logo
Top Antarctic meeting kicks off behind ‘Ice Curtain' as transparency goes up in flames

Top Antarctic meeting kicks off behind ‘Ice Curtain' as transparency goes up in flames

Antarctica's fate is debated in secrecy behind closed doors and confusion in Milan.
The world's premier meeting on the governance of Earth's most threatened continent — representing 10% of the planet — opened today in Milan behind closed doors.
The 47th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) involves 29 consultative states — including the US, China, Russia and South Africa — which gather annually to deliberate the future of the frozen, but melting, wilderness.
There are also 29 observer states with no decision-making powers.
During the course of the next week and a half, the decision-maker states will debate a range of governance matters relating to the Antarctic as part of a 1959 treaty which is devoted to peaceful activities like science and tourism. Under the treaty's environmental constitution, the Madrid Protocol, mining is banned.
The live substance of the meeting, seen as diplomatically sensitive, has always been held behind closed doors.
According to some sources, only 30 minutes of the 150-minute opening plenary of the ATCM on Tuesday morning were public.
However, according to the meeting rules, the entire 'opening plenary session shall be held in public, other sessions shall be held in private, unless the Meeting shall determine otherwise'.
No decisions have been published on the committee's website to indicate why the opening plenary was closed or partially closed.
The meeting is hosted in alphabetical order by a different consultative state every year.
This year hosted under a far-right coalition government led by Giorgia Meloni and her party, Brothers of Italy, the meeting's organising committee has yet to respond to Daily Maverick's repeated questions about how to access the now-concluded opening plenary — first sent in August 2024.
And yet the British Antarctic Survey this month released science showing that it's not just South Pole transparency that seems to be going up in flames.
According to the scientific agency, the population of emperor penguins — whose protection China and Russia have blocked at the consultative meeting in recent years — has declined 22% over the 15 years to 2024.
The reported plunge in numbers of these iconic flightless ambassadors relates to a 'key sector of the continent' of the West Antarctic.
'This compares with an earlier estimate — 2009 and 2018 — of a 9.5% reduction across Antarctica as a whole,' the agency reports.
In another study released this week, the agency reveals that Signy Island seal populations have sharply declined by about 50% over 50 years — a trend that is 'strongly linked to shifts in sea ice; when it forms and melts each year, and how long it lasts'.
Next year, the meeting will be hosted by Japan. A prominent Japanese polar academic, Kobe University's Professor Akiho Shibata, is in Milan this week and reported on his Facebook page that multiple delegates were kicked out of the treaty's environmental protection committee session on Monday.
'A confusion at the beginning with just too small a room (Brown Hall) with too few chairs; those standing, including me, were ordered to leave the room for security reasons!' exclaimed Shibata, an Antarctic law expert.
In a twist that would be farcical if the ecological and geopolitical stakes were not so high, Shibata added:
'Because of that, I could not observe an important discussion on 'Enhancing the Transparency in the ATCM and CEP [Committee for Environmental Protection] proposed by the Netherlands, Australia and Korea — more media access to the meetings; more proactive public outreach; and possible increase of experts).'
Shibata, an accredited delegate, wrote earlier this week: 'Very difficult to find the way in, with a lot of construction going on.'
He advised: 'Have extra time to come on Monday for CEP and Tuesday for plenary.'
The meeting has been criticised by other experts for its 'Ice Curtain' approach — a phrase coined by Tasmania-based polar author and journalist Andrew Darby.
Unlike the high-profile UN Ocean Conference held in Nice, France, earlier this month, the Antarctic meeting was not broadly advertised. The Antarctic Treaty is not part of the UN.
When asked, South African official Ashley Johnson promptly replied to our queries, but seemed as mystified as the press.
For streaming details of the opening plenary, Johnson suggested that we contact the organising committee, which has not responded to our questions.
Despite being sent multiple unaddressed emails requesting information on media access to the public session, organising committee official Orazio Guanciale last month claimed that Italy was 'still waiting for … say … receiving the interest of members of the press to participate in the public session of Tuesday, 24 June'.
'Of course we are open to facilitate to the maximum extent possible the participation of the press and … say … the broadcasting of the public session.'
He noted: 'The issue of transparency is really very, very important … say … the Antarctic Treaty embodies the principle of transparency… '
Per tradition, the documents discussed at the meeting are to be unlocked on the secretariat archive directly after the talks on 3 June — however, the actual live minutes will only be released after scrutiny by the consultative states some months later.
'Closed discussions can be useful for facilitating open discussion and exchange of ideas. However, this has to be balanced with the need for transparency and accountability,' Claire Christian, executive director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, a network of NGOs, told Daily Maverick. 'Other international organisations have implemented various practices to promote transparency without compromising their effectiveness or ability to have productive discussions. As an example, papers for the meeting could be made publicly available ahead of the meeting so that the public could better understand the issues that are being discussed.' DM

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Predator breeding in South Africa — time for a reality check
Predator breeding in South Africa — time for a reality check

Daily Maverick

time9 hours ago

  • Daily Maverick

Predator breeding in South Africa — time for a reality check

A recent statement by Environment Minister Dion George in response to a Daily Maverick article by Adam Cruise signals a welcome move towards public engagement, but it neither resolves the core governance concerns that underpin the debate nor proposes adequate measures that would see beyond a narrow interpretation of export regulations. In its response to the minister's statement, animal welfare organisation Four Paws outlines several gaps between policy and implementation. After all, it was a Four Paws' report from late 2024 that drew renewed attention to this abominable trade in captive-bred lions and tigers. The absence of CITES-registered facilities for commercial tiger breeding in South Africa appears inconsistent with ongoing exports of live animals and parts. At issue is not only what the permits record, but whether the permitting process includes any verification of the animals' origins, destinations and intended uses. Tigers are not listed under South Africa's Biodiversity Act because they are a non-native species. This results in a regulatory vacuum in which tigers fall between the cracks of national and provincial frameworks. The lack of uniform and enforceable national regulation means welfare standards vary significantly; in some cases, they're virtually non-existent. This regulatory gap enables the continued breeding of tigers in substandard conditions. The minister's statement also paid no heed to a 2024 CITES directive: 'Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale shall implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers; tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives.' In answer to a parliamentary question on 29 November 2024, the minister explicitly stated that South Africa would not prepare a report for CITES on how it was ensuring that the country's breeding of tigers would not imperil wild tiger survival, 'as facilities that keep tigers in South Africa do not export tigers for commercial purposes'. The minister states that South Africa adheres to CITES requirements and exports tigers solely for non-commercial purposes to zoos and wildlife parks abroad. But this assertion is based on an unquestioning reliance on details provided by exporters on their permits. The minister writes: 'Tigers are protected under CITES, and we follow its rules.' But this is evasive; where CITES rules are not fit for purpose, nor properly enforced, they cannot serve as a benchmark for governance practices. It is implausible, given the sheer demand for illicit tiger bone products in East Asian markets, that South Africa's breeders are only exporting 'live animals to zoos and wildlife parks abroad'. The minister's assertion that the exports are for 'non-commercial purposes' to zoos and wildlife parks and that they are 'strictly monitored' – despite the lack of even cursory checks on destinations – lacks resemblance to reality; there is no evidence of any strict monitoring. As Don Pinnock explains: 'By the transposition of one letter for another in the permit code of CITES – Z for zoo instead of T for Commercial – critically endangered wild animals become tradeable for huge sums of money. It's a loophole so big that the very intention of CITES is being systematically undermined.' It remains implausible for the minister to state that no facilities are breeding tigers for commercial purposes. Repeating it does not make it true, especially when nobody is checking whether the Z code is legitimate, and whether those purported zoos are not using the animals for commercial purposes. While CITES permits may be procedurally correct, the absence of field-level or even desktop inspections, let alone independent validation, facilitates abuse of export destination criteria. In May 2024, 40 tigers were exported to a single destination in India. The scale of this export is surely indicative of commercial purpose? However, the minister did not address this issue in his reply to Cruise's article nor did he provide an answer to a parliamentary question of 29 November 2024 regarding this export. On 4 April 2025, a parliamentary question asked the minister whether there was any evidence that tigers exported from South Africa were not being used for commercial purposes. This distinction is important because – as indicated above – CITES does not require exporting countries to verify the final destination or end use if the export is labelled 'non-commercial'. The response did not provide evidence. Instead, it stated only that no commercial tiger breeding facilities in South Africa are registered with CITES. In the eyes of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), if they are not registered, then the breeding cannot be commercial. But the absence of registration does not confirm non-commerciality. This leaves an important regulatory gap: the state holds no evidence that the exports are non-commercial, and likewise no evidence that they are not. This omission underscores a critical governance challenge – the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. The 2024 report by Four Paws mentioned above documents extensive tiger and lion part exports, often with unclear or unverifiable purposes. This is despite a 2020 high-level government panel recommending that the predator breeding industry be phased out, and a 2024 ministerial task team reinforcing those recommendations. The latter report noted that South Africa's large captive lion population – estimated at 8,000 – presents ongoing regulatory challenges and may conflict with international conservation trends. There are also at least 626 known tigers currently kept in captivity in South Africa across 72 facilities. South Africa is the single-largest global exporter of big cats and their parts, according to the CITES trade database. While this may technically comply with CITES provisions for Appendix II species (captive-bred animals), inconsistencies between export and import data suggest that closer scrutiny is needed. As of the time of writing, commercial-scale big cat farming was still permitted in South Africa. The country now also has the largest number of tiger breeding facilities outside Asia. Not one is CITES-registered, but – as I've argued above – they should be. That they aren't raises questions about the destination and use of exported specimens. There are three major areas of concern. The first is a lack of regulatory oversight. Under Nemba, permits are required for activities involving threatened or alien species such as tigers. However, enforcement varies across provinces. According to the Four Paws report: Only two provinces conduct regular inspections; Limpopo has no provincial regulations governing tiger breeding; and North West did not respond to a PAIA request, despite housing numerous facilities. Without consistent provincial-level enforcement it becomes difficult to ensure that permits reflect on-the-ground compliance. Second, there are radical international conservation implications for not addressing the murky tiger trade properly. Since 2004, South Africa has issued permits for the export of 3,545 live big cats and 34,246 parts, including 517 live tigers. Yet the country has no CITES-registered commercial breeding facilities for tigers. CITES itself – as indicated above – has issued a directive that explicitly calls for countries (like South Africa) with 'commercial-scale' breeding operations to put an end to those. Even if the minister argues that there isn't explicit evidence of commercial operations, the scale certainly appears commercial. The minister's response appears to be missing the point by sticking to the 'letter of the law' without any direct evidence that the operations are not commercial. Self-reporting by those who stand to benefit is not evidence; it's wishful thinking. Third, policy implementation remains weak and the political will to shut down the industry really needs to be stronger. On 15 November 2024, the government gazetted a voluntary exit programme, calling on lion bone stockpile holders to participate. While signalling intent, this initiative currently does not extend to tigers or address the scale of breeding activity. It seems obvious that the DFFE machinery continues to obfuscate the truth, regardless of which minister is in charge. In a world where we have overstepped six of our nine planetary boundaries, and are witnessing the sixth extinction before our very eyes, it is deeply concerning that the South African government can turn a blind eye to commercial-scale tiger breeding by simply insisting – without evidence – that the breeding is for non-commercial purposes. This violates the directive of the very same CITES that our government purports to comply with. DM

Top Antarctic meeting kicks off behind ‘Ice Curtain' as transparency goes up in flames
Top Antarctic meeting kicks off behind ‘Ice Curtain' as transparency goes up in flames

Daily Maverick

timea day ago

  • Daily Maverick

Top Antarctic meeting kicks off behind ‘Ice Curtain' as transparency goes up in flames

Antarctica's fate is debated in secrecy behind closed doors and confusion in Milan. The world's premier meeting on the governance of Earth's most threatened continent — representing 10% of the planet — opened today in Milan behind closed doors. The 47th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) involves 29 consultative states — including the US, China, Russia and South Africa — which gather annually to deliberate the future of the frozen, but melting, wilderness. There are also 29 observer states with no decision-making powers. During the course of the next week and a half, the decision-maker states will debate a range of governance matters relating to the Antarctic as part of a 1959 treaty which is devoted to peaceful activities like science and tourism. Under the treaty's environmental constitution, the Madrid Protocol, mining is banned. The live substance of the meeting, seen as diplomatically sensitive, has always been held behind closed doors. According to some sources, only 30 minutes of the 150-minute opening plenary of the ATCM on Tuesday morning were public. However, according to the meeting rules, the entire 'opening plenary session shall be held in public, other sessions shall be held in private, unless the Meeting shall determine otherwise'. No decisions have been published on the committee's website to indicate why the opening plenary was closed or partially closed. The meeting is hosted in alphabetical order by a different consultative state every year. This year hosted under a far-right coalition government led by Giorgia Meloni and her party, Brothers of Italy, the meeting's organising committee has yet to respond to Daily Maverick's repeated questions about how to access the now-concluded opening plenary — first sent in August 2024. And yet the British Antarctic Survey this month released science showing that it's not just South Pole transparency that seems to be going up in flames. According to the scientific agency, the population of emperor penguins — whose protection China and Russia have blocked at the consultative meeting in recent years — has declined 22% over the 15 years to 2024. The reported plunge in numbers of these iconic flightless ambassadors relates to a 'key sector of the continent' of the West Antarctic. 'This compares with an earlier estimate — 2009 and 2018 — of a 9.5% reduction across Antarctica as a whole,' the agency reports. In another study released this week, the agency reveals that Signy Island seal populations have sharply declined by about 50% over 50 years — a trend that is 'strongly linked to shifts in sea ice; when it forms and melts each year, and how long it lasts'. Next year, the meeting will be hosted by Japan. A prominent Japanese polar academic, Kobe University's Professor Akiho Shibata, is in Milan this week and reported on his Facebook page that multiple delegates were kicked out of the treaty's environmental protection committee session on Monday. 'A confusion at the beginning with just too small a room (Brown Hall) with too few chairs; those standing, including me, were ordered to leave the room for security reasons!' exclaimed Shibata, an Antarctic law expert. In a twist that would be farcical if the ecological and geopolitical stakes were not so high, Shibata added: 'Because of that, I could not observe an important discussion on 'Enhancing the Transparency in the ATCM and CEP [Committee for Environmental Protection] proposed by the Netherlands, Australia and Korea — more media access to the meetings; more proactive public outreach; and possible increase of experts).' Shibata, an accredited delegate, wrote earlier this week: 'Very difficult to find the way in, with a lot of construction going on.' He advised: 'Have extra time to come on Monday for CEP and Tuesday for plenary.' The meeting has been criticised by other experts for its 'Ice Curtain' approach — a phrase coined by Tasmania-based polar author and journalist Andrew Darby. Unlike the high-profile UN Ocean Conference held in Nice, France, earlier this month, the Antarctic meeting was not broadly advertised. The Antarctic Treaty is not part of the UN. When asked, South African official Ashley Johnson promptly replied to our queries, but seemed as mystified as the press. For streaming details of the opening plenary, Johnson suggested that we contact the organising committee, which has not responded to our questions. Despite being sent multiple unaddressed emails requesting information on media access to the public session, organising committee official Orazio Guanciale last month claimed that Italy was 'still waiting for … say … receiving the interest of members of the press to participate in the public session of Tuesday, 24 June'. 'Of course we are open to facilitate to the maximum extent possible the participation of the press and … say … the broadcasting of the public session.' He noted: 'The issue of transparency is really very, very important … say … the Antarctic Treaty embodies the principle of transparency… ' Per tradition, the documents discussed at the meeting are to be unlocked on the secretariat archive directly after the talks on 3 June — however, the actual live minutes will only be released after scrutiny by the consultative states some months later. 'Closed discussions can be useful for facilitating open discussion and exchange of ideas. However, this has to be balanced with the need for transparency and accountability,' Claire Christian, executive director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, a network of NGOs, told Daily Maverick. 'Other international organisations have implemented various practices to promote transparency without compromising their effectiveness or ability to have productive discussions. As an example, papers for the meeting could be made publicly available ahead of the meeting so that the public could better understand the issues that are being discussed.' DM

Electricity tariffs force a choice between food or power, says Electricity Minister Ramokgopa
Electricity tariffs force a choice between food or power, says Electricity Minister Ramokgopa

Daily Maverick

timea day ago

  • Daily Maverick

Electricity tariffs force a choice between food or power, says Electricity Minister Ramokgopa

The minister brokered an agreement between City Power and Eskom, which had almost ended up in court. With electricity tariffs up by an average of 12.74% between April and July (when municipal tariff increases kick in), Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa said energy poverty was biting South Africans. Ramokgopa said that the rapidly rising cost of electricity was forcing households to choose between food and energy (see this report from Daily Maverick in 2024). Because people can't afford their bills, debt owed by municipalities to Eskom is growing at R3-billion a month and has now overshot a total of R100-billion. This, in turn, threatens Eskom's viability. Ramokgopa was speaking, along with Johannesburg Mayor Dada Morero, to announce a deal over a festering dispute between the city distributor, City Power, and Eskom, which almost ended up in court in December. The utility threatened to cut off four substations where most of the R4.9-billion billing debt had racked up; City Power, in turn, said that R3.4-billion had been incorrectly billed and breathed fire at Eskom. On Tuesday, 24 June, Ramokgopa brokered an agreement for R3.2-billion to be paid over four years, with an additional tariff relief of R830-million. An upcoming data investigation by the Daily Maverick has found that there are more than 30,000 power cuts in the city each quarter as City Power struggles with declining revenues (because people can't afford their electricity bills) and a R44-billion bill to upgrade aged infrastructure. Ramokgopa said state departments should not be taking each other to court and that the SA National Development Institute (Sanedi) had mined the data and evidence to help the parties find an agreement that worked for them. Its report took three months rather than three weeks to complete because the work was more complex than initially thought. It offered a template for other billing disputes between Eskom and municipalities. Council proceedings show that City Power increased revenue by 17.4% in the year to June, but expenses shot up by 23%, resulting in a net loss of R602-million. It has a bank overdraft of R15.34-billion in the year to June. Ramokgopa said that while big cities such as Johannesburg could work around the national cost of the power crisis, smaller municipalities were falling off the cliff. Municipalities levy charges on the sale of electricity and make most of their revenue from these. DM

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store