
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
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
‘This is the moment of truth' — Steenhuisen gives Ramaphosa 48-hour ultimatum after Whitfield's axing
Unless the ANC cleans house within 48 hours, 'all bets are off', warns the Democratic Alliance leader. DA leader John Steenhuisen has accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of triggering a 'calculated political assault' on the DA, after the sudden axing of its deputy minister of trade, industry and competition, Andrew Whitfield, on Thursday. 'Should the ANC fail to meet our ultimatum, all bets are off and the consequences will be theirs to bear,' Steenhuisen warned in a speech to the National Assembly. The Presidency announced on Thursday that Ramaphosa had removed Whitfield from his position. Providing no reason for this, Presidency spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, told Daily Maverick: 'The President has thanked the former deputy minister for the time he served in the role.' However, he said the move was not a 'wholesale Cabinet reshuffle', suggesting rather a targeted removal of Whitfield. Following news of Whitfield's removal, the DA's Federal Executive called a meeting on Thursday afternoon to deal with the issue. Daily Maverick understands that Whitfield was fired after an allegedly unauthorised trip to the US in late February, alongside DA MP Emma Powell. Powell told Daily Maverick at the time that their delegation met with, among others, Africa advisers at the National Security Council, Democratic senators from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations including Chris Coons, and the legislative staff director for Republican Senator Ted Cruz. The delegation also met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's key adviser. However, Steenhuisen, in his speech, said Whitfield had requested permission from Ramaphosa for this trip on 12 February, but never received a response. 'Shortly before Cabinet met yesterday, he [Ramaphosa] informed me that he intends to remove Andrew Whitfield as deputy minister of trade, industry and competition. I requested 24 hours to speak to Whitfield and my party. However, before I could even do so, just three hours later, Whitfield received a letter informing him of his removal. 'The apparent reason for this sudden and ill-considered decision is that Whitfield did not obtain permission to travel abroad earlier this year,' explained Steenhuisen. However, he said, 'The facts contradict … [this] flimsy reasoning. In fact, on 12 February, Whitfield had written to the President requesting permission to travel to the United States, as required by the Ministerial Handbook. Ten days later, he had still not received any response from the Presidency, and departed on the trip. 'Whitfield subsequently wrote to the President to apologise if it caused offence. Again, he received no response. 'Then yesterday, months after the incident and without a further word on it, the President unilaterally removed a DA deputy minister without even giving his largest coalition partner the courtesy of discussing the issue,' said Steenhuisen. 'Flagrant double standard' It's important to note that nowhere in the speech does Steenhuisen call for Whitfield's reinstatement, but rather for Ramaphosa to fire a bunch of his allegedly errant ministers. Ramaphosa has been criticised for failing to remove ministers and deputy ministers facing serious allegations of corruption and fraud. Former Health Minister Dr Zweli Mkhize resigned on the eve of a Cabinet reshuffle in 2021, when his position became untenable after he and his family were found to be inextricably linked to a corrupt contract given to the company Digital Vibes. Last year, Ramaphosa reshuffled Thembi Simelane from her position as justice minister to the Human Settlements portfolio, after a Daily Maverick and News24 investigation revealed that she had received a R500,000 'loan' from a company that had brokered investments with the looted VBS Mutual Bank. On Thursday, Steenhuisen called the 'drastic unilateral action' against Whitfield the 'product of a flagrant double standard'. 'While a DA deputy minister is removed for not getting a response to seeking permission to travel, Thembi Simelane remains in Cabinet despite being implicated in the VBS looting. Nobuhle Nkabane remains in Cabinet despite apparently misleading Parliament over an attempt to deploy corrupt cadres to Seta [Sector Education and Training Authority] boards. 'Serial underperformers, as well as people implicated in State Capture, continue to sit around the Cabinet table. Instead of being summarily fired, Simelane was merely asked to submit a 'report' on the allegations against her to the President and moved to another portfolio. 'In the past, even ministers who had serious Public Protector findings [against them] were merely admonished or had their pay docked. David Mahlobo is implicated in the most serious corruption by the State Capture commission, yet he continues in the position as deputy minister of water and sanitation. 'Yet a DA deputy minister is dismissed with the flimsiest of excuses,' continued Steenhuisen. He said the party called on Ramaphosa to 'fire Simelane, Nkabane, Mahlobo and other ANC ministers and deputy ministers implicated in corruption within the next 48 hours'. 'If they fail to do so, the ANC will inflict grave consequences on South Africa. Make no mistake about it: what happens next is entirely on the ANC and President Ramaphosa,' warned Steenhuisen. He said the next 48 hours would be 'the moment of truth'. 'Something deeper at play' Rather than Whitfield's jaunt to the US being the reason he was sacked, Steenhuisen suggested there was 'something even deeper at play here'. According to Steenhuisen, Whitfield had 'opposed an attempt to make suspect appointments' and was 'standing in the way of the looting' that would follow Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau's contentious R100-billion transformation fund, which was published for public comment earlier this year. 'All of this in a department mired in corruption allegations involving the tender for the National Lottery,' added Steenhuisen. 'Given this flagrant double standard, one is left with no choice but to conclude that hardworking DA members of the executive are now being fired for fighting corruption, not for committing corruption,' said Steenhuisen. 'I treated silence as consent' Daily Maverick contacted Whitfield with queries, but had not received a response by the time of publication. However, speaking to John Perlman on 702 on Thursday evening, Whitfield maintained that Ramaphosa gave no reason for his axing. 'The trip was obviously a DA trip. I had written to the President 10 days prior to departure to comply with the requirement to request leave to travel abroad, and after nine days of waiting, we needed to book a flight, and I felt that I had waited reasonably long enough and [had] followed up every day… with the Presidency and received no response other than they had acknowledged receipt,' he said. 'I assumed that because I went to the United States without the expressed permission of the President in spite of the fact that he had the letter for 10 days — I have it on good authority that he was very aware of the letter — chose not to reply to the letter, either in the affirmative or the negative, and I treated silence as consent,' he added. Daily Maverick requested comment from Magwenya, but had not received a response by the time of publication. DM


Daily Maverick
3 days 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


Daily Maverick
4 days 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