FEEEDS Global Issues Update: Concordia's 2021 Summit Report, Women's Health Index, Democracy Regression & Climate Change/COP26

As a follow-up to its recent, and well-respect annual summit, always held on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, Concordia's 2021 event highlighted the state of the world's social and business issues. This year's Concordia Summit, its 11th, had nearly 300 speakers addressing international issues. You can learn more by reading the report on the summit now live, as well as review some of the key factoids around global issues, which were  highlighted at the 4-day event(2021 summit: by the numbers). The Summit was held both virtually, and with limited in-person interaction. 

Ambassador Sanders, as a global advocate on key development issues, is a senior advisor to Concordia. One of the key session for Dr. Sanders, as CEO-FEEEDS, was the data presentation on the Women's Health Index done by Hologic with polling done in partnership by Gallup World Poll on key health concerns for women. The Index focuses on health issues as well as servicing gaps for women world-wide in some 116 countries based on interviews with 120,000 women. Other issues during the Summit which resonated with FEEEDS' advocacy were turn-backs on democracy, COVID'pushing more people into extreme poverty, and  COP26. Below are some highlights on these key FEEEDS's advocacy issues, which were highlighted by various speakers in various ways during the Summit:

-- Turn-backs on Democracy:  Pressures on democracy (what FEEEDS calls "Democracy Regression") continues to increase across every region of the world, through both government and unilateral actions (from Myanmar to Brazil and coups in West Africa) as well as extreme societal and political divides in countries like the United States, France, Germany and India;

-- COVID-19 & Poverty: COVID-19, is not only turning back the clock on previous global efforts to reduce poverty (2000-2015 MDGs & 2015-2030 SDGS underway now), but possibly pushing another 97 million more people into extreme poverty (define as less than $1.90/day). We must step up and make three-times the effort to get back to pre-pandemic levels, which in and of themselves were stark. Pre-pandemic 2019 levels had 635 million people (see chart on 2015-2020) living in extreme poverty, even though great global reductions had been achieved year-on-year over the last decade. COVID-19 not only stopped progress, but turned back the clock on poverty reduction. The most recent extreme global poverty figures by the World Bank has the combined the 2019 pre-pandemic poverty figure (635 miilion), with the COVID-driven additional 97 million -- resulting in a projected 2021 total figure of  711 million people who face extreme poverty today. (NB: U.S., Brazil & India, in that order, had highest COVID deaths);

-- Climate Change & COP26: Bottom line is faster action and larger financial commitments are needed to reduce the affects of climate change by both governments, business, and institutions. Underscoring these two points, numerous Concordia's Summit sessions further stressed that we need to move three times faster in order to reach the net zero goal of reducing carbon emissions by 1.5˚C. In addition, there needs to be more action on helping with climate refugees and climate famine as both are growing at alarming rates.  It was recognized that a lot depended, of course, on what the 26th United Nations' climate change meeting of the Conference of Parties in Glasgow, United Kingdom produced, (better known as COP26). So far here is where we are on a few areas coming out of COP26 (section will be updated as other commitments come in and are clarified):

-- 100 world leaders attended;

-- 450 global businesses promised to climate reduction by 2023, valued at  USD$130 trillion;1

-- Net 0 - United Kingdom announced it would become a "net zero financial center," where firms would publish their climate actions;2 

-- $11 billion pledged by the United States to help developing countries with climate change;3

-- $19 billion committed by 100 countries to address deforestation and forest degradation, including assistance with rebuilding and rejuvenating the world's forest over the  next 8 years. Included in this pledge was $1.7billion to assist and support indigenous peoples in the world's key rain forest area. (NB: Of note, rain forest areas as large as the United Kingdom were lost last year due to climate change; 85 percent of the world's forest are in Brazil, Congo Basin & Indonesia. Dr. Sanders has been to all three);4

-- 100 countries signed on to the U.S. & UK led push for reductions in methane gas, another contributor to climate change CO2 emissions;  (NB: Top U.S. CO2  emissions in this order are fossil fuels (transportation, industry, electricity, homes & businesses); agriculture (methane gas); unmanaged land and forestry use.5

 -- 40 countries also pledged to shift away from coal/fossil fuel. However, there is a lot of leeway in what this might mean from new investments to financing and production.  Varying dates for ending total use were conveyed. Biggest polluters -- China, U.S., Australia, India and Japan -- did not sign onto this pledge.6

-- $105 billion committed to help spur green energy projects in developing nations was also pledged.7

resource notes:

1. World News Live, CGTN 11/4/21

2. World News Live & BBC news 11/3/21

3. World News Live, CGTN, BBC news & NPR 11/2/21

4. World News Live, CGTN & BBC news 11/3/21

5.  COP26 11/2/21

6. BBC & Reuters 11/4/21

7. NYTimes online 11/4/21

A FEEEDS Series Blogspot
 

Ambassador Robin Sanders & General Kip Ward: Africa Podcast: Security, US-Africa Relations & US-Africa-China

 As part of the podcast series " The General and the Ambassador," produced by the prestigious American Academy of Diplomacy, with the support of the University of North Carolina Global Affairs, Chapel Hill, Ambassador Robin Renee Sanders and General Kip Ward, outline for the audience a range of US-Africa issues including but not limited to encouraging Americans to both understand and appreciate the importance of the US-Africa relationship. This includes ensuring the continent's key partnership in U.S. national security and fighting terrorism and extremism in the region; its role in the U.S. economic prosperity as Africa is home to the world's largest next generation of economic, political and innovators leaders. Ambassador Sanders and General Ward bring their respective views to the podcast as to how the US can better manage what is being referred to today as the "Great Powers Competition," (GPC) between the US and China, and how Africa see this issue and the region's desire to have a relationship and partnership with the US above and beyond the GPC.  Scroll below to see flyer and topic highlights from the podcast and click on this link Ambassador Sanders' and General Ward's Podcast to hear the Ambassador and the General discuss current key US-Africa issues: 

The General and the Ambassador The US and West Africa: Opportunities and Dangers with Ambassador Robin Sanders and General Kip Ward  Key topics: The Opportunities - markets, youth bulge and UN votes The Dangers - political instability, sharply rising violence from criminal networks and extremist groups The US Africa Command and US Assistance programs  Implications of the withdrawal of the French military Great power competition on the continent.  Click and Listen Here! Subscribe!

Ambassador Robin Sanders was the US Ambassador to Nigeria (2007-2010) and to Congo (2003-2005).  She also served as the Permanent Representative to ECOWAS, Director for Africa at the NSC and Deputy Commandant of the NDU Eisenhower College. She is the CEO of FEEEDS and FE3DS, focusing on Africa. ----------------------------------------------------- A FEEEDS Series blogspot General Ward was the Commander of US Africa Command (2007-2011). Just prior, he was Deputy Commander, US European Command. His other assignments include Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt and the Joint Staff.  Currently, he is the President of the Sentel Corporation.

A Different Lens on ESGs: Value of Synergies with the SDGs

 Article first appear in allafrica.com: Environment, Social & Governance (ESG) Business Pillars - Synergies with the UN SDGs - By Dr. Robin Renee Sanders, CEO-FEEEDS

Over the last two decades, the framework known as Environment, Social and Governance (ESGs) has gained prominence as a basis for measuring a company’s efforts toward sustainability, socially responsibility (values), and acceptability as a set of metrics to gauge operations, investment, shareholder decisions, and inclusion in capital market listings. ESG pillars first began to take shape in 2004-2005, stemming from thought-provoking reports like the “Who Cares Wins,” by  Ivo Knoepfel, connecting financial markets to a changing world, and advocacy by the late UN Secretary General Kofi Annan encouraging CEOs of financial institutions to view ESGs as having a positive impact on capital markets. These efforts led to such  important related programs as the New York Stock Exchange’s 2006 Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), and the Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative (SSEI).

Credit: Michelle Patrick Photography,LLC 

Fast forward to today. The recognition, and visibility of ESGs, as well as the importance of the sustainability elements therein, have been expounded on extensively in a variety of documents from the UN Global Compact, business advisory reports (e.g. PWC, Deloitte), articles (Forbes), fora such as  World Economic Forum ESG meetings, and the World Bank, including its new ESG portal.

The ESGs have grown to be more or less reflective of certain actions under each of the E, S & G Pillars, which FEEEDS sees as being synergistically connected to the UN SDGs. This connecting allows for the E, S & G Pillars to be both measurable, and also thematic related to the SDGs:

Environment: For FEEEDS, this is the Climate Change Thematic Pillar, as it incorporates many of the key climate change sub issues such as waste management, reduction in pollution and carbon emissions, incorporating renewables, and natural resource protection that companies are addressing.

Social: We view as the Humankind or Human Protection Thematic Pillar, given this is where the treatment of personnel, relationships with outside stakeholders, communities, and consumers come in, including issues of human capital, good labor practices, and product liability.

Governance: Is the Inward-Looking Thematic Pillar, meaning how well a company is managing itself from its governing board (including board diversity), to transparency on financials, taxes, investments, risks and ethics.

Given the importance of the ESG Pillars to businesses and organizations today, adding a thematic lens to the measurable metrics can be useful. Moreover, it helps connect ESGs synergistically with the globally-agreed upon UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), running from 2015-2030, which seeks to improve the overall well-being of mankind. Historically, this ESG-SDG discussion makes even more sense if one thinks back to the early 2000s when the ESGs were being bandied about. This was just after the creation of the 2000-2015 UN Millennium Development Goals, the first global iteration of measuring mankind’s well-being -- a precursor to the current SDGs.

Credit: Елена Верхотурова 

The SDGs, with its 17 goals (and 169 subsections) encourages and measures a country’s (and by extension the world’s) concerted efforts to improving mankind’s well-being by addressing extreme poverty, development shortcomings in education, food security, health and joblessness, particularly for women and children. The SDGs and their progress are analyzed by a wide variety of organizations. This includes the UN SDG 2020 Report & Progress Tracker, the latter highlighting COVID’s role in unfortunately pushing 71 million people back into poverty, the largest poverty rise since 1998; Gallup World Poll, tracking SDG progress on food insecurity (790 million people facing hunger), labor & safety practices, financial inclusion; the World Health Organization, monitoring progress on both core and attendant health-related SDGs; the World Bank’s SDG Atlas Tracker, on energy and hunger; and the Sustainable Development Solutions Network’s SDG Index. 

So, what is the argument on linking ESGs synergistically with relevant thematic SDGs? And, would that be for all 17 goals? The answer is no.  But consideration should be made toward those SDGs that are complementary to a business and its sector(s). Where a company can thematically link (directly or indirectly), it should. By doing so, the SDGs provide a way forward for a company to plug into the “greater good” themes agreed upon by 193 countries, contributing to improved optics, perceptions and by extension, positive metrics and visibility on its ESG framework.  

Linking up ESGs to appropriate SDGs shouldn’t be that hard to do. The bigger value-addition is, by doing so, we all speak with one “improving humanity voice” as we work across business and development sectors (as opposed to stove piped). Moreover, the SDG link can provide the twofold benefit to companies of:

·        shining an international (or country-level) light on a business’ positive actions; and,

·        serving as touchstones to (directly or indirectly) aid or assist boards and investors evaluate or further appreciate the outcomes of their ESG efforts.

In analyzing the 17 SDG goals, there are 10, of the 17, which FEEEDS views with direct thematic synergy to the ESGs, and seven, which could be viewed as indirect. The blend, in the end, is up to companies.

The 10 SDGs with Direct ESG Synergies:     

The 10 SDG goals, we see with direct thematic connections to the ESGs fall mostly under Environment and Social. They include, SDGs 5-9, 12-15, and 17. Granted, many businesses are focused already on these in internal operations, therefore linkages should be easy. Below highlights which SDG goal make sense under the ESG Pillars:

Under the Environment (or Climate Change) Pillar, SDGs 6-7, 9, and 12-15 since these SDGs primarily focus on climate change issues of water, waste management and sustainable energy; to climate smart manufacturing, industrialization, production patterns and agricultural practices; to protecting land and ocean biodiversity systems.

Credit: Dr. Robin Sanders/CEO-FEEEDS 

Under the Social (or the Humankind) Pillar, SDG 5, 8, and 17 since these SDGs focus on key elements of equality, empowerment, productive employment and partnerships. But can also apply to a company’s internal operations such as human capital and ensuring living wages; to productive, descent work and healthcare for employees; to safe and humane working conditions.

SDG 17, on strengthening Global Partnerships for Sustainable Development, further underscores FEEEDS’ core argument for the ESG-SDG synergy discussion. Businesses which see this interconnectedness will likely benefit with quality relationships with outside stakeholders, contribute differently to communities where they operate, and improve partnerships or corporate social responsibility projects. These changes can help reduce risks factors to bottom lines, which recent and historic events continually show can lead to financial loss and instability costing billions.

Under the Governance (or Inward-Looking) Pillar SDGs 5 and 8 are also applicable. Although this pillar tends to be focused on a company’s internal governance, regulations and transparency, there is still synergy with these SDGs. The connections are on diversity and equality -- not only in the board room, but also with executive pay, investment dollars in minority and small businesses, and shares in ownership. Studies show less reluctance today accepting female managers than five years ago, in places like Canada (Randstad), and as shown in Gallup’s recent polling in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the U.S. Whereas, in the 21 African countries polled, the region’s reluctance level toward women managers is still high (a median of 47% of the population prefer men, while a median of 34% said they prefer woman). Companies which systematically address this data point in their governance pillar – increasing the number of female managers – would go a long way in synergistically advancing SDG goal 5, while providing productive and descent work helps goal 8.

The Seven SDGs with Indirect ESG Synergies:

The seven SDGs where a company’s good ESG report card can be helped indirectly, include SDG goals 1-4, 10-11, and 16 given these are the larger greater good SDGs (ending all poverty, hunger, and overall improving the human condition). Certainly, good ESG stewardship will have an attendant contribution to these global SDGs as companies uplift the lives of their employees with good practices. All of which can be achieved through climate-smart behavior, providing good healthcare and life long learning opportunities, and ensuring equitable pay, diversity and gender equality from the board room through to the assembly line and agricultural fields -- all very synergistic to these seven SDGs.

 Article was also posted on Council of Foreign Relations blog site at: Environment, Social & Governance (ESG) Business Pillars - Synergies with the UN SDGs | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

 A FEEEDS Series Blogspot

New Gallup-Lloyd’s Register Poll: Highlights Africa’s Worries & Risks -- Climate Change & Risk of Harm are Top Concerns

 Published first on Allafrica.com: https://allafrica.com/stories/202010141124.html

                   Africa's Worries & Risks: Implications for US-Africa Policy & Development

By 

Dr. Robin Renee Sanders 

The world renown Gallup Poll in partnership with Lloyd’s Register Foundation released their new Worry, Experience Harm/Risk & Government Safety Performance Index (GSPI) indices as part of their World Risk Poll, which covers some 142 countries, of which 39 were African nations. The polling done in local languages with males and females participants aged 15 years and above, highlights the worries, harm or risks of those who were surveyed. The World Risk Poll (and its three indices)– is set to repeat four times over the next six years – with compiling for the 2021 questionnaire already under way. It is likely that the next installation of the poll (and its three indices) will show even starker reactions on these overarching themes of worry, harm or risk as a result of the world having been under a full year by then, and likely more, of COVID-19.

Some of the specific themes included in the three indices of  Worry, Experience Harm/Risk & GSPI,  focused on a range of climate change issues from severe weather to food security and, food and water safety; violence, crime, and conflict; safety and harassment in the workplace (particularly against women); infrastructural challenges, online threats; the role and impact of future technologies uses (e.g. artificial intelligence, etc.) on their lives; and, whether or not people trust their government.   

Why the Indices are Important & What They Say:  

Many of the above themes are important for review by national governments, foreign policy makers, national security leaders, development donors, and are, in some ways, key elements within the United Nation’s (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Thus the Worry, Experience Harm/Risk & GSPI indices are important tools for those working in these areas, because so much attention, focus and money over the last two decades have gone toward and continues to go toward (as it should),  tackling global poverty and conflict as well as seeking to make people feel safe. This includes improving quality of life, encouraging democracy and human rights; and, providing assistance to climate sensitive environments (although the U.S. certainly has not done its part on climate change in the last 18 months or more).  Thus, the responses in these three indices demonstrate that despite a lot of work and commitment on many of these goals, people are not necessarily feeling safe from harm or risks, and that “moving the needle,” could be even more challenging than previously anticipated, requiring more adjustments in strategic planning, policy, and resources than foreseen. This is especially daunting for regions like Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. We already know that according to the World Bank’s October 8, 2020 Report that COVID-19 alone will push another 40-50 million people around the world into poverty on top of the 2019 prior pandemic figure of 736 million. COVID erases nearly five years of development work, and pretty much wipes out a lot of the progress made under the UN SDGs, with SSAfrica and Asia being the hardest hit, followed closely by countries like Brazil.          

Understandably worry and experiencing harm or risk, and their attendant issues of fear and uncertainty, are tough things to measure, but these new indices do a very good job of putting the data into a global perspective. Further, it is clear that many of the responses by those living in SSAfrica were connected to climate change issues; internal social sector uncertainties in their own countries; conflict and infrastructural issues; and, negative reactions connected to online bullying, fraud, validity of information (fake news) and related cybercrimes. It was good to see that the economic impact and development benefits of new technologies usage, such as artificial intelligence, over the long term, had fairly positive responses.

What the Indices Mean as a US-Africa Foreign Policy Tool:

Thus, the biggest take away from the data for the 39 African countries covered in the Worry, Experience Harm/Risk & GSPI indices clearly show that for those of us focused on SSAfrica foreign policy, national security and development issues it will be critical to pay more attention to these intangibles – worry, harm/risk and fear – in order to achieve more success on the substantive side of our work. These data points should all be considered elements of development, security, and economic growth. Granted, it will be a bit of a challenge to find ways to restructure, regroup, and reframe some aspects of our foreign policy and development efforts in the region in order to factor in these intangibles. However, the results in these indices, demonstrate that this is a must-do, especially since most SSAfrica respondents said they felt “about the same,” now as they did five years ago regarding their safety – meaning their sense of “feeling safe or safer” had not improved in five years. This underscores that whatever improvements in development or quality of life one might have had over the last 5 years, did not translated into people believing or feeling that they were still not in harm’s way. 

We can surely see in today’s Africa that worry, harm/risk and fear, as regards to climate change, are being driven by things like devastating weather-related disasters and further desertification, increasing the number of climate refugees or internally displaced persons (IDPs). While others are connected to internal conflicts causing rollbacks on democracy (e.g. Mali, Tanzania); or, upticks in destabilizing activity (i.e. Mozambique’s northern eastern provinces of Zambezia, Nampula and Cabo Delgado have become an extremist hotbed in the last three years. NB: Speaking from experience, the U.S. needs to pay much more attention to this area through a robust Africa Command, and one that stays reasonable close to the SSAfrica region so it can remain fully engaged to avoid a larger Boko-Haram like conflict playing out there).

Of course, a lot has been done by donors, governments, the private sector and philanthropists. No one is discounting this. But we also know that more always needs to be done. But clearly these indices demonstrate that there are additional important gaps we need to take into account.

Over the years we have all seen the increase in well-being surveys from organizations and institutions from around the world, which pull together a basket of key sectors on which to determine how people are doing. But what is different with these new indices is they reflect “how people are feeling.”  Many people in Africa, as well as all over the globe, are feeling worried as they feel unsafe, and fear harm or risk to themselves or someone they know -- a reflection of the uncertainty felt in the world in general way before COVID-19.  

Closer Look at Some of SSAfrica Results – Worry, Harm/Risk & GSPI:

A few highlights, summary points and analyses from the three indices follow below regarding responses by SSAfrica participants in the Gallup-Lloyd’s Register Foundation Worry, Experience Harm/Risk & GSPI indices:

I. Respondents in Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe rated high on the “Worry and Experience Harm/Risk” indices, driven by concerns centered on “high levels of everyday risks,” associate with severe weather, unsafe food and water, crime or harm by household appliances or powerlines.

a.) Although the percentages for the above countries were the highest among the SSAfrica countries surveyed, percentage breakdowns across the board for women in the region in these categories were always greater.

b.) South Africa rated the highest on these indices in this category, with 58% of its people being worried or experiencing harm/risk to themselves or someone they know on par with Brazil and Venezuela, which also rated 58%. Nigeria, on the other hand, had a lower percentage than the world median (39% to 43%) on the “Worry and Experience Harm/Risk” indices, although with the recent youth-driven protests against the country's Security Anti-Robbery Squad (see #EndSARS) this rating will likely change during the next polling.

II. Respondents in the majority of SSAfrica such as Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania and most other nations said they “felt about as safe as they did five years ago,” so no improvement in their safety fears over the last five years. While people in Rwanda (67%), Ethiopia (55%), Nigeria (43%), Ghana (41%), and Uganda (41%) said they “felt safer than they did five years ago,” – meaning all these countries beat the world median (36%).

        a.) Botswana broke nearly even between those that feel safer (35%) and those who feel the same as they did five years ago (36%) about their safety or the safety of their loved ones.

        b.) Given the recent political tensions, conflicts and elections issues in Ethiopia, however, FEEEDS’ expectation is that Ethiopia’s results in this category will likely drop from this high of 55%, to something lower, in the next survey. Off-and-on demonstrations in the capital, Addis Ababa; tensions in the Oromo area; and, the October 7, 2020, cutting of political ties between the federal upper house of parliament and the state assembly of the key regional administrative area of Tigray over its unsanctioned September 9, 2020, elections will likely lead to a drop.

III. Respondents in the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, Swaziland (now called eSwantini), and Zambia had higher concerns than other SSAfrica countries with people feeling “harassed or experiencing violence in the workplace.” Malawi and Zambia rated highest within this group at 47 % and 46% respectively. Even though these countries had the highest levels in the region in this category, these challenges were still prevalent in many of the SSAfrica nations surveyed. 

IV. Looking at the GSPI index, globally, governments in 25% of the 142 countries surveyed were not trusted to provide safe food, water and power. In SSAfrica, the top countries where respondents said they experienced harm from food were Liberia (52%), Cameroon and Mali (42%), Malawi and Guinea (41%), while on harm from water Cameroon (47%), followed by Zambia (45%), Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe (44%) were among the highest.

        a.) Ethiopia also had the highest negative rating at 60% on whether it is “doing a good job on providing safe powerlines,” followed by Liberia and Nigeria at 49%, whereas the world median was 23% (NB: the recent gas and power-related explosions in Nigeria in March, September & October 2020, and January, July & December 2019). The other country that didn’t fare well was Zambia at 47%, while Rwanda came in best in the region and the world at 13%, given that this was well below the world median of 23%.

V. Looking regionally at the data, countries in Southern Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean have some of the world’s highest levels of economic inequality. This can add to worry since most people do not have the resources to change where and how they live. It has been widely reported by the World Bank and IMF for almost a decade now, and FEEEDS has highlighted this often, that South Africa, not just in the region but in the world, has one of the highest levels of both income inequality and income distribution. Today this is further exacerbated by a 23% unemployment rate as of third quarter 2020 (mostly as a result of closing businesses), down from 30% in first quarter 2020, when COVID hit the country.

Click here to see links to the resources and data used for this article on the Gallup-Lloyd’s Register Foundation Worry, Experience Harm/Risk & GSPI indices and the implications for SSAfrica, with related issues.

Article also reposted on: Council on Foreign Relations:  & The American College of National Security Leaders website under Member Highlights:  

About the author of this article: Dr. Sanders FEEEDS® Advocacy Initiative holds an annual Africa-focused program with Gallup. However, this article was not solicited by Gallup or the Lloyd’s Register Foundation, and represents the analysis done by FEEEDS®. Sanders, who holds a doctorate degree in information systems & communications, served as a senior career U.S. diplomat in such countries as Sudan, Namibia, Republic of Congo (where she was U.S. Ambassador), and as U.S. Ambassador in Nigeria and U.S. representative to ECOWAS during the onset and further growth of Nigeria’s Boko Haram. NB: Key countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Sudan are not mentioned in the analysis above because those countries were not part of this edition of the World Risk Poll or its indices.

 A FEEEDS Series Blogspot