Approaching Sufficiency in the Global South

for the people | for the planet | for the future SIMPLICITY SHARING “B WELLBEING e no tter t mo r e” STEWARDSHIP CONTENTEDNESS COMMUNITY MUTUALITY DURABILITY SUSTAINABILITY EQUALITY SUFFICIENCY MOVING BEYOND THE GOSPEL OF ECO- EFFICIENCY FU LL R E PORT | March 2018 SUFFICIENCY MOVING BEYOND THE GOSPEL OF ECO- EFFICIENCY SIMPLICITY SHARING WELLBEING “B Friends of the Earth Europe is the largest grassroots environmental network in Europe, uniting more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups. We are the European arm of Friends of the Earth International which unites 74 national member organisations, some 5,000 local activist groups, and over two million supporters around the world. We campaign on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues, challenging the current model of economic and corporate globalization, and promoting solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially just societies. We seek to increase public participation and democratic decision-making. We work towards environmental, social, economic and political justice and equal access to resources and opportunities on the local, national, regional and international levels. ett o er n t mo r e” STEWARDSHIP CONTENTEDNESS COMMUNITY MUTUALITY DURABILITY SUSTAINABILITY EQUALITY Authors: Janez Potocnik, Joachim Spangenberg, Blake Alcott, Veronika Kiss, Anna Coote, André Reichel, Sylvia Lorek, Manu V. Mathai. Editors: Leida Rijnhout, Riccardo Mastini. Proofreader: Anya VerKamp. March 2018. Design: www.onehemisphere.se Images: (front cover & throughout) Brain illustration: © Dn Br. Friends of the Earth Europe gratefully acknowledges the financial assistance of the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety and of the Federal Environment Agency of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Commission LIFE Programme. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Friends of the Earth Europe and cannot be regarded as reflecting the position of the funders mentioned above. The funders cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information this document contains. www.foeeurope.org Friends of the Earth Europe Mundo-B Building, Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium for the people | for the planet | for the future tel: +32 2 893 1000 fax: +32 2 893 1035 [email protected] twitter.com/foeeurope facebook.com/foeeurope friends of the earth europe sufficiency: moving beyond the gospel of eco-efficiency TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 01 Introduction Sufficiency: a pragmatic, radical visionary approach 02 Environmental caps as a solution to rebound effects 03 Personal energy and resource entitlements 04 The case for reduced working hours 05 Sufficiency in business strategies 06 Sufficiency in sustainable lifestyles 07 Approaching sufficiency in the global South 08 Ideas for sufficiency (Janez Potocnik) 4 (Joachim Spangenberg) 5 (Blake Alcott) 9 (Veronika Kiss) 14 (Anna Coote) 18 (André Reichel) 22 (Sylvia Lorek) 26 (Manu V. Mathai) 30 (Riccardo Mastini & Leida Rijnhout) 34 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE | 3 FOREWORD / introduction FOREWORD Janez Potočnik (Co-chair of the International Resource Panel) The decade since the International Resource Panel was established in 2007 has been marked by many relevant scientific reports. Two of them, instrumental for the future work of this scientific panel, were dealing with the question of decoupling. We claim that economic activity should be decoupled from resource use (resource decoupling) and environmental impacts (impact decoupling). Developed economies will need to adopt strategies that bring their resource consumption down to globally sustainable levels (absolute decoupling), while developing nations must strive to improve resource efficiencies and cleaner production processes as their net consumption of natural resources increases for a period until they achieve a societally acceptable quality of life (relative decoupling). In short, decoupling should be an imperative of any modern environmental and economic policy, and we in the developed part of the world are the first to show, that we are ready and able to lead that transformation process. The Sustainable Development Goals, a new global social contract among nations, offer a unique opportunity to move to an integrated, universally relevant, and potentially transformative global development agenda. Trade-offs among various SDGs are unavoidable. Following the principles of sustainable consumption and production is the most efficient strategy to avoid trade-offs and create synergies. In the mid-term, except in some specific cases, resource shortage will not be the core limiting factor of our (economic) development. However, the consequences of excessive and irresponsible use of resources on environmental sustainability and human well-being, particularly health, are already a limiting factor, and will be even more so in the future. Therefore, it may be most meaningful to analyse resource management and potentially define targets on the level of impacts. How and to what extent one can connect impact-targets to resource-specific targets is a question that deserves serious scientific attention. In policy-making one needs to take in consideration a lot of different variables, a lot of different stakeholders and a lot of different interests. And it is never easy to promote new policy concepts. Resource efficiency was certainly a new positive concept bringing new kinds of thinking, promoting more responsible policies when it comes to resource use and resource management. But it is no secret that resource efficiency could also lead to dynamics that are not desirable, such as the ‘rebound effect’. Thus, potentially negative consequences need to be carefully managed by an active policy approach. 4 | FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE It is obvious that the current economic model, which improved human well-being for many, is not economically, socially, nor environmentally sustainable and needs serious corrections. The price signals received by producers and consumers on the markets are not reflecting this and environmental externalities should be urgently addressed by policy makers. How can one explain the recently published figure in the “OECD Green Growth Indicators 2017” that OECD countries in the years 2000-2014 increased fossil fuel subsidies at a higher rate than their GDP growth? This is especially striking as the majority of these countries were so vocally supporting the fight against climate change. A bit of fundamental honesty and responsibility would are certainly needed and also welcomed. One of the International Resource Panel’s recent reports on global material flows and resource productivity for the period 1970-2010 revealed that consumption has been a stronger driver of material use than population growth, and that the richest countries consume on average ten times more materials than the poorest. The questions “How much is needed for a good quality of life?” and “How much is needed to satisfy human well-being?” are very relevant and I do appreciate and support all the efforts that try to shed light on the responsible use of resources, sustainable consumption, and production. If we are sincere in our aspirations of delivering the SDGs we have all committed to—such as the eradication of poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy for all, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities, fighting climate change, and restoring and protecting life below water and on land—then introducing resource sufficiency questions in our academic and policy debates is necessary and relevant. This should become an important part of the political discussion leading to more responsible policy-making without prejudice and fear. It does not help to walk faster, if we are walking in the wrong direction. “In the period 1970-2010 consumption has been a stronger driver of material use than population growth at the global level, and the richest countries still today consume on average ten times more materials than the poorest.” Approaching sufficiency in the global South Approaching sufficiency in the global South Manu V. Mathai (Assistant Professor, School of Development, Azim Premji University) 07 EQUALITY 7.1 Introduction The report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) holds a reputation of saying many things at the same time. Commentators have argued that its ambiguity was necessary to wade through and survive the contentious politics that surround questions on development and the environment. Illustratively, the report asserted that ‘growth has no set limits in terms of population or resource use beyond which lies ecological disaster.’ But soon thereafter, concluding the same paragraph, it notes: ‘But ultimate limits there are, and sustainability requires that long before these limits are reached, the world must ensure equitable access to these constrained resources and reorient technological efforts to relieve the pressure’.1 However, emergent environmental governance was, and continues to be, less ambiguous. Bound to ideas of progress, modernisation, development, and economic growth, that are deemed nonnegotiable, it emphasised ‘reorienting technological efforts’ to tease out efficiencies in energy and material use across sectors of the economy. This technological optimism obfuscated (intentionally or otherwise) the necessity of political negotiations among diverse values, classes, castes, and interests for pursuing sustainability. As 30 | FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE this report and other publications make clear, the techno-economic and managerial emphasis, broadly under the rubric of ‘ecological modernisation’ strategies, while useful in increasing efficiency, are inadequate when confronted by demands of finding greater fairness in human well-being outcomes within the constraint of limited ecological space available for human appropriation. In fact, despite decades of ecological modernisation and economic growth, critical planetary boundaries have been breached, even as inequality has been exacerbated and destitution and disempowerment persist. This is the burden of contemporary politics across policy domains. It cannot be shunted over to the promise of technological fixes decided by ‘free-markets’. It is of necessity first a political contest to craft social relationships in which the salience of a hegemonic, individual-centric, idealised modernity, and open-ended competitive accumulation are vastly diminished.2 It calls for creativity and enterprise in the realms of politics, economics, and culture to loosen the grip of this political economy. It also calls for engaging public policy first at its normative and discursive levels. footnotes: 1 2 World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), New York: United Nations. p. 45. Polyani, K. (2001 [1944]). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dale, G., Mathai, M.V. & Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. (2016). Green Growth: Ideology, Political Economy and the Alternatives. London and New York: Zed Books. friends of the earth europe sufficiency: moving beyond the gospel of eco-efficiency 7.2 Using the Vocabulary of the Capability Approach The Human Development and Capability Approach (abbreviated as CA) is a valuable framework for our investigation. The basic formulation of the CA is that the purpose of the economic system is to aid in the advancement of a specific goal: expanding the freedom to realise states of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ that individuals have reason to value.3 Going beyond the poverty of the basic needs approach, the CA introduces a capacious notion of ends into conversations about development. What is economic development? Merely the promise of more food, or more clothes, or more vehicles, or more choices4 does not legitimise an economic arrangement. Instead the value of more goods and services is made contingent, within this framework, on them advancing freedoms that individuals have reason to value. The basic challenge confronting policies in pursuit of sufficiency is that capitalism as an economic arrangement has no notion of ends that individuals have reason to value. The logic of open-ended competitive accumulation is an end in itself. In such a context, scrutinising economic arrangements in terms of ‘valuable beings and doings’ has the potential to guide them in relation to the pursuit of concrete goals, as opposed to an open-ended pursuit of more. It introduces the space to ask how much is sufficient for me/us to live the life that I/we have reason to value.5 The practical question then is how and where this question can be asked. It is easy to see how such reflection plays out at the level of the individual and perhaps also at the level of a family or a small intentional group. But what about a neighbourhood, or town or city and beyond – society at large – knowing as we do that all such venues are today situated on an expansive substrate of open-ended competitive accumulation? For example, even if individuals are keen to use public transport for commuting in cities, they might find themselves in an urban ecosystem geared toward mass private transport options, making high-mass consumption the default option at the expense of shared public infrastructure, public spaces, and sufficiency. While the CA offers a useful vocabulary for moving toward sufficiency, it is clear that the freedoms and the reasons to value them have to be derived through a larger democratic deliberative process. It has to recognise the primacy of what Polanyi defined as “abundant freedom for all”.6 It is at such venues that we come faceto-face with our collective, shared destiny. It is then that shared norms of collective living can be constructed via reflexive accounting of their social and ecological implications. It is also in such commons’ spaces that the objective logic of open-ended competitive accumulation that pervade private or state controlled spaces can be surpassed. This is far more complex a process than innovating the latest tech-fix left to free-markets.7 The fetishisation of the individual8 needs to be curtailed and memories, experiences, and innovations in the commons and collective life strengthened. 7.3 Sufficiency and the global South Building a policy conversation around sufficiency in the global South has to grapple with a complex reality. A key dimension of this reality is the low (debilitatingly low in some cases, relative in others) level of resource use of the average global southerner. For instance, World Bank data for 2013 on CO2 emissions per capita suggests that the world average was just shy of 5 tons; it was 9.7 tons for OECD economies, while the global South (low and middle income countries) averaged out at 3.5 tons. Speaking in averages, it is difficult to see policy windows for the foreseeable future through which the ruling classes9 of the global South will forego the advantages (illusory or real) of abundance of commodities, power, and privilege that are taken for granted, despite the financial and economic shocks of the last decade, by the OECD economies. In this regard the ruling classes insist on, and with varying levels of success, have learned from their partners in the OECD. The dramatic case of China and the considerably less dramatic case of India are notable cases in point. “The ‘environmentalism of the poor’ contests values offered by the development orthodoxy. Instead, it valorises livelihood security by prioritising the resilience of socio-ecological systems.” The opposite could also be true: individuals might have reasons to value and pursue private modes of transport, notwithstanding what is available in the public sphere. footnotes: 3 4 5 6 7 Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Knopf Inc. See John Kenneth Galbraith, quoted in Guha, R. (2006). How much should a person consume? Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Mathai, M. V. (2004). Exploring Freedom in a Global Ecology: Sen’s Capability Approach as a Response to the Environment-Development Crisis. Presented at the 4th International Conference on the Capability Approach: Enhancing Human Security, University of Pavia, Italy, 5-7th September. Karl Polanyi (1944), The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Beacon Press [pg. 268, emphasis added] Mathai, M. V. (2012). Towards a Sustainable Synergy: End-Use Energy Planning, Development as Freedom, Inclusive Institutions and Democratic Technics. In Ilse Oosterlaken and Jeroen van den Hoven (Eds.) Human Capabilities, Technology and Design. Dordrecht: Springer. 8 9 Adam Curtis (2002), The Century of the Self, BBC Documentary Civil society and social movements show less reverence to such considerations. They are already experimenting widely with models of economic and political arrangements that challenge the mainstream. While the strengths and limitations of these initiatives are to be understood and explained, they are representative of a flood of creativity at the grassroots to fashion social relationships beyond the confines of competitive accumulation. See http://www.vikalpsangam.org/ FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE | 31 Approaching sufficiency in the global South In this reading the creation of policy windows for sufficiency in the global South is influenced heavily by the global North. Creative political platforms, political rhetoric, and actual realisation of absolute reductions in consumption in the global North can build credibility and experience that can then be shared. The degrowth9 conversation in Europe, albeit not mainstream, is an important start and a good example of this. Yet, government policy in even the most progressive OECD economies on this score are largely invested in ecological modernisation strategies like, say, Germany’s brave and technologically brilliant experiment with Energiewende. The same spirit, if not the technological sophistication and ambition, are recalled in ongoing Chinese and Indian programs pertaining to renewable energy. Whether such efforts will result in overall reductions required by planetary boundaries is an empirical question to be answered. Our scepticism about the promise of such strategies against urgent constraints of fairness and ecological finitude remains. The global South is heterogeneous. Significant differences exist in consumption levels between low income, lower middle income, middle income, and upper middle income countries. And more importantly, there are dramatic differences in consumption levels between groups within these countries.10 Thus a challenge for economies in the global South is to bring all its citizens to a sufficient level of consumption that makes the realisation of ‘valuable beings and doings’ possible. The global South has a tricky manoeuvre to perform. It has to grow for the near future, but must do so without being locked-in to a growth path, increasing concentration of wealth and privilege, and transferring the burdens of resource extraction and degradation onto the same demographic groups that this growth seeks to help. Better targeted economic growth, and growth with effective redistribution are essential for this, as is growth within the rule of law. There is room for this through measures like writing more progressive tax codes, instituting a universal living wage, making health and education universal, quality public services, and effective and timely prosecution of crimes against environmental justice. An ‘advantage’ that the global South has vis-a-vis sufficiency is its extant reality of less consumption. Thus, for instance, car ownership is a tiny fraction of what it is in the OECD economies. In this regard the global South can already be read as practising sufficiency, provided it succeeds, to continue with the transport example, in making non-motorised modes and public transport the preferred mode of transportation. This is far from the case presently. It is the default, but hardly the preferred choice. But that is the challenge. If it can be successfully surmounted, it becomes less a question of transitioning to sufficiency in many sectors, but creatively continuing arrangements that are already characterised by sufficiency. 32 | FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE 7.4 Sufficiency and the Environmentalism of the Poor The global South has a distinct experience of the post-war development project. While relatively smaller sections of its populations have benefitted immensely from the ensuing industrialisation and urbanisation, large populations within these countries were alienated from socio-ecological realities and arrangements that sustained them. In this respect, experience of development has significant similarities with preceding colonial resource extraction policies. Environmentalism in the global South has been influenced to a higher degree by struggles to stave off threats to livelihood and well-being arising due to alienation from and degradation of socio-ecological realities.11 Defining environmental struggles like the Chipko movement from the Garhwal region of the Himalayas did not pit preservation of pristine wilderness against degradation. Instead, it was a struggle to assert customary rights of access to a functioning socio-ecological arrangement against the felling of forests to meet industrial demand. Framed as the “environmentalism of the poor,”12 such struggles contested values and valuations offered by the development orthodoxy. Instead, they valorised practices for livelihood security, collective orientations to social organisation and risk minimisation by prioritising the resilience of socio-ecological arrangements. There are two possible implications for sufficiency. First, inherent to the ‘environmentalism of the poor’ is a prioritisation of clearer goals such as livelihoods and well-being, and rights of access to enabling socio-ecological arrangements. This link to a notion of valuable ends offers the possibility to appreciate sufficiency more readily. In contrast, development orthodoxy pays scant attention to valuable ends, and instead focuses on more economic growth as the basic policy orientation. Second, the ‘environmentalism of the poor’ is inherently participatory and political. Its essential form is one of mobilisation to claim, reclaim, or assert rights to socioecological arrangements. footnotes: D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., and Kallis, G. (Eds.) (2014). Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era. New York, NY: Routledge. 10 For example, see the Greenpeace report Hiding Behind the Poor. Available online at: http://www.greenpeace.org/india/Global/india/report/2007/11/hiding-behind-the-poor.pdf 11 This is unlike northern environmental narratives like the influential strain of North American environmentalism concerned with preserving “pristine” nature against the backdrop of rampaging industrialisation and urbanisation. 12 Guha, R. and Martínez-Alier, J. (1997) Varieties of environmentalism: essays North and South. London: Earthscan. 9 friends of the earth europe sufficiency: moving beyond the gospel of eco-efficiency In recent years an effort by civil society groups in India has started recording ‘alternatives’ under a banner called Vikalp Sangam (literally, alternatives confluence). The website13 records hundreds of stories from a range of sectors across India. An illustrative story on ‘environmentalism of the poor’ and sufficiency is the case of Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP), one of the winners of this year’s UN Equator Prize, whose citation notes: “operating at the nexus of nutrition, sustainable agriculture, and gender, Swayam Shikshan Prayog empowers 72,000 women in the drought-prone state of Maharashtra to act as agricultural decision-makers, improving their health, food security, and economic well-being.”14 SSP’s work in the state of Maharashtra demonstrates with clarity how development goals — in this case the empowerment of women, livelihood and income security, and natural resource management through agro-ecology techniques for adaptation to climate change in an arid grassland habitat — are being realised. Rather than prioritising economic growth per se, SSP prioritised empowerment and greater control for women to create their socioecological arrangements. From the vantage of sufficiency in the global South, such examples demonstrate the value of (re)creating socio-ecological arrangements that are able to bring economic development to where it is most needed, and to also situate it within ends that individuals and groups have reason to value. They offer the ability to side-step development orthodoxy. But can such local initiatives scale up to bring about systemic change?15 “The basic challenge confronting policies in pursuit of sufficiency is that capitalism as an economic arrangement has no notion of ends that individuals have reason to value.” 7.5 Approaching Sufficiency within International Relations How to live on a shared and finite planet? When faced with this question, we find the practice of international relations is riven with conflicts and contestations across constructed boundaries. Even as our understanding of the environmental crisis points to the need for more shared identities and a collective response, we find environmental governance stymied by narrow “national” interests. Perhaps the iconic image of this was George H. W. Bush’s statement before the 1992 Rio Conference: ‘The American way of life is not up for negotiations. Period.’ This refusal to communicate, to find (or build) shared identities remains with us today, even as the Anthropocene is being acknowledged. Rhetoric of ‘Make America Great Again’ is met by competing narratives of the ‘Chinese Dream’. Neither acknowledges their necessarily shared destiny on a finite planet. Instead each accentuates old tendencies of bolstering differences and competition for power.16 This status quo renders international relations to a dog-eat-dog formulation, which impedes sufficiency. Simply put, the size of a country’s market is a critical influence on that country’s geopolitical standing. The most powerful countries and those that have advanced in geopolitical power and influence most dramatically in recent decades have done so by building economic and political systems to produce and eventually consume more and more. The established, old powers such as those in Europe and North America and the emergent ones like China are illustrations of this. This raises the fundamental consideration of whether successfully addressing the environmental crisis requires the dissolution of nationalisms, more fluid national identities, and greater solidarity among people across boundaries. For the present though, a list of (real or imagined) historical grievances, intense distrust, and manoeuvres to rearrange the geopolitical pecking order preclude these outcomes and, in doing so, preclude sufficiency. EQUALITY footnotes: 13 See: http://www.vikalpsangam.org/article/ 14 Retrieved from http://www.equatorinitiative.org/2017/06/28/swayam-shikshan-prayog/ on 17th October, 2017 15 For a more extended discussion of alternatives see the chapters on alternatives to green growth in Dale, G., Mathai, M.V., & Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. (Eds.) (2016). Green Growth: Ideology, Political Economy and the Alternatives. London: Zed Books. Also see Levkoe, C. Z (2012) Book Review. Socialist Studies/Etudes socialistes. 8 (2), 252-255, for an insightful and critical review of Sharzer, G. (2012). No Local: Why Small-Scale Alternatives Won’t Change the World. Winchester, UK: Zero Books. 16 Mathai, M. V. (2013). Will the environment survive international relations? Our World. Available online at: https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/will-the-environment-survive-international-relations FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE | 33 46 | FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE friends of the earth europe sufficiency: moving beyond the gospel of eco-efficiency our members Friends of the Earth Europe March 2018 Austria, Vienna GLOBAL 2000 | GLOBAL 2000. Belgium – Wallonie, Namur Les Amis de la Terre | Friends of the Earth Wallonia & Brussels. Belgium – Flanders, Gent Friends of the Earth Vlaanderen & Brussel | Friends of the Earth Flanders & Brussels. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Banja Luka Centar za životnu sredinu | Friends of the Earth Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bulgaria, Sofia Za Zemiata | Friends of the Earth Bulgaria. Croatia, Zagreb Zelena Akcija | Friends of the Earth Croatia. Cyprus, Limassol Friends of the Earth | Friends of the Earth Cyprus. Czech Republic, Brno Hnutí Duha | Rainbow Movement. Denmark, Copenhagen NOAH | NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark. England/Wales/Northern Ireland, London Friends of the Earth | Friends of the Earth. Estonia, Tartu Eesti Roheline Liikumine | Estonian Green Movement. Finland, Turku Maan Ystävät Ry | Friends of the Earth Finland. France, Montreuil Les Amis de la Terre | Friends of the Earth France. Georgia, Tbilisi Sakhartvelos Mtsvaneta Modzraoba | Greens Movement of Georgia. Germany, Berlin Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland | Friends of the Earth Germany. Hungary, Budapest Magyar Természetvédok Szövetsége | National Society of Conservationists. Ireland, Dublin Friends of the Earth | Friends of the Earth Ireland. Latvia, Riga Zemes Draugi | Friends of the Earth Latvia. Lithuania, Kaunas Lietuvos Zaliuju Judéjimas | Lithuanian Green Movement. Luxembourg, Luxembourg Mouvement Ecologique | Ecological Movement. Macedonia, Skopje Dvizhenje na Ekologistite na Makedonija | Ecologist’s Movement of Macedonia. Malta, Valletta Moviment ghall-Ambjent | Friends of the Earth Malta. The Netherlands, Amsterdam Vereniging Milieudefensie | Friends of the Earth Netherlands. Norway, Oslo Norges Naturvernforbund | Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature. Poland, Krakow Polski Klub Ekologiczny | Polish Ecological Club. Russia, St. Petersburg Russian Social-Ecological Union | Friends of the Earth Russia. Scotland, Edinburgh Friends of the Earth Scotland | Friends of the Earth Scotland. Slovakia, Banska Bystrica Priatelia Zeme – Slovensko | Friends of the Earth Slovakia. Spain, Madrid Amigos de la Tierra | Friends of the Earth Spain. Sweden, Gothenburg Jordens Vänner | Friends of the Earth Sweden. Switzerland, Basel Pro Natura | Friends of the Earth Switzerland. Ukraine, Dnipropetrovsk Zelenyi Svit | Green World. www.foeeurope.org for the people | for the planet | for the future FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE | 47 for the people | for the planet | for the future www.foeeurope.org Friends of the Earth Europe Mundo-B Building, Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium tel: +32 2 893 1000 fax: +32 2 893 1035 [email protected] twitter.com/foeeurope facebook.com/foeeurope