Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de<mailto:Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de>" <Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de<mailto:Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de>>, "molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu>" <molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu>>, "palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu>" <palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu>>, "eca-network at bebif.be<mailto:eca-network at bebif.be>" <eca-network at bebif.be<mailto:eca-network at bebif.be>>, PERIANIN Laurence <laurence.perianin at iucn.org<mailto:laurence.perianin at iucn.org>>, "Machteld.Schoolenberg at pbl.nl<mailto:Machteld.Schoolenberg at pbl.nl>" <Machteld.Schoolenberg at pbl.nl<mailto:Machteld.Schoolenberg at pbl.nl>>, "eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com<mailto:eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com>" <eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com<mailto:eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com>>, "amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch<mailto:amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch>" <amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch<mailto:amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch>>, "hans.keune at inbo.be<mailto:hans.keune at inbo.be>" <hans.keune at inbo.be<mailto:hans.keune at inbo.be>>, "gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu<mailto:gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu>" <gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu<mailto:gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu>>, "p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be<mailto:p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be>" <p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be<mailto:p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be>>, "torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu>" <torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu>>, "baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu>" <baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu>>, Angelique Berhault <a.berhault at biodiversity.be<mailto:a.berhault at biodiversity.be>>
Objet : Re: [ECA] Planning for PESC-4

Dear Agnès

Thanks a lot for sharing the concept note and for all the preparatory work of this challenging endeavor!!

We discussed with Hilde and Angélique, and we wanted to highlight some key aspects/issues that should maybe be further discussed by the organizers and the IPBES Secretariat:

1- regarding the participation of the NFPs and the fact that no other opportunity will be given to governments to discuss the documents (i.e. no separate regional consultation as originally scheduled for July):

Most governments/NFPs are not aware that this will be the "main consultation" and might not register or be prepared on time for the PESC-4. As you said this is more IPBES Secretariat's responsibility but this might also create high expectations on the PESC meeting that will be tough to meet. The fact that the registration for PESC-4 is already closed (correct?) may add to this problem.

2- Review comments and documents
In the best case scenario, you might have one out of 10 delegates who will have screened through the chapters and maybe 2 who will have read the SPM.

We think it would be maybe more efficient to have 2 different foci and announce them in advance to participants rather than a open discussion on all the documents:

Focus 1: For chapters:
Ask the authors or each chapter to highlight in their view the main difficulties they had and what they feel is still incomplete/in need of further work.
Participants could then focus only on these questions to help try to address them.

Avoid tedious line by line comments during the meeting. If some people are very motivated, they should do it online in the review system.

Focus 2: Have a clear focus on the SPM (maybe even give some time at the beginning of the groups to read it) but with targeted questions like:
1- How do you assess the overall quality of the SPM/policy recommendations hererin/ confidence level etc.?
2- Then work with the "star" working method
What should be deleted?
What should be kept as it is?
What should be increased?
What should be reduced?
What new elements should be added?

Overall, we are concerned about the help/guidance that is supposed to be provided by the IPBES Secretariat - knowing they are under strong pressure already + they have to simultaneously deal with the other regional assessments that are likely of lower quality. Therefore, we feel we have to anticipate and come up with a solid proposal ourselves.

We hope this will help the further development of the working sessions. We are happy to support the facilitation of working groups if needed.

Best regards
Estelle, Hilde and Angelique


On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Agnes HALLOSSERIE <agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr<mailto:agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>> wrote:
Dear all,

Thank you for all the feedback provided regarding the organisation and content of PESC-4, that is very helpful!

Please remember to register on this address if you plan to attend the conference so that we have the number of people right: http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/fr/fondation/evenements/divers.html

Regarding the review work on the draft assessment and SPM, it will need good preparation indeed. We got a proposal by the IPBES Secretariat to join forces and to include the regional capacity-building workshop targeting NFPs for reviewing and preparing the approval of SPM in 2018 within PESC-4, since our objectives are well in line. This would be a form of partnership between IPBES and PESC, and a nice way to acknowledge PESC contribution to the implementation of IPBES work programme, including its rolling plan for capacity-building. The Secretariat highlighted that they are very keen to work with us on that regional matter, especially since the Plenary at its 5th session recalled several time that they should really build on and partner with existing initiatives.

 They will be able to provide us with support on how to conduct best the review for NFPs, and we could adapt from there to work with the other participants. We could have designed more general info sessions running in parallel with the break-out groups but I am afraid that it would scatter the group too much, with only a handful of participants per group. Instead, I suggest to design the break out sessions in an incremental fashion. As we have 3 sessions of 1.5 hours each, we could take some time in the first session to present the draft versions, identify key issues and challenges and therefore guide more closely the input from and discussion with participants, with the help of the assessment co-chairs and CLAs.

We definitely have learned some lessons from last year (both in terms of reviewing the draft documents and discussing stakeholders needs) and we should keep it in mind when designing the sessions. If there is an issue or session you are particularly interested in, and if you would like to take over the organisation of that session, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can share the work! Note that there is a new session in the concept note about the organisers of the meeting, and if you intend to contribute more actively in the organisation of PESC but have not let me know yet, please shout :-) We will close registration after a last reminder next week and we will then look at the registered participants we can support for travel. We are still looking for additional funding to support travel for participants from Eastern Europe and Central Asia so please let me know if you can contribute, even if this is a small amount, it can allow one or two persons to attend.

You can find attached the updated version of the concept note, with some changes following what happened at IPBES-5 and the discussions we had with IPBES Secretariat as mentioned above. Could you please let me know if you have specific feedback by COB Friday 24 March (apologies for the short delay!) so that the concept note can be submitted to the ECA assessment management committee when they meet next week? They will need to decide whether they can go ahead with the option of the capacity-building workshop being integrated within PESC-4.

Thank you very much in advance and all the best,

Agnes


De : <hr.eggermont at gmail.com<mailto:hr.eggermont at gmail.com>> on behalf of hilde eggermont <h.eggermont at biodiversity.be<mailto:h.eggermont at biodiversity.be>>
Répondre à : "h.eggermont at biodiversity.be<mailto:h.eggermont at biodiversity.be>" <h.eggermont at biodiversity.be<mailto:h.eggermont at biodiversity.be>>
Date : mercredi 1 mars 2017 13:23
À : "elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de<mailto:elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de>" <elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de<mailto:elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de>>
Cc : Agnes HALLOSSERIE <agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr<mailto:agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>>, "gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu<mailto:gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu>" <gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu<mailto:gyorgy.pataki at uni-corvinus.hu>>, "baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu>" <baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:baldi.andras at okologia.mta.hu>>, "molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu>" <molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:molnar.zsolt at okologia.mta.hu>>, "eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com<mailto:eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com>" <eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com<mailto:eszti.k.kovacs at gmail.com>>, "palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu>" <palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:palotas.brigitta at okologia.mta.hu>>, "torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu>" <torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu<mailto:torok.katalin at okologia.mta.hu>>, PERIANIN Laurence <laurence.perianin at iucn.org<mailto:laurence.perianin at iucn.org>>, "Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de<mailto:Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de>" <Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de<mailto:Mariam.Akhtar-Schuster at dlr.de>>, "hans.keune at inbo.be<mailto:hans.keune at inbo.be>" <hans.keune at inbo.be<mailto:hans.keune at inbo.be>>, "p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be<mailto:p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be>" <p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be<mailto:p.huybrechts at biodiversity.be>>, "amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch<mailto:amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch>" <amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch<mailto:amor.torre at ips.unibe.ch>>, "eca-network at bebif.be<mailto:eca-network at bebif.be>" <eca-network at bebif.be<mailto:eca-network at bebif.be>>
Objet : Re: [ECA] Planning for PESC-4

Dear Agnes, Dear all

First of all great thanks for the efforts!

As for the options on the target audience, not easy indeed. With Option 1 - you may get more input with regard to the actual review of the SOD (from both knowledge holders & end-users), whereas Option 2 is likely the most inclusive. As regards the latter, I agree with Lisa that the format will need to be adapted accordingly (i.e. allow space for more generic discussions). At the same time, we have to avoid running in circles (don't duplicate previous PESC meetings and pre-plenary Stakeholder Days)... That said, I think either option could work, as long as we have sufficient end-users on board. (my preferred option would be 1)

I also agree that the organization of the review will require sufficient reflection and preparatory work. At EU level, MS are even considering to spread workload - so we should be realistic on what we can actually achieve during a 2-day meeting, knowing that (very likely) most won't have read the docs...

Finally, I am also happy to confirm that both Estelle Balian and Angélique Berhault will attend the PESC4 meeting on behalf on the Belgian Biodiversity Platform. They can also provide helping hands for the facilitation and act as resource persons for the ECA-network<http://www.eca-ipbesnetwork.org/> and NPF-activities. Probably, I won't attend myself but remain available for input & preparations,

Best wishes, and hope to see most of you in Bonn!
Hilde



2017-02-10 12:16 GMT+01:00 Elisabeth Marquard <lisa.marquard at ufz.de<mailto:lisa.marquard at ufz.de>>:
Dear Agnès, dear all,

thank you very much your email and the concept note. This looks like a very interesting program. And I am very excited about the fact that PESC goes on!! Thanks for your efforts and the 'friendly takeover' by France and Hungary!!

Just some thoughts from my side:

Regarding the desired composition of participants: I don't know which of your 'scenarios' may work better but I always think that involving people from the administrations of different sectors could be fruitful since they are one of the main target groups of IPBES products, aren't they? Maybe they could contribute their view on how the ECA assessment or its SPM might be received more effectively? This would perhaps rather address the later dissemination and outreach than the SOD itself....

In any case, the audience will probably be a mixture of people that are fairly well acquainted with IPBES and people that are newcomers to the process (unless you deliberately chose only IPBES-experienced experts?). And this remains a serious challenge, in particular when it comes to the 'reviewing exercise'. So I wonder whether it might be worth considering running the 'reviewing break-out groups' in parallel with some other break-out group that does not require familiarity with the SOD. You could e.g. have break-out groups for the Chapter 1-4 in parallel with one that addresses some other topic (e.g. the national platforms or other forms of national/regional coordination) and then later break-out groups for Chapters 5-6 in parallel with one that addresses the next IPBES work program. Otherwise, participants that have not prepared for reviewing a chapter might be a little lost during the afternoon of day 1 and 2?

Regarding the organization of the review: One lesson that I learned during PESC-3 was that we had not prepared the review of the individual chapters sufficiently. I think you are already discussing this issue with the TSU for the ECA assessment and you are now more experienced than I was last year - so I am pretty sure that you will perform better than I did. And I like the idea that a CLA will give an intro to a chapter. But just some additional thoughts: Would it be possible to communicate some of 'what is expected from the 2nd review' to the participants already before PESC-4? Such as the degree of flexibility that still exists? Or to identify some key aspects they should concentrate on? Or to give them some more instructions such that each participant needs to fill in his/her own excel sheet (if this is required by the TSU)? Maybe, the participants will ignore this information but maybe it's worth a try? And, of course, as you know, the accessibility of the documents was really an issue before PESC-3.

Regarding the stakeholder engagement and the discussion of stakeholder's needs: I wonder how the material that has already been collected on this issue could be used more effectively, i.e. how to avoid that the discussion on the needs and barriers is more or less the same as at previous meetings? I have not really a good idea how this could be done when there are many newcomers at the table.... Maybe some more knowledge holders could be given a voice? E.g. someone from the administration or some practitioner who is actually contributing to or USING an IPBES product?

These are just some things that have come to my mind while reading the concept note. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss some of this further.

Best wishes
Lisa

--

Am 09.02.17 17:01 schrieb Agnes HALLOSSERIE <agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr<mailto:agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>>:

Dear all,

As you may have seen, we have released a save-the-date earlier this week regarding PESC-4 next June. Please feel free to circulate the message within your network, and let me know if you have not received it.

I send you here the concept note with some updates, with two main points I would particularly like your feedback on:

  *   I suggested two scenarios regarding the participants we would like to see at PESC-4 in order to achieve the meeting's objectives. What do you think would be best? Other combinations are possible so feel free to suggest one if you think it would fit the purpose better;
  *   Regarding travel support for participants coming from Eastern Europe and Central Asia countries, we estimated based on previous PESCs costs that we would need a total budget of 18 000€ to cover travel, accommodation and food for eligible participants. The target of 30 funded participants (half of total participants number) is based on the ratio of funded participants from previous PESCs.

I look forward to getting your views on this or any other point related to PESC!

Best wishes,

Agnès Hallosserie
Secretary of the French Committee for IPBES
Foundation for Research on Biodiversity
195, rue Saint Jacques 75005 Paris
agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr<mailto:agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>
Tel : +33 (0)1 80 05 89 32<tel:+33%201%2080%2005%2089%2032>
http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/en/


De : Agnes HALLOSSERIE <agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr<mailto:agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>>
Date : jeudi 26 janvier 2017 15:56
Objet : Planning for PESC-4

Dear all,

After some initial discussions with colleagues in NeFo and the Hungarian Centre for Ecological Research, we would like to submit you the idea of organizing the 4th edition of the pan-european stakeholders consultation (PESC) in Hungary (specific location to be decided in the coming days). The French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) would be happy to lead the process for developing the meeting documents and organising the logistics, with the support of the colleagues in Hungary who kindly agreed to host the meeting around the dates of 12-14 June 2017.

You will find more details on the proposed work in the concept note attached. I would greatly appreciate if you could have a look at the concept note and send me feedback on the relevance of the topics, objectives and programme for PESC-4, along with any thoughts or suggestions you may have to make this meeting as useful as possible for the stakeholders of the larger pan-European region. This is a very first draft so feel free to share any of your thoughts!

I would also welcome any proposal for in-kind or in-cash support for the organisation of the meeting. If there is a session or area of work you're particularly keen to work on (facilitation, chairing, presentation etc), please let me know! As for the in-cash contributions, you may remember that PESC usually provides some financial support for participants coming from countries where budget can be an issue, like in some Eastern Europe or Central Asian countries. Please let me know as soon as possible if you would have a small sum to put in the common pot so that I know early enough how many participants could benefit from such a financial support.

Do not hesitate to get in touch if you have questions on the documents, otherwise I look forward to receiving your first impressions on the concept note!

All the best,

Agnes

Agnès Hallosserie
Secretary of the French Committee for IPBES
Foundation for Research on Biodiversity
195, rue Saint Jacques 75005 Paris
agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr<mailto:agnes.hallosserie at fondationbiodiversite.fr>
Tel : +33 (0)1 80 05 89 32<tel:+33%201%2080%2005%2089%2032>
http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/en/



--

Dr. Elisabeth Marquard
Department Naturschutzforschung

Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH - UFZ
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH - UFZ
Permoserstraße 15 / 04318 Leipzig / Germany
Telefon +49 341 235 1835<tel:+49%20341%202351835> / Fax +49 341 235 1470<tel:+49%20341%202351470>
elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de<mailto:elisabeth.marquard at ufz.de> / www.ufz.de<http://www.ufz.de>

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Leipzig
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Leipzig, Handelsregister Nr. B 4703
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig Wilfried Kraus
Wissenschaftlicher Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Georg Teutsch
Administrativer Geschäftsführer: Dr. Andreas Schmidt

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netzwerk-Forum zur Biodiversitätsforschung Deutschland
www.biodiversity.de<http://www.biodiversity.de>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Eca-network mailing list
Eca-network at bebif.be<mailto:Eca-network at bebif.be>
http://mailman.biodiversity.be/mailman/listinfo/eca-network




--
Dr. Hilde Eggermont - OD Nature, Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences<http://www.naturalsciences.be>, Belgium
Coordinator of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform<http://www.biodiversity.be/>
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bz6Jl4PQhTJQTkhIUEpkckhUSm8&revid=0Bz6Jl4PQhTJQZlhBNGY4SEtqSmRwTUJZNDhydzhQNW9iVDJnPQ]
WATCH OUR BELGIAN BIODIVERSITY PLATFORM MOVIES ON:
http://vimeo.com/114955090 (data publication activities)
http://vimeo.com/114955160 (science-policy activities)
http://vimeo.com/114955193 (our general mission)


_______________________________________________
Eca-network mailing list
Eca-network at bebif.be<mailto:Eca-network at bebif.be>
http://mailman.biodiversity.be/mailman/listinfo/eca-network


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.biodiversity.be/pipermail/eca-network/attachments/20170403/fe85cad2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Eca-network mailing list