Heard in Brussels

Why biotech needs Europe – and Europe needs biotech
Enlarge image

Why biotech needs Europe – and Europe needs biotech

11.12.2012 - It’s getting a little boring listening to conversations about the 2014-2020 budget. As citizens, we’re subjected to endless national bickering and point-scoring as national leaders look to secure their own positions through sounding ‘tough on Europe’, as if the EU was a strange alien beast designed to steal their money and straighten all their bananas.

As a fugitive from the UK, I am particularly embarrassed, and can’t wait for them to have a referendum on in/out. At least the Brits will finally shut up afterwards.

But I digress. What people overlook is the impact of a big European freeze on national development. Europe has enabled the massive development of regions that would have been unlikely to see many benefits under purely national direction. This has created the infrastructure through which science is being delivered, and a consequence of reducing this now will be to throw away much of the progress and investment we’ve made to date.

Support on the Horizon

When not talking about biotech, I talk about cluster development (that’s right – I’m such a blast at parties) and right now we are witnessing a battle for survival. These precious structures are nurseries for economic returns on research. After 25 years of investment, they are creating SMEs that are coming through on promises, making the transition from discovery to clinical phases for new drugs – exactly what investment was intended to deliver.

However the market is moving further away from SMEs. The gap where they need support gets wider every year. So if investors won’t come unless you have a Phase III product, how do you get there? This is where the critical support from Horizon 2020 comes in. It must expand its reach beyond FP7, with cluster support, PPPs, later-stage trial funding, infrastructure creation, skills development and a relentless drive to support the commercialisation of great science. 

Savouring the fruits of innovation

If the funding falls away from Horizon 2020 as national governments reduce their input to Europe, then the countries themselves will pay the price. As national austerity reduces innovation support, Europe has in many places become the only source of assistance – both financially and strategically – when creating long-term plans as part of an international map. Kill it, and those clusters and regions that are at the cusp of economic delivery from biotechnology will shrivel, and the billions of euros invested thus far will be wasted.

Right now, Europe has an opportunity to seize the market. It would be a crime if short-term national political games prevented the strengths of 27 countries from finally delivering substantial economic returns in biotech.

http://www.european-biotechnology-news.com/people/heard-in-brussels/2012/why-biotech-needs-europe-and-europe-needs-biotech.html

30.06.2016 We all know about the incredible amount of time it takes to bring a novel therapeutic to patients and the market, and the eye-watering cost associated with that process. It has broken many a person and richer and better than you or I.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The European Medicines Agency has introduced a new tool, called PRIME (like a TransformerTM) that can hopefully help applicants to accelerate approval, particularly those in advanced technology areas or where no treatment is currently available. As the world gets smaller, it is great to see that they nicked the idea off the Americans, as it reflects the Breakthrough Therapy programme over there which has been running at the Food and Drug Administration since 2012.

PRIME (PRIority MEdicines) will offer selected programmes early and 'proactive' support with the aim to get registrations achieved after 150 days rather than the usual 210 – 60 very valuable days for both patients and patent holders. Not everybody can use this – you have to demonstrate potential to benefit patients with unmet medical needs based on early clinical data. However, once you have been picked, you get continuous support to build your marketing authorisation application, meeting with multi-disciplinary experts and receiving advice at key milestones including from Health Technology Assessment bodies.

This is good news for small companies, where cash is king and friends with money are hard to come by. Acceptance into PRIME is a strong indicator of investment and partnering potential, helping de-risk highly novel potential therapeutics for larger companies which roll their eyes like a terrified horse at anything not shaped like a sugar cube. It's also good for Europe's translational research landscape, making it easier to take truly innovative ideas from the lab into development. Hopefully it will contribute to brains, money and momentum entering the pipeline.

And of course it is better news for patients - PRIME goes straight to those hard to reach spots and there are plenty of people there who won't get another chance of a novel medicine. To have something genuinely different become available when all you had hopes of was a reformulated 'something' is something that will sustain patients and their families in tough times.

With the close of recent calls from Horizon2020, which included advanced biomaterials for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders, it looks like PRIME will be very useful. Medical research is combining the outcomes from breakthroughs in disease understanding with an increased ability to manipulate biology and merge it with many other technologies for the creation of medicines that boldly go where no medicines have gone before (always end with Star Trek if you can).

Make it so!

31.03.2016 I am too depressed to write about the UK playing silly buggers with the EU and the negative impact on science, so let's look at something positive for Europe instead - the development of circular economy opportunities for biotechnology.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Let's start by explaining what the circular economy is, before you say 'eh?' and read something else. Its aim is to ensure that the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimised.

It essentially looks at production, consumption and waste as a bigger picture, something the EU is genuinely able to do, with the aim to benefit citizens and the ecosystem of Europe in the long term. We can expect a combined set of actions that include regulation and economic development incentives and this is genuinely an opportunity for biotechnology to find new applications and create global economic opportunities. Because Europe follows a long term approach, it might be faster than many other regions in the world, which are more reactive than proactive, in creating scientific and business capabilities.

European biotechnology is already working towards economic return from circular economy actions, look at the Bio-Based Industries (BBI) Joint Undertaking, a public private partnership leveraging €2.7 billion of private investment and €975 million EU funds to target sustainable biomass, biorefineries and market development. This matches the principles of the circular economy action plan published at the end of 2015 which has the intention to change production processes, consumption, waste management and turning waste into a resource - all areas where biotechnology can work its magic.

Most areas of biotechnology can contribute; food production, energy, environmental monitoring, industrial processes etc etc, there's room for innovation and economic return across the board. A quick look at the BBI workplan for 2016 highlights the commercial opportunities for biotech perfectly, with topics including extraction of organic material from waste water for feedstock, novel fermentation of bio-compounds, advanced biomaterials for packaging, recovering and re-using enzymes in industrial processes ... the list goes on, read it yourself you lazy beggars.

The circular economy makes sense for Europe – the world is demonstrating on a daily basis how economies and society suffer when the environment is degraded. There will certainly be plenty of moaning about Brussels stopping you throwing your fridge in the pond or making you dry your hair with a straight banana. However, if we take the 20-year, "isn't the water clean", view rather than the 5-minute, "it's my human right to leave the fridge door open", view - we will hopefully find that Europe is still habitable and we have thriving industries that will help make that happen.

16.12.2015 People do plenty of moaning about the European Parliament, so let’s look at something good that it did in October, when it rejected an EC proposal for national GMO bans.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

This isn't cultivation of GMOs – countries already have the right to ban those on pretty much any grounds, science and evidence having been chucked out the window along with rational thought. This is the right of countries to restrict or prohibit the sale and use of EU-approved GMO food or feed.

There are two key issues; firstly that European agriculture is hugely dependent on protein supplies from GM sources and secondly, you are effectively breaking up the European freedom to trade, which is the foundation upon which the European Union was created.

The first issue interests me most, as it highlights how little people understand about the global and complex nature of the food and feed chain and how much biotech drives food and feed production globally. Agriculture is fiercely cost-driven. Why do you think farmers spend half their time lamenting in Brussels? Big players in the food and feed chain are ruthless and the difference between earning enough to live and going bust is a cent on a litre of milk. To create your agricultural products, you need to be as competitive as possible and where animals are involved, this means buying in high quality feed at the lowest possible price. Europe does not produce enough protein to deliver its animal feed, and global production is dominated by GMOs. They allow cheaper and more efficient production of protein, so even if Europe did grow its own, it couldn't outcompete the GM-derived feeds on price because it starts from a more expensive production system.

Agricultural economists (and supermarkets) know what would happen to national production if a country could not use imported GM-derived animal feeds, cost of production would rocket and supermarkets would simply buy from the abundant supply of cheaper producers elsewhere. The public generally likes to buy cheap and the supermarkets will make sure they have plenty of that, whether your milk, cheese and pork (plus ingredients in any processed food) is from down the road or from China.

The Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the proposal based on the fact that it is almost unworkable from an implementation perspective and undermines European free trade, rather than for the catastrophic effect that it would have on any country fool enough to actually ban GM products, but we should take the result with a sigh of relief whatever the reason. It might look like a rural idyll as you watch cows grazing contentedly in the middle distance but it is a small window into an intensive global industry reliant on biotechnology-derived products and one that will happily buy its products elsewhere if the price is right.

27.10.2015 A little bird tells me that the European Commission is moving towards a decision on whether various technologies involved in development of novel plant strains will fall under the terms of current GMO legislation.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Boring, I hear you groan, waiting for the usual headlines of new monster foods and other Triffid-like crops but this is an interesting case and will have consequences for countries where GMO crops are banned (are you listening, Scotland?)

GM legislation is strongly based on technologies and processes that define the resulting organism, with the requirement that the resulting plants can be identified as modified at molecular level. The technologies under question now include cisgenesis, to give one example, where DNA is introduced from the same species. This, and other methods under consideration, challenge GM legislation as it cannot exclude the possibility that such mutations may naturally occur and the methods used do not allow the identification of a modified plant, as there is no foreign DNA and no markers by which to determine modification.

These are not funky new techniques, they have been around for a number of years, but now they are coming to fruition, with novel patents and companies driving the need for legislative clarification. The decision either way from the EC will have research and economic consequences for European governments. If such methods are exempted from GM legislation (and there seem to be national level arguments for this floating about) – it will allow EU countries to stick to existing bans whilst continuing the development of crop breeding research and industry. If they are included in the legislation, they narrow the playing field for European research within plant-based agriculture as it removes additional techniques for use in the lab. With research grants closely linked to exploitation potential, who is going to fund a project where the results can only bring economic benefit to another country? 

And this is where I get back to Scotland, which recently announced its intention to ban the production of GM crops. Scotland has a huge economic reliance on agriculture and a long history of excellent agricultural research and commercial production. The ban on GM crop production will already impact Scotland’s research base and reputation. If the techniques under review by the EC are also included in GM legislation, this deals a double whammy to the sector, removing a further set of skills and economic tools from one of the pillars of the Scottish economy. What started as a rather pointless and populist policy statement may have economic consequences far beyond an easy headline. It also demonstrates the importance of careful consideration around seemingly small changes to EC legislation that could rapidly force the evolution of science at the national level, a genetic modification that will more likely spawn a shrimp than a monster.

10.07.2015 European Biotechnology Network had the good fortune to moderate the 8th Berlin Conference on IP in Life Science, which this year had a focus on natural products. “That will be interesting,” I thought to myself, thinking about the world of complex structures and challenging development pathways.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

“Interesting” soon paled into insignificance as I fell headlong into the tiger trap that is the Nagoya Protocol, coming soon folks to a country near you.

For those of you uninitiated in such matters, the Nagoya Protocol is a global programme with the extremely relevant intention to regulate access to genetic resources and ensure the sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation. Europe, as we recall, knows a thing or two about ‘accessing’ resources from countries beyond its immediate vicinity without the express written consent of their owners and Nagoya is a worthy platform to prevent sticky-fingered organisations from literally vacuuming up local resources and knowhow without a) the locals’ consent and b) full engagement financially and culturally.

A lot of paperwork

This all sounds great and, as usual, the liberation of keen regulators around the world has ensured that it is now massively complicated and is already protecting local resources by ensuring that nobody can be bothered to fill in all the forms to pick a plant or sample the water. This learned column however wants to focus on what happens when Nagoya arrives in Europe, which it will do in October, and has to be implemented.

And when I say implemented, I mean into all legal systems, and Europe has many more of those than a simple headcount of countries. Spain is my favourite example, where Nagoya will be implemented by each of the 17 autonomous communities. So, sampling natural resources in Spain (including those found in marine ecosystems) could involve discussions with ALL the regions in which your bacteria, nematode or plant can be cultivated, and that is a lot of paperwork in a wide variety of dialects.

Europe is woefully underprepared for the level of stringency required by Nagoya, most countries aren’t ready for October because they didn’t pay attention when they should have, which will result in the usual amusing quagmire that Europe is good at creating. If this sounds flippant, perhaps it is, but this column comes in the light of the fact that research into, and commercialisation of natural products has collapsed in the years that have seen increasing regulation on access, with, I recall, a reduction of the big companies active in natural products declining from 13 to 3 (don’t quote me on that exact number but it is close).

The irony is that you only have to step outside your back door to find sufficient genetic resources to last a lifetime of natural product research. You don’t have to go to anywhere exotic (and fill in lots of forms) and European implementation of Nagoya will probably ensure that we all look closer to home in the future.

17.03.2015 You would have to be blind, deaf and living in a hole for the last twenty years to not know that Europe struggles with the whole GMO thing.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Despite a mountain of scientific evidence behind the safe cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, the PR bomb dropped by Monsanto all those years ago changed Europe forever, resulting in one of the few areas where a belief in witchcraft seems to carry more weight than scientific evidence.

And the European Parliament has recently achieved the questionable triumph of ensuring that superstition at national level can override scientific review at European level. In November, it backed a plan to allow nations to ban GM crops on their soil, even if they are given approval to be grown in the European Union. This of course means that Europe can proudly approve crops and claim to be at the forefront of food production, while individual countries can proudly tell their voters that they continue to ban the evil that is GM and keep their children safe.

I am no fan of multi-national company shenanigans in their corporate dealings and they can indeed do a professional job in looking shifty, but why not address the company problems directly rather than punishing the science? The problem in preventing cultivation of GM crops, and also preventing their import, goes far beyond the claimed negative environmental impact.

The European agricultural system is incredibly important in food security, cultural identity and also gives us the landscape that we know so well today. It is under immense pressure to produce food at lower costs and with reduced pollution, while maintaining the incredibly high food standards rightly required for consumers (all of which GM technology enables). If you prevent European farmers from raising crops (and animals fed on those crops) with the same resources available to every other farmer in the world, then they will not be able to compete in a very global market. European citizens already use and consume products from genetically modified plants, created outside Europe, and if they make their farmers operate with one arm tied behind their backs, they can expect to eat and use a lot more, because there will be far fewer farmers in Europe.

It comes back to science (as usual) and the big picture behind Europe continuing to resist GM technology within its own agricultural system, despite the fact that it is happy to eat the products. GM crops allow more efficient production, and that means fewer resources required in today's intensive agricultural systems. The environmental impact of farming is immense, whatever the production system, so anything that can reduce inputs required is good for everybody. It is a huge pity that national governments have spoken with a false voice through the European Parliament and put short term votes over the long term positive impact of biotechnology on European agriculture, environment and economy.

25.06.2015 European Biotechnology Network had the good fortune to moderate the 8th Berlin Conference on IP in Life Science, which this year had a focus on natural products. “That will be interesting,” I thought to myself, thinking about the world of complex structures and challenging development pathways. “Interesting” soon paled into insignificance as I fell headlong into the tiger trap that is the Nagoya Protocol, coming soon folks to a country near you.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

For those of you uninitiated in such matters, the Nagoya Protocol is a global programme with the extremely relevant intention to regulate access to genetic resources and ensure the sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation. Europe, as we recall, knows a thing or two about ‘accessing’ resources from countries beyond its immediate vicinity without the express written consent of their owners and Nagoya is a worthy platform to prevent sticky-fingered organisations from literally vacuuming up local resources and knowhow without a) the locals’ consent and b) full engagement financially and culturally.

This all sounds great and, as usual, the liberation of keen regulators around the world has ensured that it is now massively complicated and is already protecting local resources by ensuring that nobody can be bothered to fill in all the forms to pick a plant or sample the water (see p. 52). This learned column however wants to focus on what happens when Nagoya arrives in Europe, which it will do in October and has to be implemented.

And when I say implemented, I mean into all legal systems, and Europe has many more of those than a simple headcount of countries. Spain is my favourite example, where Nagoya will be implemented by each of the 17 autonomous communities. So, sampling natural resources in Spain (including those found in marine ecosystems) could involve discussions with ALL the regions in which your bacteria, nematode or plant can be cultivated, and that is a lot of paperwork in a wide variety of dialects.

Europe is woefully underprepared for the level of stringency required by Nagoya, most countries aren’t ready for October because they didn’t pay attention when they should have, which will result in the usual amusing quagmire that Europe is good at creating. If this sounds flippant, perhaps it is, but this column comes in the light of the fact that research into, and commercialisation of natural products has collapsed in the years that have seen increasing regulation on access, with, I recall, a reduction of the big companies active in natural products declining from 13 to 3 (don’t quote me on that exact number but it is close).

The irony is that you only have to step outside your back door to find sufficient genetic resources to last a lifetime of natural product research. You don’t have to go to anywhere exotic (and fill in lots of forms) and European implementation of Nagoya will probably ensure that we all look closer to home in the future.

23.12.2014 We have a new set of European Commissioners, and I thought that in this issue, it would be very nice to have a look at one of them through the lens of biotechnology. Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation Carlos Moedas is our man, and a quick look at his bio shows that he combines origins in engineering with a career in banking and real estate. You may interpret that as you will in terms of usefulness to the world of science.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

I was going to give a detailed analysis of Jean-Claude’s invitation letter to Carlos, but to be honest, it was so full of titles like ‘Commissioner in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (yes, my friends that is a job) – that I thought we would just write our own letter of appointment to Mr. Moedas so that he knows what he needs to do. Here goes …

Dear Carlos,

You’re becoming a Commissioner in the new EC at a particularly challenging time for the European Union. As well as doing all the standard stuff – such as liking Europe, looking smart on the television and not fiddling expenses – we, the scientific community, would very much like you to prioritise the following activities in your portfolio:

1. Linking together research and infrastructure planning and funding at the European, national and regional levels, so that the next scientific breakthrough can be developed quickly to market/field or patient, rather than floating about until somebody from the US or China decides they will do it instead and the European taxpayer subsidises profits somewhere else and then has to buy the final product.

2. Making the best use of Europe’s brains by opening up the often clogged scientific pipeline between school, university and the wide world of biotech, and ensuring that talents are not lost for any reason throughout careers.

3. Empowering SMEs further to drive innovation into commercial reality, plus recognising where the skills and financial gaps are and plugging them.

4. Stop asking nicely for private investment in science and incentivise it to be an integral part of investment portfolios.

5. Ensure that when you spend public money on science, you spend wisely, spend big and spend consistently – big words and small money do not deliver crops, medicine or energy.

6. Join it all up. In a complex and fast-changing world, the bottlenecks often have little to do with the science and everything to do with a lack of money, regulatory barriers, access to downstream partners and getting the right skills at the right time.

To help you fulfil your responsibilities, the whole scientific community in Europe will guide you on your way. You are just about to find out what a passionate sector you serve. We look forward to working with you on the next step needed by Europe’s scientific community.

Yours sincerely

All of Us

Well, that should do it.


28.10.2014 This summer saw the first deadline for the new SME Instrument, and the evaluation feedback from the European Commission could be a wake-up call for small companies across Europe.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The funding programme aims to accelerate SME development and help them bridge the financial valley of death. With up to €5m in funding available and no need for the usual EU consortium, this is a tempting opportunity.

Plenty of SMEs applied, and a select few made it into the €50,000 feasibility stage. However plenty did not and there was some strong feedback from the European Commission on why not, which was unusually direct ("just trying their luck, it's not a lottery"). This could be seen as a critical review of European SMEs in general, as Europe still strives to make viable business from science.

One of the key feedbacks was that SMEs focused too much on the science and not enough on the business, and we have all been around long enough in this sector to know that this is the case in many small companies. Fresh-faced from the lab and secure in the knowledge that their science is amazing, there is often much less attention paid to how you are actually going to sell that science, when it will earn its money, and who will pay for it. And this despite original business plans so big they could stop an elephant. This aspect was further reinforced by evaluator feedback on a lack of knowledge about competitors and just proposing a scientific idea without a pathway mapped out for its commercialisation.

The proposal guide-
lines were clear – they asked for specific business information. And applicants would have been wise to recognise the significance of what was requested. The bigger question is, does this reflect the business capability of European biotech SMEs? In building original business plans to gain seed funding, SME founders frequently get professional support, particularly first time CEOs, but are they actually able to implement a plan and turn it into reality? Or do they revert to being awestruck by the science itself, pointing and exclaiming “just look at that, who wouldn’t buy that?” Has the European SME sector managed to mature from its early days in the 1990s, when it really started to blossom as a business platform and suck up money? These are questions that may not bring comfortable thought processes to many, myself included. 

However, the SME Instrument, inspired by the SBIR programme in the US, could be a critical tool in forcing the business evolution of SMEs, particularly those piloted by CEOs new to the game. Nothing focuses the mind like chasing money, and if the SME Instrument makes people actually implement the business behind science, then the SMEs that triumph in the much sought-after project applications can only help Europe in its quest for business maturity.

26.06.2014 The launch of Horizon2020 and close of the first deadlines in February has shown the appetite of Europe’s researchers from industry and academia for funding.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

A huge number of applications were received, particularly for the two-stage applications, where success rates are as low as 4% for some topics. And pass rates could remain low even at Stage 2.

A silver lining

This is scary news at first glance, but we have to look at it in multiple ways. First, these were the first deadlines after a break between FP7 and H2020, so people had been waiting awhile for the Framework carousel to start turning again. Second, the two-stage application process opens the door to a huge number of speculative attempts at Stage 1, where the application is short. In some ways it’s annoying to think a half-developed idea could beat a carefully crafted effort. Indeed, exactly that has happened to enough EBN Member proposals.

Feeding the European fire

When you look at the big picture, however, you have to feel positive. Horizon 2020 is highly focussed on exploitation and raised impact. If evaluators are spoiled for choice with proposals that can deliver economic returns from biotech, then we can’t complain too much. Goodness knows Europe needs to deliver money back into the system from maturing biotechnology. I’m not talking about the kind of money that comes from the acquisition of an SME for a fraction of the public money that has been poured into making it ripe for purchase, but the genuine maturation of value within Europe. These short Stage 1 proposals also enable people new to EC funding to dip a toe in the water. Much better a failed Stage 1 proposal that gets you thinking about working in partnership and moving your technology forward than no effort at all because a full proposal was too difficult. Failed Stage 1 proposals need to keep their chins up – after all, you’ve started a journey, found some new friends and there are many adventures that beckon.

From small beginnings

The big question coming up is how the new SME Instrument performs. Part of me trembles at the thought of how many applications are cooking and how many will be disappointed. The rest of me is excited – at last, something to drive SMEs forward, masters of their own destiny! We’re cautiously circling the first deadlines in June, and I would imagine that the EC is also waiting with terror in its heart so see what the application process yields, and whether they’ll have to get extra USB sticks out of the cupboard to store all the applications. If you feel any tremors in cyberspace on June 25, you will know the SME Instrument has delivered a bouncing big baby into the nervous arms of its midwife.

1/4Nächste Seite

Whitepaper

Current issue

All issues

Product of the week

Products

Stock list

All quotes

TOP

  • NEWRON (CH)22.65 CHF9.69%
  • VERNALIS (UK)45.00 GBP4.65%
  • KARO BIO (S)40.00 SEK4.44%

FLOP

  • PROTHENA PLC (IE)50.02 USD-7.70%
  • FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES (F)13.85 USD-6.98%
  • BIONOR PHARMA (N)0.44 NOK-6.38%

TOP

  • DIAMYD MEDICAL -B- (S)7.25 SEK68.6%
  • KARO BIO (S)40.00 SEK34.2%
  • NEWRON (CH)22.65 CHF33.6%

FLOP

  • BIONOR PHARMA (N)0.44 NOK-27.9%
  • NOVOZYMES (DK)284.40 DKK-14.0%
  • RENEURON (UK)2.75 GBP-12.7%

TOP

  • KARO BIO (S)40.00 SEK2497.4%
  • NICOX (F)10.26 EUR451.6%
  • SAREUM HOLDINGS (UK)0.74 GBP252.4%

FLOP

  • BB BIOTECH (D)46.74 EUR-81.7%
  • EVOCUTIS (UK)0.04 GBP-78.9%
  • NEUROVIVE PHARMACEUTICAL AB (S)5.50 SEK-71.4%

No liability assumed, Date: 24.08.2016

Events

All Events

Partner-Events