| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
* Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 24061
Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia, 104 Emmet Street, Charlottesville 22903
1 Corresponding author: knowlton{at}vt.edu
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDAPPROACHCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: nutrient management • collaborative problem solving • stakeholder forum • strategic planning
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDAPPROACHCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Solutions to the problems of highly concentrated nutrients, potentially polluting trace elements, pathogens, ammonia emissions, and odor are as likely to be identified by scientists, engineers, operators, economists, conservationists, and policy makers working in nonagricultural industries as within the agricultural sector itself. Promoting dialogue to identify common ground among this diverse array of potential problem-solvers will help identify the most promising strategies to overcome the challenges caused by geographically concentrated nutrients. This paper discusses an ongoing multidisciplinary approach to resolve these problems through facilitated collaboration.
|
BACKGROUND |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDAPPROACHCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
). Therefore, the majority of nutrients brought onto the farm in feed stay on the farm rather than being exported in meat, eggs, or milk. Animal manure is typically land-applied to supply nutrients for crop growth, but application in excess of crop needs results in nutrient losses and contamination of groundwater, surface water or air.
|
When N in manure or commercial fertilizer is applied to land in excess of crop uptake, contamination of ground water via nitrate leaching may occur. Nitrate in drinking water is converted to nitrite in the human digestive tract. Nitrite can replace oxygen in hemoglobin, resulting in cyanosis, or oxygen starvation, especially in infants. The current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standard for nitrate N is 10 ppm (EPA, 2002); all public water systems must comply. Although private water supplies are not required to comply with this regulatory standard, a US Geological Survey report indicates that 7% of private wells are contaminated with nitrate (Hamilton et al., 2004). Nitrate concentrations exceeded standards in 20% of shallow wells in agricultural areas compared with 3% of wells in urban areas. Alarmingly, nitrate concentrations in groundwater increased by 2 mg/L in the Delmarva peninsula (Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) between 1988 and 2001, and the median concentration of nitrate in groundwater in this region exceeded the federal standard.
Concentrated animal agriculture can affect air quality as well as water quality. After excretion, the organic substrate in solid and liquid animal manure is subject to microbial conversion to microbial biomass and gases, including ammonia. Ammonia volatilization from livestock waste may increase air concentrations of ammonia in animal facilities, which is detrimental to the health of farm workers and animals. Ammonia volatilization also increases atmospheric N fallout, contributing to eutrophication. Although ammonia is a highly soluble gas with a short atmospheric residence time, its accumulation in the atmosphere is of concern because ammonia reacts with acidic gases like sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the atmosphere to form ammonium salts. These salts return to soil in rainfall, and release nitric and sulfuric acids when oxidized in soil (Apsimon et al., 1987; Likens et al., 1996). The EPA estimates that 71% of national ammonia emissions are from animal agriculture (EPA, 1998).
Manure Nutrients in the Shenandoah Valley
The relative importance of different nutrient sources varies greatly in different regions of the United States. The Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is an example of an area of intensive animal agriculture associated with increased contamination of surface water. The Shenandoah Valley has the highest populations of dairy cattle and poultry in the state, and as much as 20% of the dairy farms have at least one poultry house. Estimated manure P production in the Shenandoah Valley exceeds crop requirements on a yearly basis. Recoverable manure P produced in the 4 primary Valley counties exceeds crop P uptake by a factor of 5.5. An analysis of soil samples submitted from Rockingham County between 2003 and 2005 indicated that nearly 84% of 1,552 commercial samples submitted were ranked "high" or "very high" in P (Virginia Soils Testing Laboratory, 2005).
Increasing Regulatory Pressure
Increasing public concern about water quality and increased awareness of the potential impact of concentrated livestock production have led to the development and implementation of increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Greater pressure on states from the federal government in the last decade to enforce federal clean water and clean air regulations has significantly increased the level of regulatory pressure felt by farmers.
One key change in water quality regulations in the past 5 yr is the shift from a primary focus on N to an increasing focus on P contamination of surface water. Limiting manure application to the P needs of the crop is one way to avoid continued accumulation of P in soil, and to minimize potential P runoff and contamination of surface water. Regulations limiting manure application to the P needs of the crop are in place for all farms in Maryland (Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998, 1998), and for poultry farms in Virginia (Virginia Poultry Waste Management Program, 1999). The federal Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation regulations to address water pollution call for site-specific decisions on whether N- or P-based manure application limits are needed to protect water quality (EPA, 2003). Also, some federal cost-share funding is now being linked to the development and implementation of P-based nutrient management plans. Phosphorus-based nutrient management regulations dramatically increase the amount of land required to utilize manure and likely will have a severe, detrimental effect on much of the agricultural economy in areas of intensive animal agriculture.
Air quality regulations are increasingly affecting animal agriculture as well. The fine particles created by the reaction of ammonia with acidic gases are classified as PM2.5, a criteria pollutant listed in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Areas facing the dilemma of an economically important livestock industry concentrated in an environmentally sensitive area currently have few options. If agricultural practices continue as they have in the past despite changing conditions and intensification of operations, continued damage to air and water resources are almost inevitable. If agricultural productivity is reduced, however, the maintenance of a stable farm economy, a viable rural economy, and a reliable domestic food supply are seriously threatened. Practices that reduce nutrient losses from farms to protect important natural resources without impairing profitability must be developed and implemented.
|
APPROACH |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDAPPROACHCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
.
|
Working with a professional facilitator, the planning committee designed a facilitated, outcome-based forum modeled on a traditional strategic-planning process. The outcome to be developed by Forum participants was envisioned as a strategy listing specific steps or projects to be undertaken by specific people, covering the issues of policy, research, education, and pilot projects.
Obtaining Support.
The diversity of the groups engaged in the planning committee greatly facilitated obtaining early endorsements and support for the concept of the Waste Solutions Forum. By 2 mo into the planning processes, firm commitments of financial support were obtained from the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Tech, the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. Members of the planning committee made personal contacts with key entities to sell the concept.
Clearly, the most important reason for this broad political and financial support for the Forum was that leaders of conservation organizations and leaders of agricultural organizations visited potential supporters together, demonstrating a very unusual and powerful coalition. The power of a demonstration of collaboration among groups in the early planning phases of a stakeholder process to attract support cannot be underestimated. When groups seen as adversarial come together for common cause, the potential for transformation and meaningful progress toward solutions is a powerful motivator for others to become involved.
Developing the Invitation List.
The diversity of the planning committee also contributed to the success of the Forum in that a commitment was made to ensure that the invitees to the Forum would reflect the broadest possible diversity of key stakeholders. The planning committee enlisted expertise from across the country in both speakers and participants, and invited the diverse array of stakeholders needed for a successful dialogue, planning process, and future implementation of ideas. Invited participants included scientists, engineers, farmers, waste management facility operators, economists, conservationists, policy makers, regulators, and citizens concerned about air, water, and soil quality.
One key to success of the Forum was a deliberate restriction on the number of participants. This Forum was not intended as a comprehensive educational conference geared toward attendees learning from speakers. Instead, it was an active strategic-planning process, demanding participation of all attendees and focused on economically and environmentally viable solutions. Of necessity, this limited the invitation list. With 4 breakout sessions, and a maximum of 20 people in each session to enable meaningful conversation, a target of 80 attendees was set. One of the most difficult challenges for the planning committee was developing an invitation list of appropriate depth without exceeding the cap. In the end, 100 people were invited, and 90 participated.
A second challenge associated with the invitation list was ensuring a relative balance in representation among the various stakeholders. Were there too many producers or too many researchers? Were local government and local conservation interests adequately represented? These questions were not raised for appearance; the debate ensured that all perspectives would be heard at the Forum, that the range of expertise would be present to generate viable and creative ideas, and that Forum outcomes and strategies would garner the broadest possible support for implementation.
Collaborative problem-solving efforts often suffer from suspicion and cynicism that they are "just for show" and will not lead to anything concrete or meaningful. It is therefore critical to begin a collaborative process with the end in mind: implementation. The broader the support and buy-in during the planning phase, the broader the participation in the process by high level decision-makers, the broader the credibility of the process, and the more likely that outcomes will be supported and implemented through time. As a result, planning committee members paid close attention to implementation and long-term progress throughout the Forum planning process.
The greatest contributor to the success of the Forum was the diversity of organizations represented and their commitment to implementation of Forum-generated ideas. Many of these organizations are recognized as strong advocates for specific interests, and in other venues, usually worked in opposition to each other. Most unusual about this effort was the ability of these organizations to see an opportunity for mutual gain, to set aside their ongoing differences in other arenas, and to agree to work in concert for the common purpose of finding solutions to the persistent problems associated with animal manure management.
Professional Facilitation.
In collaboration with the planning committee, the Forum was professionally designed and facilitated to coalesce the best ideas of Forum participants into a functional plan for moving forward. The facilitation organization used in this Forum was based at the University of Virginia and affiliated with the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning at the School of Architecture. This facilitation group provides mediation and facilitation services in the arena of environmental public policy and land use. The issue of gaining credibility and stakeholder trust did not present the challenge so often faced by facilitators in multi-stakeholder situations because of the facilitator’s long working relationship as an impartial facilitator with many state agencies and nonprofit conservation organizations in Virginia.
The facilitator and planning committee worked closely together throughout the planning process. The facilitator’s contribution was most critical in helping the planning committee sharpen its focus and clarify desired outcomes for the Forum, and then helping design a workable process to achieve its goals. The role of professional facilitation was important in ensuring a smooth process at the Forum itself, but without sharply focused goals for the Forum and a workable process to give those goals wheels, the Forum likely would have fallen short of planning committee hopes.
The Forum Process
The two-day Forum consisted of 2 key components: 1) leveling the playing field through a series of presentations by pertinent technical subject matter experts and stakeholders, to enable all participants to operate from a similar base of knowledge, and 2) engaging participants in a series of focused discussions on specific topics to build informed consensus on potential solutions. This process culminated in detailed strategies for managing excess manures with the greatest potential for success and implementation by stakeholders. These options were envisioned to provide utility throughout the mid-Atlantic Region and particularly the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, but participants were tasked with developing targeted strategies for carrying these options forward in the Shenandoah Valley. The relatively narrow geographic focus allowed the development of detailed implementation plans, but the approach discussed in this paper would be applicable in any region of the country facing similar challenges.
Leveling the Playing Field.
The planning committee considered the educational component of the Forum critical, and spent significant time thinking through strategies to accomplish participant education to level the playing field in Forum deliberations. Ultimately, the planning committee agreed to develop a comprehensive pre-Forum briefing packet, invite a line-up of subject matter experts to provide short presentations, and present a technical poster session.
Members of the planning committee compiled an 80-page briefing packet to inform discussions at the Forum. There were 24 papers in the briefing packet, all peer-reviewed by members of the planning committee. Briefing packet contents are outlined in Table 3. A standard template (2 to 4 pages) was developed and enforced, to ensure consistent, concise organization of all papers.
|
A series of posters were developed and displayed during 2 open sessions on the first day of the Forum. The posters covered state-of-the-art alternative manure and litter use technologies, business and marketing approaches, and relevant regulations and policies. These were developed and manned by participants. Their use allowed participants to come "up to speed" on less familiar topics in a time-efficient manner.
Focused Discussions.
In the invitation letters for the Forum, participants were explicitly told that this would be a working event in which they would develop a strategic plan for implementation in the Shenandoah Valley. Because this expectation was articulated early, most participants were ready and eager to talk specifics.
Building on the knowledge base ensured by the briefing packet, speakers, and poster session, Forum participants developed specific actions for the 4 focus areas of 1) pilot project development; 2) educational programming; 3) research; and 4) regulatory and policy changes. Sessions were concurrent and repeated, with all participants rotating through all topics in sequential breakout sessions, building on the work of previous groups.
This process design was driven by the decision that all Forum participants should have an opportunity to not only review but also contribute to all 4 topic areas. This decision, in turn, was driven by the planning committee’s goal of developing the greatest possible support for implementation of the plan. If a different decision had been made about whether to engage participants in all 4 topic areas, a different process for the Forum clearly would have emerged.
During an online registration process for the Forum, participants were asked to identify their top 2 preferences for topics; during the Forum participants were placed initially in one of these 2 top preferences to ensure that they would be energized and interested in the discussion. The first discussion session was the longest, to allow greatest engagement by stakeholders in the focus area of greatest interest.
Also in preparation for the Forum, the briefing papers developed for each of the 4 focus areas proposed a draft "working vision and goals." This advance work by the planning committee served to focus and jump-start Forum discussions, by-passing the often time-consuming process of engaging people in identifying issues and developing goals. This eliminated the need for an additional half or full day of Forum work.
Each discussion group began by considering the proposed draft vision and goals for the topic area, making revisions and additions as needed, and then jumped quickly into brainstorming specific concrete actions to achieve these goals. Facilitators asked participants to make their proposed actions SMART — Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. This activity was followed in each group by a review of all the proposed actions. Actions were sorted into categories, and combined and clarified where possible. This proved to be a critical step; it was not well done in 1 of the 4 discussion sessions, and the strategy for that focus area suffered as a result.
Participants then rotated through each of the other 3 topics in a series of shorter sessions to enable all to contribute at an early stage to the vision, goals, and actions in each topic area. After all participants contributed to all 4 topic areas, participants were given a second opportunity to rotate through all 4 topics to identify those actions that deserved priority attention. "Sticky dots" were used to allow participants to quickly and clearly rank actions according to the following criteria:
Which actions are the most do-able, achievable, and realistic in the next three years?
Which actions will make the greatest difference, provide the "biggest bang for the buck," or have the greatest impact on facilitating improved manure management?
Which ideas need to happen first, before other things can be accomplished?
During this second rotation, participants were also asked to identify actions on which they personally or their organization might be willing to work, or possibly even fund. Participants identified these commitments with "sticky dots" of a second color on which they wrote their names. This preliminary "commitment" was not viewed as fixed or final, but simply an indication of where participant interest and energy would be directed.
After these 2 rotations, participants networked at an evening reception and poster session. During this time, the facilitation team organized the results of the prioritization for continuing group discussion on the second day.
The next morning, participants returned to their first discussion group to review the action priorities that had been selected by the Forum as a whole. In most discussion groups, participants split into smaller teams to develop specific plans for the highest priority actions. For each high priority action, participants identified resources needed to implement the action, including financial needs where appropriate as well as the people and organizations that would be important to involve. For each high priority action, a possible timeline was indicated for initiation and achievement of the action.
As the final step in the strategic planning effort, participants rotated through the other 3 topic areas to review and contribute to the priorities and plans for all 4 topics. Although participants were pressed to be as specific as possible in their plans, they also understood they were developing a rough plan that would need later refinement by those who would carry the plan forward.
Each of the 4 topic areas offered different kinds of challenges in this strategic planning process. In response, facilitators needed to be flexible in their group process while remaining faithful to the larger Forum goal of identifying clear actions and priorities for implementation. For instance, because of the political sensitivities involved in policy and the need for developing coalitions and solidarity, the policy group did not split into smaller teams but rather worked together as whole to develop plans for a few of their selected top priorities. The education group worked on specific priority actions but noted that education is integrally linked with the other 3 topics of policy, research, and pilot projects, and urged education to be considered and integrated into the work of these other topic areas. The research group recognized that numerous research priorities were closely connected and could be linked together as various research projects move forward. The pilot projects group recommended that funding be used for implementation projects using proven technologies, rather than research disguised as a pilot project.
Challenges in the Process?
This description of the Forum process may lead the reader to think that the Forum went smoothly without too many bumps in the road. To many participants, it may have appeared this way as well. For the organizers, however, the Forum’s strategic planning process represented a host of challenges. It was difficult and ultimately impossible to keep discussions in the 4 different focus areas neatly distinct and separate, because there was tremendous overlap among pilot projects, research, education, and policy. The process was messy both metaphorically in terms of trying to keep the 4 tracks mentally separate, and also physically in terms of trying to manage the paper overflow of ideas displayed on meeting room walls. Both participants and facilitators were challenged in finding connections between different ideas and proposals, combining and condensing where possible, expanding where needed, identifying common emerging themes and, above all, identifying the group’s real priorities.
As described by Kaner (1996), the nature of any consensus building effort takes people first through divergent thinking, which leads to the "groan zone," before people can finally engage in convergent thinking and consensus. The Forum was no exception to this rule, and midway through the Forum many participants were likely groaning inwardly at the daunting prospect of developing consensus from the myriad proposals, ideas, and options that had been plastered on the walls. Yet clear themes and clear priorities did emerge.
Forum Outcomes
As hoped, Forum participants succeeded in finding common ground and creating a detailed strategy for addressing excess manure in ways that will help enhance farm viability and protect natural resources, including specific priority actions for policy, research, education, and pilot projects.
The Forum represented a turning point for several reasons identified by guest speakers and participants. First, it was a grassroots effort to bring together key players from the agricultural community, environmental groups, academia, as well as local, state and federal government—all of whom must work together if viable, sustainable solutions are to be found. Second, inspired by the shared vision that both clean water and thriving agriculture in the Shenandoah Valley are not only possible but imperative, Forum participants set aside differences and moved beyond talking about the problem to developing a concrete strategy and action plan. Lastly, because of its success, the Forum served as the beginning point for long-term collaboration and partnerships to change the nature of manure management in Virginia, beginning in the Shenandoah Valley.
Two Key Themes.
Early in the Forum it became clear to all that each of the different groups represented had important vested interests in successfully addressing the problems associated with manure in the geographic region targeted, the Shenandoah Valley. Farmers and agri-businesses seek economically viable solutions that will allow them to stay in business and resist pressures to sell farmland for development. Conservation groups seek ways to ensure clean waterways and drinking water maintained by the stewardship of a viable agricultural community. State agencies seek compliance with standards and regulations. Local governments seek to protect their rural agricultural heritage. Academicians seek more efficient technologies to reduce pollution. The energy industry seeks economically viable and nonpolluting alternatives to foreign oil. These diverse but often overlapping and shared interests pointed to one clear theme: we cannot afford to fail, and at the same time, we cannot afford to not try.
The Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources expressed a second key theme in his keynote talk: unanimity is not required for success, but solidarity is. The concept of solidarity underscores the interest of Forum participants in working together and standing together to create pressure for moving solutions forward. Although Forum participants may not agree on all of the specific things that need to be done, or the order in which they should be done, all Forum participants demonstrated solidarity in expressing the urgent need for exploring and implementing solutions.
Priority Goals and Actions.
The Forum produced clear priorities, some of which were specific to 1 of the 4 topic areas and some of which emerged from multiple topic areas. Because of the overlap in ideas that emerged among the 4 topic areas, the priority actions were organized by common themes, with similar or related ideas grouped together. Further details for each priority action were outlined in the Final Report and Solutions Strategy. An example of a strategy associated with a specific priority action is in Table 4. Priority goals and actions included:
|
Improve demand and markets for manure-based products
Create alternative methods for processing manure and alternative end uses for manure
Change/influence policies to ensure funding and achieve other goals
Next Steps
At the Forum, participants were asked to identify actions for which they or their organization might be willing to provide assistance in implementation. In addition, participants were asked to join a steering committee that would carry the plan forward. The first meeting of the steering committee was held 3 wk after the Forum. At this meeting, the steering committee began the work of moving the Forum strategy forward. In addition to making decisions about its structure and operations, the steering committee decided that its overriding goal would be to seek funding for implementation projects, and thereby create success stories so that the effort to achieve solutions could be sustainable over the long term. More specifically, the steering committee’s key function is to provide guidance and support to implementation project committees. To this end, the steering committee developed criteria for deciding which of the priority projects it would try to move forward first, and then it developed implementation project committees.
The steering committee identified the following criteria for determining which priority projects would be supported first. Priority projects need not necessarily meet all the below criteria.
What Worked Well? What Problems Should be Avoided?
The ultimate success of the Waste Solutions Forum will be reflected in the implementation of ideas that emerged. The strength of the Forum was in its diversity and in the commitment of all participants to finding long-term sustainable solutions. Five keys to achieving this success were
As important as all the things you do right are all the mistakes you avoid. A few of these potential mistakes are
Grassroots Representation and Decision-Making
An unusual feature of the Forum strategy is that it began and will remain primarily a grassroots effort. It is hoped that specific action strategies developed during the Forum will be implemented by the people who signed up for them at the Forum. In this sense, the success of the Forum strategy will depend entirely on the energy and interest of participants who helped in its conception.
It is worth reflecting on how the Forum fits within the broader context of persisting agricultural-environmental challenges involving multiple parties who are long-time adversaries. The preponderance of efforts seeking to develop new policies and address complex challenges involving agriculture and the environment have been top-down efforts initiated by local, state, or federal government agencies. Participation in these efforts is often defined and driven by agency desires for efficiency and effectiveness; that is, to fulfill statutory requirements for public review and involvement, to not exceed budgetary restrictions, or to remove the agency from the hot seat of public pressure or outrage. These efforts may be designed as regulatory negotiations, policy dialogues, policy roundtables, and technical advisory committees. Such top-down efforts can often be effective at resolving specific policy needs but the broader question of how to address a complex agricultural and environmental systemic problem remains intractable, with interest groups continuing to demonize the opposition.
A distinguishing feature of the Waste Solutions Forum is that it represented recognition at the grassroots level that solutions might or must be found by bringing all interested parties together, and that solutions to one part of the puzzle cannot be tackled separately in isolation from solutions to other parts of the puzzle. Bryson and Crosby (1992) note that the way a problem is formulated will strongly affect the nature and range of its possible solutions. The Forum represents a holistic systems-approach in which key decision-making stakeholders are acknowledging that policy, research, education, and on-the-ground pilot projects are closely interrelated and must be tackled in tandem.
Johnson and Johnson (1989) noted that solutions to problems cannot be achieved by one individual or country alone, and that problems increasingly cannot be solved by actions taken only at the national level; rather, the internationalization of problems has increased. There are no clear lines between domestic and international problems. Yet if our problems are increasingly international, as is the problem of excess manure nutrients, creative solutions are being forged by local grassroots partnerships in solving for pattern, not in dissection. Authentic participation in self-governance and solutions, which is what the Forum represents in its highest aspect, is more than morally desirable; it is the sign of a healthy society (Lappé and Lappé, 2002).
Further, the Forum suggests a reconsideration of the role of public agencies away from their traditional authoritative decision-making role to stakeholders in their own right in participatory processes. Dukes (1996) suggests that instead of top-down decision-making by an elite, a transformative model for decision-making is participatory consensus-building effort from the bottom up. This transformative approach, in essence, describes the Waste Solutions Forum.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDAPPROACHCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDAPPROACHCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Received for publication September 23, 2005. Accepted for publication December 18, 2005.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUNDAPPROACHCONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
