Belfast – A Case Study

Tim Walker Contents

• Belfast

• Finding the Balance

• Licensing/Permitting/ Procurement

• Contracts & Pricing

• Carbon & Greenhouse Gas

• Selling the Message Belfast

• Belfast – largest council in Northern Ireland with approx 126,000 households and a pop of 269,000 people, with 44.9% under 30 (NISRA mid-year est. 2010).

• Housing Stock – 126,000 hh - Detached 11.5% - Semi-detached 29.4% - Terraced 45.5% - Flat 13.6%

• Deprivation - Belfast has 8 of the 10 most deprived wards in NI - 14.6% on Housing Benefit - 7.8% on Income Support - 4.5% Jobseekers allowance

• 51 Councillors – 9 electoral areas • 6 standing committees • Gross annual expenditure – £170M • Cost of service per capita – £346 NI • Employees – 2,450 • Operational centres – 111 • Key services – management, street cleansing, building control, , environmental health, parks & leisure, community development, economic development • – 150,000 tonnes per annum

Changing City Waste Issues

Legislation EU Directive - NILAS EU revised Framework Directive

Finance Disposal costs

NIEA Waste Plan 2006 Environment

NILAS fines

Landfill Tax Escalator Legal Drivers + Response

• 1st Waste Strategy published in 1992 • New Service established in 2003 • Work closely with neighbouring councils – aka arc21 • 4 x new Centres opened • Closed landfill site • Closed 9 x CA sites • Recognised communication as key: appropriate budget (~£1 per person per annum) • From 4% recycling in 2003 to 40% by Nov 2013 • Numerous contracts • New kerbside collection services • Recognised as “best practice” nationally • Produced “Towards ” Action Plan 2012- 2015

Black bin Landfill site

Materials recovery Kerbside box Blue bin facility (MRF)

Food caddy Brown bin Waste Figures

‰ 80 x Domestic & Commercial ‰ Expenditure £20 Million waste/recycling ‰ Income £2.6 Million from commercial collection ‰ £800k from sale of recyclables ‰ 4 x Household ‰ 300 employees Recycling Centre ‰ 50+ contracts ‰ 1 x Waste Transfer Station Question 1

‰ Initial impression, how does this compare with your region?

‰ What are the similarities/differences?

‰ Is there something worth learning/sharing? Finding a Balance Introduction

The Changing Face of – Challenging statutory targets for recycling & diversion of from landfill from (99/31/EC) – Targets from revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) cannot be met by increasing recycling rates alone – Technology necessary to move from disposal to treatment – Several technology options available • Some clearly established • Others still being developed EU Integrated Waste Mgt Drivers for MS Solutions The Ideal Solution arc21

• Low cost landfill (£4 in 1990) • Council’s waste planning started in 1993 with three stages – Landfill closure (1994) – Interim landfill contract (1996/2000) – Tender for integrated contract (1994-1998) • Integrated contract tender terminated in Dec 1998 • Changing economics of waste (EC Landfill Directive) & planning issues) • Landfill site extension until May 2006 • arc21 started – Jun 1999 arc21 Objectives

• Produce a sub-regional strategy that has broad stakeholder support – To review to options for the arc21 councils to work together as trading entities – To meet performance targets within EC & National legislation & policy • To develop and implement a waste plan for arc21 to provide a framework for service provision over the next 20 years EC LFD Targets

1600000

1400000

1200000

1000000 Total MSW Landfill 800000 Other 600000 Mass waste of (tonnes) 400000

200000 400,000 0 Quantity of BMW Landfilled Under No Treatment Tec hnology Scenario 350,000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Date 300,000

250,000

Pay NILAS Penalties at 200,000 £150 each = £177 million

150,000 Tonnage of BMW landfilledTonnage of BMW

100,000

50,000

- 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 Preferred Scenario

Facility By 2005 By 2020 Clean Materials Recovery/Sorting 1 – 2 facilities 2 – 3 facilities Facility Total capacity c45,000 tpa Total capacity c65,000 tpa Capacity range 20,000 – 40,000 tpa Mixed Materials Recovery/Sorting No facility 2 – 3 facilities Facility Total capacity c245,000 tpa Capacity range 50,000 – 100,000 tpa /In-vessel 1 – 2 facilities: in-vessel compost 3 – 4 facilities: combination of in- composting Total capacity c40,000 tpa vessel/AD Capacity range 50,000 – 70,000 tpa1 Total capacity c235,000 tpa Composting (Windrow) 2 – 3 facilities 3 – 5 facilities Capacity range 10,000 – 25,000 tpa Total capacity c35,000 tpa Total capacity c50,000 tpa Thermal Treatment No facility 1 facility Capacity range 75,000 – 500,000 tpa Total capacity c350,000 tpa Landfill – major facilities 2 – 3 sites 2 – 3 sites >2 million tonnes total capacity; annual Total capacity requirement Total capacity requirement input in the order of 250,000 tonnes2 800,000 tpa3 650,000 tpa2 Impact of the arc21 Waste Plan

2000 2005 2020

Landfill MRF Biological Treatment Composting Thermal Treatment WASTE MASS FLOW 06/20

Tonnages identified are the tonnages calculated for the last year of each period Question 2

• Does this collective planning approach apply in your region? • Does this look like a realistic balance of services for your region? • If not, what alternative do you think would work? The results for Belfast

• The formula and general arithmetical calculations are correct • current methodology used to calculate the BMW content of the recyclates may lead to an overestimate of the achieved BMW diversion

Table 1 – BMW tonnage to Landfill with the Different Between Calculation Methods (tpa)

Year BMW to BMW to Additional BMW NILAS Landfill Landfill Landfilled by BCC Allowances (Current (Proposed with the Proposed Method) Method) Method

2010/11 68,077 68,421 +344 71,692

2011/12 65,142 65,684 +542 70,573

2012/13 62,497 62,623 +126 48,123

2013/14 59,960 62,383 +2,423 45,652

2014/15 54,631 57,164 +2,533 43,218

2015/16 52,040 54,687 +2,647 40,817

2016/17 49,523 52,286 +2,763 38,445

2017/18 47,700 50,496 +2,796 36,355

2018/19 45,885 48,715 +2,830 34,266

2019/20 44,137 47,003 +2,866 32,177 to 2040/41

• If the trend seen in the 3rd quarter of 2010/11 was to continue in the fourth quarter, we would have an overall decrease in MSW arisings of ‐5.2% in the current financial year. Currently the modelled assumption is ‐3.6%. 2 Sensitivities –MSW growth assumptions

• Scenario 1: High growth scenario based on profiles used in other PFI projects

• Scenario 2: Low growth scenario based on ‐ 3rd quarter 2010/11 expected decline in MSW arisings ‐ DEFRA assumptions but with 2 years delays for NI ‐ Zero growth after MSW arisings have reached the lowest point

12 MSW growth sensitivities results

105,000

Scenario 1 100,000 Scenario 2 Currently Projected 95,000 80% GMT Currently Projected

90,000

85,000

80,000

75,000

70,000

65,000

60,000

55,000

50,000

45,000

14 Sensitivities –MSW recycling assumptions • Scenario 3: No Forced Recycling element • Scenario 4: High recycling scenario (as in the reviewed PFI project with the highest recycling rate)

100,000 61.2%

90,000

51.0% 80,000 47.4%

70,000 BCC WFM ‐ MSW recycling Scenario 3 ‐ MSW recycling Scenario 4 ‐ MSW recycling

60,000 35.3%

50,000

40,000

15 MSW recycling sensitivities results

120,000 BCC WFM ‐ Contract Waste volumes BCC WFM ‐ 80% GMT Scenario 3 ‐ Contract Waste volumes Scenario 4 ‐ Contract Waste volumes 100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

16 MSW recycling assumptions

Assumptions used to model Belfast recycling performance seem to be generally correct

9Residual Waste Recycling at the Project MBT plant 9Yearly Recycling growth in existing collections and Planned Measures 9Performance of recycling Planned Measures ? Additional CA sites recycling ? Forced Recycling element ? Recycling contamination

11 “Towards Zero Waste” Action Plan

2012 – 2015 What is ZAP Waste?

A roadmap showing how Belfast can reduce waste & divert more through recycling & composting which would have otherwise go to landfill in order to meet EU Landfill Directive (LFD), and revised EU Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) targets.

LFD sets mandatory targets to The rWFD set a 50% target for reduce Biodegradable recycling/composting for Municipal Waste (BMW) going councils by 2020 to landfill to - 25% of 1995 levels by 2010 √ 50% of 1995 levels by 2013 √ 65% of 1995 levels by 2020 NILAS – Landfill Allowance Tonnes NILAS Projections v Allowances 97.000 97.033 92.000 BMW Allowance

87.000 Mass Balance

82.000 85.586 This difference is 77.000 72.218 14,105 tonnes, which 71.692 if fineable would 72.000 70.573 73.552 equal £2,115,750 67.000 67.193 62.000 62.415 62.228 62.601 63.102 57.000

52.000

47.000 45.652 48.123 43.218 42.000 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Towards Zero Waste How is the Council Doing? How Much?

Total Waste costs

£22,500,000

£22,000,000

£21,500,000

£21,000,000

£20,500,000

£20,000,000

£19,500,000

£19,000,000 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 Recycling Targets 2012-15

Towards Zero Waste “Zero Waste” Timeline

•Special recyclables collection service •Bulky Household Waste Recycling •Remove recyclables from general waste skips •Additional recyclables from City events •Increase range of materials recycled •Recyclables from Council premises •Call to action, localised, tailored campaigns •Recyclables from street bins 6% increase •Love food hate waste campaign 2012/13 •Blue bin upgrades •Send proportion of general waste for treatment or share allowances •Inner City Contract •Blue Bin Glass •Increase range of materials recycled 2013/14 8% Increase •Arc21 general waste to facility •Slim Bins

•Open Household Recycling Centre 4% •Increase range of materials recycled at 2014/15 Increase HRC’s.

30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Towards Zero Waste 38 Recycling Rates 2010 to 2013 45,00% NWP 100% NWP 43% Landfill 57% NWP 70% Organics Peak – Decline in Organics LF 30% 43,00% Weather Related Innercity

41,00%

39,00% Recycling Rate 2013

37,00% Recycling rates 2012

35,00% %

33,00% Recycling Rate 2010

31,00% Recycling Rates 2011

29,00%

27,00%

25,00% Απρ‐13 Μαϊ‐13 Ιουν‐13 Ιουλ‐13 Αυγ‐13 Σεπ‐13 Οκτ‐13

Απρ‐13 Μαϊ‐13 Ιουν‐13 Ιουλ‐13 Αυγ‐13 Σεπ‐13 Οκτ‐13 Recycling Rate 2010 31,76% 32,92% 34,79% 33,19% 34,22% 31,31% 30,46% Recycling Rates 2011 33,58% 31,91% 33,58% 33,41% 33,16% 31,01% 30,90% Recycling rates 2012 30,89% 34,73% 33,07% 35,35% 37,03% 35,44% 31,69% Recycling Rate 2013 33,71% 39,42% 42,26% 39,01% 35,84% 36,23% 38,79% Recycling Rate Make Up 2013

Recycling Percentage for year 2013 Sites Other Waste incl bring; 6,89 MRF - Blue Bins; 8,00 Inner City Dry; 5,00

Residual Skip Waste At HRC's, 4.00

Residual HH Waste; 2,62

Organics -Brown Bins ; 8,61 Organics Sites ; 3,17 Inner City Food; 1,56 Textiles from Charity Shops; 1,00 Impact upon MGT Question 3

• Taking the figures for your region, can you predict your future waste arisings for the next 20 years?

• Can you identify issues which may confuse these projections?

• If you were to develop a similar plan, what would it look like? Licensing/ Permitting/ Procurement Funding

¾ The Draft Investment Strategy For NI

¾ Waste Management Included in the Programme for Govt – Provided support in excess of £250m for Capital Investment

¾ “No decision on whether new investment will come from DOE’s budget or will be funded directly by district councils” Land-Use

Planning Permitting

¾ RDS ¾EU Thematic Strategies ¾ Area Plans ¾Waste Management Strategy ¾ PPS 11 ¾Review of Waste Plans ¾ Modernising Planning Processes ¾Better Regulation ¾ BPEO ¾Waste Management ¾ SEA Regulations Licence ¾ EIA Regulations ¾Management System (e.g. ISO14001 Site Availability

¾Public Ownership

¾Private Ownership Procurement Legislation

• EC Procurement Legislation: -Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991 Threshold = £4,348,350 -Public Services Contracts Regulation 1993 Threshold = £173,943 -Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995 Threshold = £173,943 -Public Contracts (Works, Services & Supply) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 Procurement Strategies

• Outsource – Integrated contract for a bundle of services – Individual service contracts

• In House – Own and operate

• Hybrid – Own and outsource operation – Lease and operate Risks

Procurement Option Pros Cons Outsource (Integrated) Minimum operational limited flexibility involvement Good risk transfer higher cost Long term certainty Higher cost/loss flexibility Outsource (Services) As above Interface management

In House Total Control No risk transfer Flexibility High operational input Potential lower cost Cost increases direct

Hybrid Flexible Possible interface risks Manageable risk transfer Interface management Lower cost Could lose cost benefits due to risk transfer and interface management Risks

Uncertainty = Cost

• Contract Risk – How to develop a contract allocating risk to whichever party can best manage it • Planning Risk – How to minimise delays & best manage public perceptions (i.e. should public sites be chosen?) • Regulatory Risk – Contractor – Process Control to ensure products are “fit for purpose” • Legislative Risk – How to minimise the impact of changes in law (or client?) • Market Risk – How to ensure that the technology chosen is most appropriate (usually rests with the contractor) • Supply Risk – How to ensure that the tonnages committed are delivered (rests with the client) • Operational Risk – Does the technology perform as expected (Audit risk evaluation / Open Book Policy) Market Interest

Procurement strategy could affect market interest due to: • size of contract limiting number of potential bidders • risk transfer profile limiting number of bidders • high tendering costs for complex contracts • win potential if many potential bidders • short contract period affecting funding ability • high capital content affecting funding ability Procurement Issues

• Single or Integrated Technology Contracts • Procurement Strategy • Payment Mechanisms • Public Finance Initiative/Public-Private Partnership or other? • Contract Period • Discretion to Use Offered Assets • Shared Risk & Reward eg Revenue Share • Guaranteed Minimum Tonnage • Councils take Planning Risk Question 4

• Does this sound like planning in your region?

• Could this process deliver?

• Which procurement strategy would work best for you?

• Are there markets for the outputs? Contracts & Pricing Procurement Status arc21 Contracts update

¾ Materials Recovery (Awarded)

¾ Landfill (Awarded)

¾ Transfer Stations (linked to above)

¾ Bring Sites (Awarded)

¾ Professional Services (Awarded)

¾ Organic Waste (Awarded)

¾ Supply Of Bins (Awarded)

¾ Bring Centre Containers (Awarded)

¾ Clean MRF (Work In Progress)

¾ Energy from Waste/MBT (Out to Tender) MRF – Tonnage & Price Band

BAND NO. FROM TO TONNES CUMULATIVE COST BAND COST CUMULATIVE COST TONNAGE COST PER TONNE

1- 13,000 13,000 13,000 65.10 846,300 846,300 65.10

2 13,000 20,000 7,000 20,000 18.52 129,640 975,940 48.80

3 20,000 30,000 10,000 30,000 14.70 147,000 1,122,940 37.43

4 30,000 40,000 10,000 40,000 33.57 335,700 1,458,640 36.47

5 40,000 50,000 10,000 50,000 25.07 250,700 1,709,340 34.19

6 50,000 60,000 10,000 60,000 17.87 178,700 1,888,040 31.47

NOTE : REVENUE SHARE AT A RATE OF £20 PER TONNE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCES THE NET COST PER TONNE MRF Tonnages (Combined)

ANTRIM BELFAST C'FERGUS C'REAGH DOWN LARNE LISBURN N DOWN COMBINED TOP OF BAND 3 30,000

28,000

26,000

24,000

22,000

TOP OF BAND 2 20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

TOP OF BAND 1 13,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 -

TONNAGE PROJECTED 2,172 2,364 7,908 1,000 1,212 3,096 1,920 3,792 3,312 26,776 MRF Projected Price

BAND NO. FROM TO TONNES CUMULATIVE COST BAND COST CUMULATIVE COST TONNAGE COST PER TONNE

1- 13,000 13,000 13,000 65.10 846,300 846,300 65.10

2 13,000 20,000 7,000 20,000 18.52 129,640 975,940 48.80

3 20,000 26,776 6,776 26,776 14.70 99,607 1,075,547 40.17

£

GROSS COST FOR 26,776 TONNES 1,075,547

REVENUE SHARE 535,520

NET COST 540,027

NET COST PER TONNE 20.17 Question 5

• Are there a range of waste treatment options available in your region?

• Can these be developed in a mutually supportive manner?

• Should there be other opportunities for waste to link into economic development policies for your region and, if so, how? Greenhouse Gases & Carbon Greenhouse gas effect

SUN Part fo the infrared radiation goes through the atmosphere and is Part is reflected by the atmosphere lost in the space and by the earth

CO CH 2 4 CO2 CH4 GREENHOUSE GASES N2O H2O N2O Part of the infrared radiation is H O absorbed and again reflected by the 2 greenhouse gases – direct effet is Sun radiation goes the warming up of the earth and the through the atmosphere troposphere .

Sun energy is absorbed by the The heat results in the earth and warms it up emission of infrared long Surface receives more heat and waves to the atmosphere more infrared radiation is emitted

EARTH CO2 emissions per inhabitant

Source: Euromed statistics - 2006 CO2 emissions per inhabitant

Each of our everyday actions consumes energy and produces carbon dioxide emissions e.g. taking flights, driving our cars, heating or cooling our homes and offices. Carbon Offsets can be used to compensate for the emissions produced by funding an equivalent carbon dioxide saving somewhere else.

Carbon footprint trainer: Flight Brussels – Cairo - Brussels

0,6 ton CO2-eq = +/- 6% of yearly CO2-eq consumption!!!

Carbon offset flight: 5,5 €

Source: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/ Anthropogenic emissions CO2, CH4 and N2O in the EU

Direct Emissions Global Global Warming Global Warming GHG (Mt) Warming Equivalence of all Equivalence Potential emissions emissions from Mt eq. CO2 (1) waste Mt equiv.CO2 CO2 3215 1 3215 (<0,5%) 15 (fossil) CH4 22 21 460 (33%) 152 (89%) N2O 1,05 310 325 (1%) 3

(1) % originating from solid waste disposal

Source: Gugele (2007) Organic waste mgt & GHG Simplified scheme

Biogenic Antropogenic Antropogenic

Antropogenic Energy recovery

Pre treatment

Material & energy recovery Antropogenic Antropogenic Biogenic Antropogenic Biogenic

Source: ACR+ = Antropogenic emissions = Biogenic emissions Composting & GHG

Complex C - components CO2 C/N = 30/1

C/N = Part of C used 10:15/1 by MO for cell CO2 build up

C = percolate Dependent of: • Methods application • Temp & humidity% C - sequestration • Available clay • Soil treatment Abatement strategy for waste

GHG emitter from solid waste is the organic matter Anaerobic degradation of solid organic matter generates methane Methane is the primary GHG considered in solid waste degradation The abatement strategies for MSW methane generation is capture the biogas generated in the landfill and burn or use it OR Avoid waste reaching the landfill through alternative use GHG emissions EU-25

Source: EEA 2008 GHG in life-cycle thinking

Raw materials

Energy

Extraction Transport Raw materials

Reuse Energy Recycling Production Waste Recovery Products Waste Services Transport

Consumption Transport

Supply of food & = GHG emissions products = 42% of GHG Source: ACR+ Waste-related GHG reductions EU-27

Source: EEA, 2008 EU-15 MSW Management

• Fact - Countries with high recycling and composting rates and low landfill usage incinerate a significant portion of their municipal waste Collection & GHG gases

GHG emission sources

CO2 from fossil fuel and electricity consumption

Actions to reduce or avoid GHG emissions

Rationalisation of collection operations and improvement of fuel efficiency Development of alternative means of transport such as rail or water Minimising transport distances Implementation of ecodriver training programmes Landfilling & GHG gases

CH4 (fugitive) to atmosphere CH4 (collected) combustion CO2 from atmosphere CO2 (fugitive) to atmosphere CO2 (collected) combustion

Plant materials Landfill gases (CO Landfill 2 contain C & CH4)

C in Landfill Pathways of CH4 in

Methane Converted to CO2 released to atmosphere Flarestack and/or energy recovery

Restoration layer Escapes through Diffusion – cap & Oxidation by cracks in the cap restoration layer microbes and around Capping layer edges

Transport within the Methane formation in waste the waste

Methane formation in the waste Waste Composting & GHG gases

CO2 from CO2 to CO2 to atmosphere atmosphere atmosphere

Plant materials Composting contain C

C in compost

Application of compost to soil

Increased C in soil Home Composting & CH4

Oxydation process of CH4

Ambient air = 0.00022% CO2

46 to 98% microbiological Oxydation oxidation of CH4 in the more aerobic circumstances on top of the bin Characteristics OM at the bottom

• compacted CH 4 Anaerobic zones • heterogenous Average conc. 0.0 – 0.2% • variations in compactation Max = 0.5% • higher humidity • lower O2 permeability • anaerobic conditions possible

Source: research Imperial College London, 2006 Biowaste CO2 emission reduction The case of the Netherlands

Landfilling Source separation Innovation GHG gas fluxes Composting & anaerobic digestion (CHP)

Net flux GHG gas savings Ranges

Direct emissions 300 242

200 Indirect upstream emissions 100 20 -2 -4 -44 0,2 3

Kg CO2-eq/WW -100 -79 -82 Sequestration -200 Fertilisers substitution -245 -300 Peat substitution

Source: ISWA, 2009 Domestic material consumption: UK

Source: WRAP Not running out: copper But, structural price drivers raise price

Source: Halada 2011 Risk is hidden in supply chains RSA: The Great Recovery Project Public Perception

• General public often fear the development of new waste facilities • Key concerns include: – health effects – nuisance – loss of amenity – loss of property value • As a result, site selection is always a critical decision • Political commitment & communication with the public important Visual Appearance

Riverside Cleveland

Lakeside Newhaven Facts about Facilities

• Low public perception of facilities is largely a result of pre EU Waste Incinerator Directive facilities (i.e. before 1996) • Waste facilities have significantly improved over the last 30 years • For example, UK MSW incinerator dioxin emissions have reduced from 460 – 580 grams in 1995 to around 1.8 grams in 1999 • Dioxin measurements on Guy Fawkes Day (5 Nov), demonstrated that residents living in the vicinity of a fire site were 70% greater than if they were living at the point of maximum impact of the emissions from London’s largest incinerator (Edmonton) Question 6

• For contract award purposes, cost/quality is the standard assessment mechanism

• Usually ratio ranges from 90/10 to 60/40

• They involve a quantitative assessment linked with a qualitative one

• Can this be challenged as greater emphasis is placed upon GHG Gases/Carbon/Social Clauses? Selling the Message Why Communicate?

¾ New way of thinking & doing ¾ Motivation, promotion & dialogue ¾ Radical policy change ¾ Share good practice

… so how do we do it? Who is Belfast talking to?

¾ 21% Settlers – Security/sustenance driven, backward looking, yesterday was better

¾ 44% Prospectors – Esteem/outer-directed needs, “in the now”, fashion, status, success

¾ 35% Pioneers – Inner-directed needs, ethical, self-exploration, look forwards, like change & discovery

Source: Chris Rose & Pat Dade Aims

What should I aim for? 1. Raise awareness 2. Change attitudes 3. Change behaviour What doesn’t work

Myth # 1: Any communication is good communication

Myth #2: Communications cost the earth

Myth #3: There is a rational man What Works?

Be Inspiring ¾ Set an inspiring goal ¾ Link to the “big” issues ¾ Be compelling; a modern storyteller Be inspiring

¾ Use emotions Make it Personal & Practical

¾ Link action to positive desires Make it personal & practical

¾ Use innovative channels “Human history is a race between education & catastrophe”

Belfast Communicates…

Reflections/ Thoughts/ Questions