The French Environment Minister Ségolène Royal has signed a decree banning the trade in ivory and rhino horn in France and all overseas French territories. This follows an earlier French governmental move to suspend re-exports of elephant ivory.
The France ban goes far beyond the current EU wildlife trade regulations, and comes just weeks ahead of the next meeting of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Humane Society International/Europe’s executive director Joanna Swabe issued the following statement: "We warmly salute the French Government for taking decisive action to halt the cruel trade in elephant ivory and rhino horn. The demand for these wildlife products has led to a poaching epidemic that has not only decimated elephant and rhino populations across Africa and Asia, but also helps to fund organized crime and terrorism. We strongly applaud Minister Royal’s commitment to stamping out poaching and wildlife trafficking and urge other EU member states to follow suit.”
The French action is particularly important since the measures adopted go far beyond the current EU wildlife trade regulations that permit the trade in ivory procured before 1947. The French decree includes provisions to ban the trade and commercial use of raw ivory, plus the production of artefacts using ivory, irrespective of its age. It also prohibits both the restoration and sale of ivory products bought after July 1975, even if they were purchased legally.
The adoption of these new measures comes just a few weeks before the Parties to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) meet in Johannesburg where the African Elephant Coalition, representing 70% of the African elephant range states, has put forward a proposal to list all African elephant populations under Appendix I, thereby prohibiting all international commercial trade in ivory.
The Coalition has also tabled additional proposals calling for closure of domestic ivory markets and restricting the trade in live elephants to in situ conservation programmes only. HSI/Europe has urged the European Commission and member states to support the African Elephant Coalition’s proposals, but have thus far been met with surprising reticence.
The EU is the world's largest exporter of pre-convention ivory— ivory acquired before the entry into force of CITES in 1975. Between 2011 and 2014, member states reported seizures of around 4,500 ivory items reported as specimens and an additional 780 kg as reported by weight. Between 2003 and 2014, 92% of EU exports of pre-convention tusks went to China or Hong Kong.
The European Commission has voiced opposition to the African Elephant Coalition’s elephant protection proposals and relevant documents. The European Union has the largest voting block at the CITES Conference of Parties and holds the key to the success or the failure of these elephant protection documents.
All five rhino species are threatened with extinction. In 2015, more than 1,300 rhinos were killed in South Africa alone, out of a remaining 28,000 left in the wild.
From 2010 to 2012, 100,000 elephants were killed for their ivory. In Central Africa, between 2002 and 2013, 65% of the forest elephants were killed. According to the Great Elephant Census, poachers killed half of Mozambique’s elephants in five years while Tanzania lost a catastrophic 60% of its elephants during the same period.
The majority of ivory trafficking is destined for China or south-east Asia. However, once smuggled ivory leaves Africa, their trafficking routes could go through Europe or the Middle East to reach Asia. Germany, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates are among the numerous airports that have seized or intercepted smuggled ivory from Africa to Asia.
EU sanctions: Commission publishes specific provisions concerning Syria, Libya, the Central African Republic and Ukraine
The European Commission has adopted three opinions on the application of specific provisions in the Council Regulations on EU restrictive measures (sanctions) concerning Libya and Syria, the Central African Republic and actions undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine. They concern 1) changes to two specific features of frozen funds: their character (sanctions concerning Libya) and their location (sanctions concerning Syria); 2) the release of frozen funds by way of enforcing a financial guarantee (sanctions concerning the Central African Republic) and; 3) the prohibition to make funds or economic resources available to listed persons (sanctions concerning the territorial integrity of Ukraine). While Commission opinions are not binding on competent authorities or EU economic operators, they are intended to offer valuable guidance to those who have to apply and follow EU sanctions. They will support the uniform implementation of sanctions across the EU, in line with the Communication on the European economic and financial system: fostering openness, strength and resilience.
Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union Commissioner Mairead McGuinness said: “EU sanctions must be implemented fully and uniformly throughout the Union. The Commission stands ready to assist national competent authorities and EU operators in tackling the challenges in applying these sanctions.”
EU sanctions are a foreign policy tool, which, among others, help to achieve key EU objectives such as preserving peace, strengthening international security, and consolidating and supporting democracy, international law and human rights. Sanctions are targeted at those whose actions endanger these values, and they seek to reduce as much as possible any adverse consequences for the civilian population.
The EU has arond 40 different sanctions regimes currently in place. As part of the Commission's role as Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is responsible for monitoring the enforcement of EU financial and economic sanctions across the Union, and also ensuring that sanctions are applied in a way that takes into account the needs of humanitarian operators. The Commission also works closely with member states to ensure that sanctions are implemented uniformly throughout the EU. More information on EU sanctions here.
In a world of imperfect information, institutions should reflect African realities
COVID-19 has plunged the African continent into a full-blown recession. According to the World Bank, the pandemic has pushed up to 40 million people into extreme poverty across the continent. Every month of delay to the vaccine roll-out programme is estimated to cost some $13.8 billion in lost GDP, a cost counted in lives as well as dollars, writes Lord St John, the crossbench peer and member of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) into Africa has also dropped as a result, with investor confidence dented by weak economic forecasts. The rise of ESG investing, which sees investments assessed on a range of ethical, sustainable and governance metrics, should in theory be channelling funds into worthy projects across the continent to bridge this gap.
Ethical investment principles applied in practice, however, can in fact create additional barriers, where the evidence needed to meet ESG requirements is unavailable. Operating in emerging and frontier markets often means working with imperfect information, and accepting a degree of risk. This lack of information has led to African countries obtaining among the weakest ESG scores across international rankings. The Global Sustainability Competitiveness Index for 2020 counted 27 African states amongst its bottom 40 ranked countries for sustainable competitiveness.
As someone who has seen first-hand the social and economic benefits of entrepreneurial projects in African nations, it makes no sense to me that a supposedly more ‘ethical’ approach to investing would discourage investment where it would do the greatest social good. The financial community has further work to do to generate metrics that take account of uncertain environments and imperfect information.
The countries in greatest need of foreign investment often come with unacceptable levels of legal, even moral risk for investors. It is surely to be welcomed that the international legal systems is increasingly holding companies to account for corporate behaviour in Africa.
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling that oil-polluted Nigerian communities could sue Shell in the English courts is sure to create a precedent for further cases. This month, LSE listed Petra Diamonds reached a £4.3 million settlement with a group of claimants who accused it of human rights abuses at its Williamson operation in Tanzania. A report by Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) alleged cases of at least seven deaths and 41 assaults by security personnel at the Williamson Mine since it was acquired by Petra Diamonds.
Finance and commerce must not be blind to ethical concerns, and any involvement in the sorts of abuses alleged in these cases should be roundly condemned. Where there is conflict and where there are human rights abuses, western capital must stay well away. When conflict gives way to peace, however, western capital can be deployed to rebuild society. To do so, investors need to have confidence that they can operate in post-conflict zones without exposure to spurious legal claims.
Leading international lawyer Steven Kay QC recently published an extensive defence of his client, Lundin Energy, which has faced an extended ordeal in the court of public opinion, regarding its operations in southern Sudan between 1997 and 2003. The case against Lundin is based on allegations made by NGOs some twenty years ago. The same allegations formed the basis of a US lawsuit against Canadian company Talisman Energy in 2001, which failed due to a lack of evidence.
Kay is withering about the quality of evidence in the report, specifically its ‘independence and reliability’, saying it would not be ‘admissible in an international criminal investigation or prosecution’. The key point here is the international consensus that such allegations are dealt with by the appropriate institutions, in this case, the International Criminal Court. In this case, the company has faced trial by NGO and the media, while, it is claimed, activists have ‘shopped around’ for a jurisdiction which will accept the case. The public prosecutor in Sweden, having considered the case for an extraordinary eleven years, will decide shortly whether the wholly improbable case that the Lundin Chairman and former CEO were complicit in alleged war crimes in 1997 - 2003 will be pursued as a charge for trial or will be closed down.
I am by no means an expert on international or indeed Swedish law, but in Kay’s description, this is a case where the public narrative has far outrun the limited and imperfect information we have regarding the facts on the ground. Western companies operating in post-conflict zones are rightly held to high standards and are expected to be partners in countries’ economic development. This simply will not happen if part of the cost of doing business in these countries is to be pursued for decades by spurious legal claims.
Africa has a grim history of heinous crimes committed in the name of Western capitalism, there can be no doubt of that. Wherever they operate, Western companies should form social and economic partnerships with their host countries and communities, maintaining a duty of care to the populations and the surrounding environment. We cannot, however, assume that conditions for these companies will be identical to conditions in established markets. International institutions, standard setters and civil society should be mindful of African realities when fulfilling their right and proper role of holding companies to account for operations in Africa.
Agriculture: Commission approves a new protected geographical indication from South Africa
The European Commission has approved the registration of 'Rooibos'/'Red Bush' from South Africa in the register of protected designation of origin (PDO). 'Rooibos'/'Red Bush' refer to the dried leaves and stems cultivated in the Western Cape Province and in the Northern Cape Province, a region which is known for its hot dry summers and cold wet winters. ‘Rooibos'/'Red Bush' has developed some unique characteristics to adapt in this harsh climate and presents fruity, woody and spicy flavours. It is harvested each year during the hot summers and is sun dried just after harvesting. The tea court process is often described as an art form and is one of the most critical parts of the ‘Rooibos'/'Red Bush' production process with specific know-how and expertise required. The use of the dried leaves and stems of ‘Rooibos'/'Red Bush' as a tea was first documented almost 250 years ago. Since then its fruity, sweet taste has resulted in it being a cultural icon of South Africa. There are currently 262 geographical indications from non-EU countries registered. More information in the eAmbrosia database and in the quality schemes pages.
coronavirus4 days ago
Why was India's second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic so fierce?
Kazakhstan4 days ago
Kazakhstan to focus on economic diversification and a greener economy
Environment5 days ago
Commissioner Sinkevičius in Sweden to discuss forests and biodiversity
Uzbekistan4 days ago
'New' Uzbekistan regarding electoral legislation process
COVID-194 days ago
EU Digital COVID Certificate - ‘A big step towards a safe recovery’
Russia5 days ago
Biden to hold solo news conference after Putin summit
EU Summits5 days ago
2021 G7 Leaders' communiqué: Our shared agenda for global action to build back better
India3 days ago
Himalayan clash serves as a prelude to global resitance