Major investors have warned the automotive industry it needs to accelerate its readiness for a low-carbon world if it is to retain their support and prosper.

Vehicle makers must put climate change specialists on their boards, engage better with policy-makers, and invest more heavily in low-emission cars, says a network of 250 global investors with assets of more than $24trillion.

The demands come in a new report, Investor Expectations of Automotive Companies, published this week by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).

“Long-term investors want to ensure that automotive companies are prepared for the challenges stemming from climate change, new technologies, changing policies and shifts in demand caused by global trends”, says Dr Hans-Christoph Hirt, co-head of investment house Hermes EOS, a member of the IGCC.

“Investors expect the industry to embark upon a smoother route to future prosperity by developing and implementing long-term business strategies that are resilient to climate change and resulting regulatory shifts.”

Sustainable returns

Chris Davis, senior programme director of the Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk, another IIGCC member, agrees. “A growing number of institutional investors recognise that climate change will impact their holdings, portfolios, and asset values in the short and long-term,” he says.

“To achieve sustainable returns for clients and beneficiaries, investors in the automotive sector must engage to ensure companies are prepared to thrive in a carbon-constrained environment and support robust policy action sufficient to drive the transition to clean vehicles.”

The traditional car industry has gradually been increasing its output of pure electric and hybrid diesel / electric models, but in small numbers. It has failed to shrug off its image as a foot-dragger in the fight against climate change – similar to the way most big oil companies are seen.

The recent Volkswagen emissions scandal, in which the German car manufacturer used ‘cheat devices’ that underplayed pollution on its cars, has further tarnished the industry’s image over the last 12 months. And critics have long claimed that few vehicles live up to the fuel consumption levels claimed of them.

Making sure the industry has “closed the gap between real world and emissions testing” is highlighted by the IIGCC as one of the key issue that must be fixed.

But the finance houses also want car and truck makers to set more meaningful targets and metrics to reduce greenhouse gases in their own supply chain. And car companies need to engage more meaningfully with international policy-makers and their own investors on climate change.

Big investors point out that large car companies face serious threats inside their own sector from innovators such as the California-based automaker Tesla, evangelists for climate change and producers of low-carbon electric vehicles.

Climate agreement

And the finance houses say the move towards driverless vehicles, being pioneered by the likes of Google, poses a threat of even more severe potential new competition for the traditional car firms. They points to a recent study by the Moody’s credit agency that highlighted the potential dangers of tighter regulations for vehicles.

Last year’s Paris climate change agreement has increased the urgency for the big manufacturers such as Ford, VW and Toyota to move more quickly, the report warns. And the new IIGCC report warns that the automotive industry is already exposed to “a plethora of CO₂ and pollutant emission reduction targets in all major markets”.

It says that tougher vehicle standards have already been implemented or are on their way in Australia, Brazil, China and India, as well as the US and Europe.

And it stresses that governments are increasingly incentivising the use of electric vehicles in countries such as Norway and Holland.

Terry Macalister, an award-winning journalist and author of a book on the Arctic, is former energy editor of the Guardian newspaper. He now writes for Climate News Network.

This article was originally published by Climate News Network (CC BY-ND).

The Paris Agreement, the first global accord to tackle climate change, has been getting a lot of love lately. It has been ratified in record time and will come into force next month.  Yet all its lauded goals and national pledges to reduce carbon emissions will be undermined if countries fail this week to tackle a little known, but deadly, greenhouse gas: hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.

HFCs – originally designed to be some kind of an environmental savior – have the potential to accelerate climate change at a rapid rate if left unchecked. Thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide, their use in refrigerators and air conditioners is growing by 10 to 15% a year.  It’s vital that while the war on carbon gets most of the attention, we don’t take our eye off other crucial battle lines in the fight for the climate.

This week in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, nations are meeting to hammer out a plan to phase them out. At the heart of the talks will be the date at which the world will end their use.

A group of a hundred countries, including the Africa Group, Pacific Island States and the EU are pushing for an early phase-out around 2019 for developed countries and 2021 for developing countries. But worryingly, others are calling for the date to be pushed back with India calling for it to be as late as 2031.

It doesn’t take an atmospheric physicist to calculate that with the demand on the rise in developing countries for HFC-driven cooling devices- ironically needed in an evermore warming world – that such a date would spell disaster for the climate. 

In Paris country leaders pledged to limit global warming to 2°C and to do their upmost to keep it to 1.5°C.  If they are serious about keeping those promises then they need to get serious about HFCs. Those crucial climate thresholds won’t be met with HFCs left on their current course.

Our factories began churning HFCs out in 1990 as a silver bullet to ‘fix the hole’ in the ozone layer caused by their predecessors, CFCs and HCFCs. What we didn’t realise then, but we know now, is that although the new chemicals didn’t deplete the ozone layer, they had the potential to cook the planet. Like a dark twist in a dystopian science fiction novel, we had inadvertently unleashed a monster.

The good news is that we have time to get it back in its cage. Human ingenuity has once again come up with a solution to our HFC problem and, this time, we hope there won’t be any nasty surprises. In fact by replacing HFCs we have the potential to prevent a full degree centigrade of global warming. Not only are the new natural refrigerants less warming, the new technology is also much more energy efficient. This reduction in energy use would have the twin benefits of saving both money and the planet.

The problem is that the growing demand in developing countries for cool rooms and cold drinks needs to be met.  Many countries are still phasing out older technology using HCFCs, and this poses an opportunity. Rather than slowly follow behind the developed world they can leapfrog HFCs altogether and transition to the newer, more efficient, less harmful equipment.

To aid this transition and encourage an earlier phase down date, richer nations have committed to providing funds that developing countries can call on when investing in the slightly pricier, newer, kit. Known as the Multilateral Fund, this pot of money has a budget of $507.5 million between 2015 and 2017.

In September a group of countries including the US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands topped it up with a further $27 million. And in a groundbreaking move 19 philanthropists chipped in a further $53 million. It’s not uncommon for philanthropists to give money to causes they think are important but it’s very rare to see them offering that cash directly into the coffers of nation states. This all goes to reassure developing countries that they have nothing to fear from a jump away from HFCs. In fact they have much to gain.

One might wonder why HFCs were not dealt with in the historic negotiations in Paris just 10 months ago. It was decided that they were better left to the Montreal Protocol – the pioneering treaty which was hailed as the most successful environmental accord in history when it successfully closed the ozone hole.

In Kigali this week we need to see still further support offered to speed up this transition, including more financial support and ‘tech transfer’, so that poorer countries can benefit from the latest technological developments.  The more of this that is provided the quicker poor countries can move away from these pollutants and the earlier we can be rid of them for good.

This Author:

Joe Ware is a journalist and New Voices writer for The Ecologist.

He can be found on twitter at @wareisjoe

Major investors have warned the automotive industry it needs to accelerate its readiness for a low-carbon world if it is to retain their support and prosper.

Vehicle makers must put climate change specialists on their boards, engage better with policy-makers, and invest more heavily in low-emission cars, says a network of 250 global investors with assets of more than $24trillion.

The demands come in a new report, Investor Expectations of Automotive Companies, published this week by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).

“Long-term investors want to ensure that automotive companies are prepared for the challenges stemming from climate change, new technologies, changing policies and shifts in demand caused by global trends”, says Dr Hans-Christoph Hirt, co-head of investment house Hermes EOS, a member of the IGCC.

“Investors expect the industry to embark upon a smoother route to future prosperity by developing and implementing long-term business strategies that are resilient to climate change and resulting regulatory shifts.”

Sustainable returns

Chris Davis, senior programme director of the Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk, another IIGCC member, agrees. “A growing number of institutional investors recognise that climate change will impact their holdings, portfolios, and asset values in the short and long-term,” he says.

“To achieve sustainable returns for clients and beneficiaries, investors in the automotive sector must engage to ensure companies are prepared to thrive in a carbon-constrained environment and support robust policy action sufficient to drive the transition to clean vehicles.”

The traditional car industry has gradually been increasing its output of pure electric and hybrid diesel / electric models, but in small numbers. It has failed to shrug off its image as a foot-dragger in the fight against climate change – similar to the way most big oil companies are seen.

The recent Volkswagen emissions scandal, in which the German car manufacturer used ‘cheat devices’ that underplayed pollution on its cars, has further tarnished the industry’s image over the last 12 months. And critics have long claimed that few vehicles live up to the fuel consumption levels claimed of them.

Making sure the industry has “closed the gap between real world and emissions testing” is highlighted by the IIGCC as one of the key issue that must be fixed.

But the finance houses also want car and truck makers to set more meaningful targets and metrics to reduce greenhouse gases in their own supply chain. And car companies need to engage more meaningfully with international policy-makers and their own investors on climate change.

Big investors point out that large car companies face serious threats inside their own sector from innovators such as the California-based automaker Tesla, evangelists for climate change and producers of low-carbon electric vehicles.

Climate agreement

And the finance houses say the move towards driverless vehicles, being pioneered by the likes of Google, poses a threat of even more severe potential new competition for the traditional car firms. They points to a recent study by the Moody’s credit agency that highlighted the potential dangers of tighter regulations for vehicles.

Last year’s Paris climate change agreement has increased the urgency for the big manufacturers such as Ford, VW and Toyota to move more quickly, the report warns. And the new IIGCC report warns that the automotive industry is already exposed to “a plethora of CO₂ and pollutant emission reduction targets in all major markets”.

It says that tougher vehicle standards have already been implemented or are on their way in Australia, Brazil, China and India, as well as the US and Europe.

And it stresses that governments are increasingly incentivising the use of electric vehicles in countries such as Norway and Holland.

Terry Macalister, an award-winning journalist and author of a book on the Arctic, is former energy editor of the Guardian newspaper. He now writes for Climate News Network.

This article was originally published by Climate News Network (CC BY-ND).

The Paris Agreement, the first global accord to tackle climate change, has been getting a lot of love lately. It has been ratified in record time and will come into force next month.  Yet all its lauded goals and national pledges to reduce carbon emissions will be undermined if countries fail this week to tackle a little known, but deadly, greenhouse gas: hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.

HFCs – originally designed to be some kind of an environmental savior – have the potential to accelerate climate change at a rapid rate if left unchecked. Thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide, their use in refrigerators and air conditioners is growing by 10 to 15% a year.  It’s vital that while the war on carbon gets most of the attention, we don’t take our eye off other crucial battle lines in the fight for the climate.

This week in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, nations are meeting to hammer out a plan to phase them out. At the heart of the talks will be the date at which the world will end their use.

A group of a hundred countries, including the Africa Group, Pacific Island States and the EU are pushing for an early phase-out around 2019 for developed countries and 2021 for developing countries. But worryingly, others are calling for the date to be pushed back with India calling for it to be as late as 2031.

It doesn’t take an atmospheric physicist to calculate that with the demand on the rise in developing countries for HFC-driven cooling devices- ironically needed in an evermore warming world – that such a date would spell disaster for the climate. 

In Paris country leaders pledged to limit global warming to 2°C and to do their upmost to keep it to 1.5°C.  If they are serious about keeping those promises then they need to get serious about HFCs. Those crucial climate thresholds won’t be met with HFCs left on their current course.

Our factories began churning HFCs out in 1990 as a silver bullet to ‘fix the hole’ in the ozone layer caused by their predecessors, CFCs and HCFCs. What we didn’t realise then, but we know now, is that although the new chemicals didn’t deplete the ozone layer, they had the potential to cook the planet. Like a dark twist in a dystopian science fiction novel, we had inadvertently unleashed a monster.

The good news is that we have time to get it back in its cage. Human ingenuity has once again come up with a solution to our HFC problem and, this time, we hope there won’t be any nasty surprises. In fact by replacing HFCs we have the potential to prevent a full degree centigrade of global warming. Not only are the new natural refrigerants less warming, the new technology is also much more energy efficient. This reduction in energy use would have the twin benefits of saving both money and the planet.

The problem is that the growing demand in developing countries for cool rooms and cold drinks needs to be met.  Many countries are still phasing out older technology using HCFCs, and this poses an opportunity. Rather than slowly follow behind the developed world they can leapfrog HFCs altogether and transition to the newer, more efficient, less harmful equipment.

To aid this transition and encourage an earlier phase down date, richer nations have committed to providing funds that developing countries can call on when investing in the slightly pricier, newer, kit. Known as the Multilateral Fund, this pot of money has a budget of $507.5 million between 2015 and 2017.

In September a group of countries including the US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands topped it up with a further $27 million. And in a groundbreaking move 19 philanthropists chipped in a further $53 million. It’s not uncommon for philanthropists to give money to causes they think are important but it’s very rare to see them offering that cash directly into the coffers of nation states. This all goes to reassure developing countries that they have nothing to fear from a jump away from HFCs. In fact they have much to gain.

One might wonder why HFCs were not dealt with in the historic negotiations in Paris just 10 months ago. It was decided that they were better left to the Montreal Protocol – the pioneering treaty which was hailed as the most successful environmental accord in history when it successfully closed the ozone hole.

In Kigali this week we need to see still further support offered to speed up this transition, including more financial support and ‘tech transfer’, so that poorer countries can benefit from the latest technological developments.  The more of this that is provided the quicker poor countries can move away from these pollutants and the earlier we can be rid of them for good.

This Author:

Joe Ware is a journalist and New Voices writer for The Ecologist.

He can be found on twitter at @wareisjoe

Regulating potentially hazardous substances like chemicals and pesticides is an extremely sensitive policy area, since permitting them can have severe impacts on humans and ecosystems.

Generally speaking, there are two widely divergent approaches to chemicals regulation.

The first is based on the ‘precautionary principle’ and includes the possibility that in the absence of scientific consensus on the potential risk of a chemical or pesticide, regulators can opt to ban or restrict the product in order to protect public health and the environment.

In Europe, the regulation on the ‘Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals’ (REACH) and the Pesticide Regulation are subject to the precautionary principle. Manufacturers must provide the health and safety data of many (though not all) chemicals and all pesticides to EU regulators.

In addition, there are ‘hazard-based’ criteria that state that pesticides that are mutagenic, carcinogenic, or hormone-disrupting should be banned in the EU. All other substances have to undergo a ‘risk assessment’. This means that a product is allowed on the EU market up to certain doses that are seen by regulators not to pose an acceptable risk to consumers.

US: ‘weaker, less protective regulations’

On the contrary, in the US, the country’s ‘Toxic Substances Control Act’, in place since 1976, does not provide for any precautionary measures.

Overall, the US has “generally weaker, less protective regulations governing health, safety and environmental impacts in agriculture and food production”, according to the Global Economic Governance Initiative.

The US government has consistently opposed the EU’s ‘hazard-based’ approach to mutagenic, carcinogenic, and hormone disrupting substances. Instead US regulators demand scientific evidence of harm before the use of any substance is regulated.

These disparate regulatory approaches have very concrete repercussions for what consumers are exposed to. For example a total of 1,378 chemicals are banned for use in cosmetics in the EU, as opposed to a mere 11 in the US. Likewise 82 harmful pesticides prohibited in the EU are permitted in the United States.

In 2005, a study evaluating the health and environmental costs of pesticides use in the US estimated it to be $9.6 billion, annually.

Lobbying for lower standards

For obvious reasons, the chemical and pesticide industries prefer the US approach. This is why notorious lobby groups such as the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) and the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) use the TTIP negotiations, a potential EU-US trade deal, to attack the EU’s precautionary approach.

CEFIC, which includes major players such as Bayer, BASF, Dow Europe, and Honeywell among its ranks, spent more than €10 million on lobbying activities in the EU in 2015 alone, with an overall budget of €40 million.

While industry efforts to lobby over EU policies are old news, the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations have opened the floodgates for business demands. The corporate goal in TTIP is clear: to remove discrepancies in laws and protection levels across the Atlantic – in short, quicker profits for companies and higher risks for consumers.

Along these lines, while admitting differences between the European and US systems, CEFIC’s then Director General claimed in 2015 that “both result in a high level of protection of consumers, health and the environment”. But of course the wide discrepancy between the chemicals and pesticides permitted in the US versus the far fewer allowed in the EU tells a very different story.

At the heart of industry’s wish list for TTIP is the provision of ‘regulatory co–operation‘. Not only would this mechanism allow existing regulations to be attacked but it would ultimately give big business a voice in the very early stages of the regulatory process in both the EU and the US and thus directly override democratic decision-making.

Post-Brexit, the UK could be even more vulnerable …

While it appears that British citizens won’t have to worry about TTIP anymore, they must still remain alert to corporate lobbying that counters their interests. As one of the more agribusiness-friendly countries in Europe, before the June 2016 referendum Britain had been targeted by lobbyists to continue to support their position in the EU.

For instance, following a “very constructive meeting with the industry (NFUS, AIC, Crop Protection Association) … to discuss the potential loss of pesticides”, the Scottish Environment Minister made a submission to the Commission “asking that no pesticides be removed from approval before conducting a full impact assessment.”

By leaving the EU, Britain could enter into negotiations on new investment and free trade agreements – and here is where it really gets dangerous for consumer and environmental protection, as well as for democratic values.

Launching a new series of large-scale free trade deal negotiations could open a whole new playing field for all sorts of corporate lobbying activities – with severe impacts on the British social and environmental legislation.

Today more than ever, free trade deals are being used by large companies and multinationals to shape the economic world order according to their interests. This comes at the expense of a sustainable and fair trade system that places the needs of consumers, citizens and the environment on equal footing with the demands of big business. 

Action: Four European organisations have launched the ‘Democracy for Sale Awards‘, in order to expose the behind-the-scenes business lobby. You are invited to ‘honour’ the lobby groups that have been most successful in co-writing the TTIP. Please vote now: help to expose the worst corporate offenders and fight for democratic decision making in Europe, in Britain and around the world.

Lora Verheecke & Laura Große are researchers and campaigners for Corporate Europe Observatory, a Brussels-based lobby watchdog. Both work on European free trade agreements such as TTIP and CETA.

Antibiotic overuse in livestock farming has made the headlines in recent months.

In early September a study – commissioned by the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics and conducted by the University of Cambridge – found E.coli bugs resistant to multiple crucial antibiotics on UK-origin pig and chicken meat from seven major supermarkets.

Shortly afterwards, further testing of the meat revealed MRSA on pork from two major retailers. Following these revelations, the national media warned of a ‘post-antibiotic era’.

The UK farming industry also responded promptly, pointing to recent reductions in antibiotic use in poultry and to new policies they are introducing aiming at cutting use across the board.

Even the Food Standards Agency – in an unprecedented move – committed to work with UK supermarkets to reduce antibiotic use in their supply chains.

Supermarkets reluctant to talk publicly about farm antibiotic use

In contrast, most UK supermarkets kept their heads well below the parapet. This was not entirely surprising. While some – such as Sainsbury’s and Waitrose – do have antibiotic-use policies in place, routine preventative mass-medication of groups of animals is still permitted by law, and by most supermarkets.

So why the silence? Such practices are widely disapproved of by the UK Government, the European Parliament and the general public, and are even banned in some European countries. So maybe supermarkets are simply reluctant to draw attention to profligate antibiotic use within their supply chains.

But as the antimicrobial resistance crisis reaches terrifying proportions, and the positive association between veterinary prescribing and human resistance becomes more and more apparent, it is becoming increasingly tricky for supermarkets to avoid scrutiny.

On Tuesday 11th October, Zac Goldsmith MP tabled an Early Day Motion (number 488) on farm antibiotics with the support of five sponsors: former Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman (Con), former Shadow Defra Secretary Kerry McCarthy (Lab), David Warburton (Con), Margaret Ritchie (SDLP), and Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas.

Unusually the EDM is demanding action not from the government, but from supermarkets, calling on them to take action on antibiotics by:

• adopting publicly available policies on veterinary antibiotic use within their supply chains;
• prohibiting routine mass-medication of livestock;
• and committing to drastic reductions to farm use of the ‘critically important’ antibiotics.

In a welcome show of cross-party consensus, these MPs are sending a very clear message: supermarkets must now show leadership on this issue, and use their vast buying power to protect public health.

Supermarkets must publicly embrace the scale of the challenge

The Early Day Motion is expected to gather a significant number of MP signatories, but will this prove enough to coax supermarkets into a more vocal and active position on antibiotics?

Certainly, their domination of the grocery market places these actors as central stakeholders within the antimicrobial resistance issue. They bear a responsibility they will find increasingly hard to shrug off as antibiotic-resistant bugs are discovered in the national food supply chain.

But this inevitability is countered by supermarkets’ strong aversion to any scrutiny whatsoever around antibiotic use in their supply chains. Supermarkets, like many large companies, tend to avoid speaking out until they can point to themselves as exemplary – and most are not.

They are understandably reluctant to alert their customers to unacceptable practices in their supply-chains. Yet fear of scrutiny must not prevent these stakeholders from throwing their hat into the ring and helping to frame the narrative around responsible antibiotic use.

The first step must be for food retailers to speak out: to publicly accept the scale of the challenge, to acknowledge the gap between current practice and future goals, and to outline a roadmap to progress.

Making the required reductions to antibiotic use, phasing out routine prophylaxis and curbing use of the antibiotics classified as critically important in human medicine will be a huge supply-chain challenge. It will require a consultative, collaborative approach with farmers and supply-chain actors.

Supermarkets should use this challenge to invite their customers in, using open and honest rhetoric about the barriers to progress, and how these will be overcome.

Better farming – a key tool to reducing the need for antibiotics

Finally, supermarkets must commit to supporting livestock systems where animals are kept healthy through good welfare, not routine medication. This will necessitate a fundamental shift in how we define productivity and acceptable levels of animal welfare.

For too long industrial agriculture has hidden behind a façade of economic efficiency, where important antibiotics are used as a management tool, and the human-health implications are externalised and ignored. Supermarkets have played their part in the creation of this system, often paying farmers low prices – leading to continuous efforts by farmers to cut costs while still increasing productivity.

This in turn, leads to conditions where livestock are pushed to their natural limits and are more prone to disease, requiring routine antibiotics just to stay disease-free. Now, as we face the loss of modern medicine, large retailers must pay a fair price for meat and dairy products, to allow farmers to make the changes that we need to see.

There is a real transformative opportunity here; one that could see the current dependency on antibiotics replaced with a more resilient, higher-welfare farming model which safeguards human and animal health. The Alliance is ready to welcome any positive shift by these stakeholders. We accept that progress will look different for each retailer, and that some will face more practical difficulties than others.

Regardless of the scale of this challenge, it is no longer acceptable for supermarkets to stay silent.

Action: Ask your local MP to sign the Early Day Motion on farm antibiotics.

Emma Rose leads the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics – an EU-wide coalition of health, medical, environmental and animal welfare groups campaigning to stop the overuse of antibiotics in livestock farming.

Full text of EDM 488: “That this House expresses concern about recent findings of high levels of antibiotic-resistant e.coli and MRSA on British supermarket meat, of UK origin; welcomes the commitment of the Foods Standards Agency to work with UK food retailers to reduce farm antibiotic use and Waitrose’s recently updated policy, which prohibits antibiotic prophylaxis, routine preventative use; notes that the systematic overuse of antibiotics in farm animals is contributing to the emergence of antibiotic resistance in human bacterial infections; considers the routine preventative mass-medication of animals to be unacceptable practice; believes that the adoption of higher welfare farming practices must be central to any successful strategy to reduce farm antibiotic use; and calls on all UK supermarkets to adopt a publicly available policy on antibiotic use within their supply chains, prohibiting routine mass-medication of livestock and committing to drastic reductions in farm use of the critically important antibiotics.”

The Alliance was founded by Compassion in World Farming, the Soil Association and Sustain in 2009, and is supported by the Jeremy Coller Foundation. Its vision is a world in which human and animal health and wellbeing are protected by food and farming systems that do not rely routinely on antibiotics and related drugs.

The last decade has seen the African elephant systematically wiped out for its ivory tusks, with the world losing roughly 27,000 savannah elephants a year.

According to the Great Elephant Census report, there are just 352,271 left across 18 African states, with many protected areas suffering heavy losses and the hardest hit areas being Tanzania and Mozambique.

Since the survey covered only 93% of relevant land, a full count would probably put the number at closer to 400,000 – still an appallingly low figure. Meanwhile, forest elephants are at serious risk of being decimated.

The causes of this decline include poaching for the vast global illicit ivory trade; habitat loss; and fragmentation. Put simply, the findings make clear that we cannot afford to wait if we are to protect the elephants for the future. At this rate of loss, we will have to explain to our children why there are none of these magnificent creatures left. We will also have to confess to our complicity unless we act now.

Recent decisions to close consumer ivory markets present the greatest opportunity we have to save the elephant, and also demand a rethinking of the management of these great creatures in an increasingly human-centric world.

Following a number of international conferences and other developments, the world must seize the opportunity to address the underlying causes of poaching – and take action both in terms of demand and supply.

A new reality for elephant conservation!

The Great Elephant Census was released on the eve of the largest gathering yet of the World Wildlife Conference, otherwise known as CITES – the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CoP17). At the conference, 182 member states voted on how best to protect the most endangered species from extinction.

This followed the World Conservation Congress of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature last month, at which members voted overwhelmingly (86.11%) in favour of a motion calling for the closure of all domestic ivory markets. CoP17 progressed this with a consensus decision to eliminate “the illegal trade in ivory and domestic ivory markets that contribute to illegal trade”.

There is legitimate concern that the qualifying line may constitute a loophole – some countries have shamefully already tried to duck responsibility by asserting that their ivory market does not contribute to the illegal trade, which is quite blatantly not the case.

But the truth is that all these events, preceded by a joint commitment in September 2015 by the US and Chinese presidents, concurrent with an unconditional commitment by Botswana to uplist its elephant population (the world’s largest) to the highest level of protection (under CITES Appendix 1), signal a new reality in elephant conservation.

In this new reality, the majority of African elephant range states, and the second largest and largest ivory markets, the US and China, have decided that – to secure a future with elephants across Africa – the international ban on ivory trade must continue, and all ivory domestic markets must close.

Already, the US has effectively shut down its domestic trade, and we expect that China will soon follow its statements of an impending ban with effective policy action.

A ban on the ivory trade?

How can we implement this ban, and make it workable, so that we do seize the historic opportunity provided by the recent international consensus?

Recent research suggests that there is a significant degree of ivory stockpiling occurring in China, given the sheer disparity between the volume of ivory apparently entering the country and actually being sold.

Stop Ivory and the Science for Nature and People Partnership recently commissioned a series of research papers into the ivory trade. The first paper concluded that to achieve the best outcome China’s domestic ban should be implemented as soon as possible and for an indefinite time period.

Leaving open the possibility of a future trade would generate strong incentives to hoard ivory now, which could exacerbate rather than contain poaching.

Addressing the ‘supply side’ of the ivory trade

At the same time, if we are to make the most of the current momentum, we cannot ignore the importance of tackling the issues on the supply end of the ivory chain, where elephants live in the wild across the savannahs and forests of Africa. Here, where poaching happens, governments also have to grapple with other problems that threaten elephants.

As highlighted in the second paper, which looked at ‘sustainable use’ policies, there are several options for how elephant conservation can be funded in the absence of the ivory trade.

Supply side interventions include ‘sustainable use’ policies – which incentivise conservation of wildlife and wider ecosystems by providing social and economic benefits to ‘elephant neighbour’ communities. These should be supported by global mechanisms that share among donors the financial costs of paying for the conservation of wilderness landscapes, or community-led natural resource management.

The paper finds, for example, that some kind of cross-border ‘biodiversity tax’ may be needed to limit elephant habitat shrinkage and fragmentation. On the thorny issue of hunting, it takes a pragmatic view that in some contexts, to protect land used for wildlife, this will have to serve as a short term buffer against competing development priorities, as problematic as that might be.

As for the latter suggestion, we know that community members living with or near elephants need to become drivers of conservation. The third paper in the series explored community-led natural resource management, highlighting that for this to succeed, those living near elephant populations need to derive benefits from protecting them and be empowered and engaged in conservation.

Ultimately, if it is to succeed, conservation needs to be mainstreamed into the broader development agenda instead of being treated in isolation.

Nurturing changes in attitudes and values

Getting both demand side and supply side policies right is vital, as we are at a critical moment for the elephants. The crucial link between the two is values – what people believe about elephants and all they stand for, and ivory and what it has come to represent.

As the last paper in the series highlighted, getting supply side policies right will be an uphill struggle. The reality is that global norms often jar with local value sets. In other words, a total ivory trade ban may not produce an immediate reversal of the poaching pandemic.

Illegal bush meat trade, for instance, also spurs poaching (though the scale is incomparable), while communities that resent the imposition of external norms may respond by poaching wildlife – this is dangerous for as long as trade continues. Likewise, demand is driven by several things; a desire for prestige, by those looking for ‘good investments’, and by ignorance of the link between ivory consumption and poaching.

The good news is that well-constructed, locally sensitive campaigns have been shown to effectively shift values away from poaching and consumption and towards conservation. We need global cooperation on this, in order to move towards a world without an ivory trade, and with a flourishing elephant population.

If our children are to see elephants roaming wild across the African continent, we must seize this moment and have the confidence to step out together with open minds and generous hearts.

Ross Harvey is an economist and a senior researcher with the Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs.

Alexander Rhodes is a solicitor at London law firm Mishcon de Reya, and the outgoing CEO of Stop Ivory.

The last decade has seen the African elephant systematically wiped out for its ivory tusks, with the world losing roughly 27,000 savannah elephants a year.

According to the Great Elephant Census report, there are just 352,271 left across 18 African states, with many protected areas suffering heavy losses and the hardest hit areas being Tanzania and Mozambique.

Since the survey covered only 93% of relevant land, a full count would probably put the number at closer to 400,000 – still an appallingly low figure. Meanwhile, forest elephants are at serious risk of being decimated.

The causes of this decline include poaching for the vast global illicit ivory trade; habitat loss; and fragmentation. Put simply, the findings make clear that we cannot afford to wait if we are to protect the elephants for the future. At this rate of loss, we will have to explain to our children why there are none of these magnificent creatures left. We will also have to confess to our complicity unless we act now.

Recent decisions to close consumer ivory markets present the greatest opportunity we have to save the elephant, and also demand a rethinking of the management of these great creatures in an increasingly human-centric world.

Following a number of international conferences and other developments, the world must seize the opportunity to address the underlying causes of poaching – and take action both in terms of demand and supply.

A new reality for elephant conservation!

The Great Elephant Census was released on the eve of the largest gathering yet of the World Wildlife Conference, otherwise known as CITES – the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CoP17). At the conference, 182 member states voted on how best to protect the most endangered species from extinction.

This followed the World Conservation Congress of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature last month, at which members voted overwhelmingly (86.11%) in favour of a motion calling for the closure of all domestic ivory markets. CoP17 progressed this with a consensus decision to eliminate “the illegal trade in ivory and domestic ivory markets that contribute to illegal trade”.

There is legitimate concern that the qualifying line may constitute a loophole – some countries have shamefully already tried to duck responsibility by asserting that their ivory market does not contribute to the illegal trade, which is quite blatantly not the case.

But the truth is that all these events, preceded by a joint commitment in September 2015 by the US and Chinese presidents, concurrent with an unconditional commitment by Botswana to uplist its elephant population (the world’s largest) to the highest level of protection (under CITES Appendix 1), signal a new reality in elephant conservation.

In this new reality, the majority of African elephant range states, and the second largest and largest ivory markets, the US and China, have decided that – to secure a future with elephants across Africa – the international ban on ivory trade must continue, and all ivory domestic markets must close.

Already, the US has effectively shut down its domestic trade, and we expect that China will soon follow its statements of an impending ban with effective policy action.

A ban on the ivory trade?

How can we implement this ban, and make it workable, so that we do seize the historic opportunity provided by the recent international consensus?

Recent research suggests that there is a significant degree of ivory stockpiling occurring in China, given the sheer disparity between the volume of ivory apparently entering the country and actually being sold.

Stop Ivory and the Science for Nature and People Partnership recently commissioned a series of research papers into the ivory trade. The first paper concluded that to achieve the best outcome China’s domestic ban should be implemented as soon as possible and for an indefinite time period.

Leaving open the possibility of a future trade would generate strong incentives to hoard ivory now, which could exacerbate rather than contain poaching.

Addressing the ‘supply side’ of the ivory trade

At the same time, if we are to make the most of the current momentum, we cannot ignore the importance of tackling the issues on the supply end of the ivory chain, where elephants live in the wild across the savannahs and forests of Africa. Here, where poaching happens, governments also have to grapple with other problems that threaten elephants.

As highlighted in the second paper, which looked at ‘sustainable use’ policies, there are several options for how elephant conservation can be funded in the absence of the ivory trade.

Supply side interventions include ‘sustainable use’ policies – which incentivise conservation of wildlife and wider ecosystems by providing social and economic benefits to ‘elephant neighbour’ communities. These should be supported by global mechanisms that share among donors the financial costs of paying for the conservation of wilderness landscapes, or community-led natural resource management.

The paper finds, for example, that some kind of cross-border ‘biodiversity tax’ may be needed to limit elephant habitat shrinkage and fragmentation. On the thorny issue of hunting, it takes a pragmatic view that in some contexts, to protect land used for wildlife, this will have to serve as a short term buffer against competing development priorities, as problematic as that might be.

As for the latter suggestion, we know that community members living with or near elephants need to become drivers of conservation. The third paper in the series explored community-led natural resource management, highlighting that for this to succeed, those living near elephant populations need to derive benefits from protecting them and be empowered and engaged in conservation.

Ultimately, if it is to succeed, conservation needs to be mainstreamed into the broader development agenda instead of being treated in isolation.

Nurturing changes in attitudes and values

Getting both demand side and supply side policies right is vital, as we are at a critical moment for the elephants. The crucial link between the two is values – what people believe about elephants and all they stand for, and ivory and what it has come to represent.

As the last paper in the series highlighted, getting supply side policies right will be an uphill struggle. The reality is that global norms often jar with local value sets. In other words, a total ivory trade ban may not produce an immediate reversal of the poaching pandemic.

Illegal bush meat trade, for instance, also spurs poaching (though the scale is incomparable), while communities that resent the imposition of external norms may respond by poaching wildlife – this is dangerous for as long as trade continues. Likewise, demand is driven by several things; a desire for prestige, by those looking for ‘good investments’, and by ignorance of the link between ivory consumption and poaching.

The good news is that well-constructed, locally sensitive campaigns have been shown to effectively shift values away from poaching and consumption and towards conservation. We need global cooperation on this, in order to move towards a world without an ivory trade, and with a flourishing elephant population.

If our children are to see elephants roaming wild across the African continent, we must seize this moment and have the confidence to step out together with open minds and generous hearts.

Ross Harvey is an economist and a senior researcher with the Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs.

Alexander Rhodes is a solicitor at London law firm Mishcon de Reya, and the outgoing CEO of Stop Ivory.

The last decade has seen the African elephant systematically wiped out for its ivory tusks, with the world losing roughly 27,000 savannah elephants a year.

According to the Great Elephant Census report, there are just 352,271 left across 18 African states, with many protected areas suffering heavy losses and the hardest hit areas being Tanzania and Mozambique.

Since the survey covered only 93% of relevant land, a full count would probably put the number at closer to 400,000 – still an appallingly low figure. Meanwhile, forest elephants are at serious risk of being decimated.

The causes of this decline include poaching for the vast global illicit ivory trade; habitat loss; and fragmentation. Put simply, the findings make clear that we cannot afford to wait if we are to protect the elephants for the future. At this rate of loss, we will have to explain to our children why there are none of these magnificent creatures left. We will also have to confess to our complicity unless we act now.

Recent decisions to close consumer ivory markets present the greatest opportunity we have to save the elephant, and also demand a rethinking of the management of these great creatures in an increasingly human-centric world.

Following a number of international conferences and other developments, the world must seize the opportunity to address the underlying causes of poaching – and take action both in terms of demand and supply.

A new reality for elephant conservation!

The Great Elephant Census was released on the eve of the largest gathering yet of the World Wildlife Conference, otherwise known as CITES – the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CoP17). At the conference, 182 member states voted on how best to protect the most endangered species from extinction.

This followed the World Conservation Congress of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature last month, at which members voted overwhelmingly (86.11%) in favour of a motion calling for the closure of all domestic ivory markets. CoP17 progressed this with a consensus decision to eliminate “the illegal trade in ivory and domestic ivory markets that contribute to illegal trade”.

There is legitimate concern that the qualifying line may constitute a loophole – some countries have shamefully already tried to duck responsibility by asserting that their ivory market does not contribute to the illegal trade, which is quite blatantly not the case.

But the truth is that all these events, preceded by a joint commitment in September 2015 by the US and Chinese presidents, concurrent with an unconditional commitment by Botswana to uplist its elephant population (the world’s largest) to the highest level of protection (under CITES Appendix 1), signal a new reality in elephant conservation.

In this new reality, the majority of African elephant range states, and the second largest and largest ivory markets, the US and China, have decided that – to secure a future with elephants across Africa – the international ban on ivory trade must continue, and all ivory domestic markets must close.

Already, the US has effectively shut down its domestic trade, and we expect that China will soon follow its statements of an impending ban with effective policy action.

A ban on the ivory trade?

How can we implement this ban, and make it workable, so that we do seize the historic opportunity provided by the recent international consensus?

Recent research suggests that there is a significant degree of ivory stockpiling occurring in China, given the sheer disparity between the volume of ivory apparently entering the country and actually being sold.

Stop Ivory and the Science for Nature and People Partnership recently commissioned a series of research papers into the ivory trade. The first paper concluded that to achieve the best outcome China’s domestic ban should be implemented as soon as possible and for an indefinite time period.

Leaving open the possibility of a future trade would generate strong incentives to hoard ivory now, which could exacerbate rather than contain poaching.

Addressing the ‘supply side’ of the ivory trade

At the same time, if we are to make the most of the current momentum, we cannot ignore the importance of tackling the issues on the supply end of the ivory chain, where elephants live in the wild across the savannahs and forests of Africa. Here, where poaching happens, governments also have to grapple with other problems that threaten elephants.

As highlighted in the second paper, which looked at ‘sustainable use’ policies, there are several options for how elephant conservation can be funded in the absence of the ivory trade.

Supply side interventions include ‘sustainable use’ policies – which incentivise conservation of wildlife and wider ecosystems by providing social and economic benefits to ‘elephant neighbour’ communities. These should be supported by global mechanisms that share among donors the financial costs of paying for the conservation of wilderness landscapes, or community-led natural resource management.

The paper finds, for example, that some kind of cross-border ‘biodiversity tax’ may be needed to limit elephant habitat shrinkage and fragmentation. On the thorny issue of hunting, it takes a pragmatic view that in some contexts, to protect land used for wildlife, this will have to serve as a short term buffer against competing development priorities, as problematic as that might be.

As for the latter suggestion, we know that community members living with or near elephants need to become drivers of conservation. The third paper in the series explored community-led natural resource management, highlighting that for this to succeed, those living near elephant populations need to derive benefits from protecting them and be empowered and engaged in conservation.

Ultimately, if it is to succeed, conservation needs to be mainstreamed into the broader development agenda instead of being treated in isolation.

Nurturing changes in attitudes and values

Getting both demand side and supply side policies right is vital, as we are at a critical moment for the elephants. The crucial link between the two is values – what people believe about elephants and all they stand for, and ivory and what it has come to represent.

As the last paper in the series highlighted, getting supply side policies right will be an uphill struggle. The reality is that global norms often jar with local value sets. In other words, a total ivory trade ban may not produce an immediate reversal of the poaching pandemic.

Illegal bush meat trade, for instance, also spurs poaching (though the scale is incomparable), while communities that resent the imposition of external norms may respond by poaching wildlife – this is dangerous for as long as trade continues. Likewise, demand is driven by several things; a desire for prestige, by those looking for ‘good investments’, and by ignorance of the link between ivory consumption and poaching.

The good news is that well-constructed, locally sensitive campaigns have been shown to effectively shift values away from poaching and consumption and towards conservation. We need global cooperation on this, in order to move towards a world without an ivory trade, and with a flourishing elephant population.

If our children are to see elephants roaming wild across the African continent, we must seize this moment and have the confidence to step out together with open minds and generous hearts.

Ross Harvey is an economist and a senior researcher with the Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs.

Alexander Rhodes is a solicitor at London law firm Mishcon de Reya, and the outgoing CEO of Stop Ivory.

The last decade has seen the African elephant systematically wiped out for its ivory tusks, with the world losing roughly 27,000 savannah elephants a year.

According to the Great Elephant Census report, there are just 352,271 left across 18 African states, with many protected areas suffering heavy losses and the hardest hit areas being Tanzania and Mozambique.

Since the survey covered only 93% of relevant land, a full count would probably put the number at closer to 400,000 – still an appallingly low figure. Meanwhile, forest elephants are at serious risk of being decimated.

The causes of this decline include poaching for the vast global illicit ivory trade; habitat loss; and fragmentation. Put simply, the findings make clear that we cannot afford to wait if we are to protect the elephants for the future. At this rate of loss, we will have to explain to our children why there are none of these magnificent creatures left. We will also have to confess to our complicity unless we act now.

Recent decisions to close consumer ivory markets present the greatest opportunity we have to save the elephant, and also demand a rethinking of the management of these great creatures in an increasingly human-centric world.

Following a number of international conferences and other developments, the world must seize the opportunity to address the underlying causes of poaching – and take action both in terms of demand and supply.

A new reality for elephant conservation!

The Great Elephant Census was released on the eve of the largest gathering yet of the World Wildlife Conference, otherwise known as CITES – the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CoP17). At the conference, 182 member states voted on how best to protect the most endangered species from extinction.

This followed the World Conservation Congress of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature last month, at which members voted overwhelmingly (86.11%) in favour of a motion calling for the closure of all domestic ivory markets. CoP17 progressed this with a consensus decision to eliminate “the illegal trade in ivory and domestic ivory markets that contribute to illegal trade”.

There is legitimate concern that the qualifying line may constitute a loophole – some countries have shamefully already tried to duck responsibility by asserting that their ivory market does not contribute to the illegal trade, which is quite blatantly not the case.

But the truth is that all these events, preceded by a joint commitment in September 2015 by the US and Chinese presidents, concurrent with an unconditional commitment by Botswana to uplist its elephant population (the world’s largest) to the highest level of protection (under CITES Appendix 1), signal a new reality in elephant conservation.

In this new reality, the majority of African elephant range states, and the second largest and largest ivory markets, the US and China, have decided that – to secure a future with elephants across Africa – the international ban on ivory trade must continue, and all ivory domestic markets must close.

Already, the US has effectively shut down its domestic trade, and we expect that China will soon follow its statements of an impending ban with effective policy action.

A ban on the ivory trade?

How can we implement this ban, and make it workable, so that we do seize the historic opportunity provided by the recent international consensus?

Recent research suggests that there is a significant degree of ivory stockpiling occurring in China, given the sheer disparity between the volume of ivory apparently entering the country and actually being sold.

Stop Ivory and the Science for Nature and People Partnership recently commissioned a series of research papers into the ivory trade. The first paper concluded that to achieve the best outcome China’s domestic ban should be implemented as soon as possible and for an indefinite time period.

Leaving open the possibility of a future trade would generate strong incentives to hoard ivory now, which could exacerbate rather than contain poaching.

Addressing the ‘supply side’ of the ivory trade

At the same time, if we are to make the most of the current momentum, we cannot ignore the importance of tackling the issues on the supply end of the ivory chain, where elephants live in the wild across the savannahs and forests of Africa. Here, where poaching happens, governments also have to grapple with other problems that threaten elephants.

As highlighted in the second paper, which looked at ‘sustainable use’ policies, there are several options for how elephant conservation can be funded in the absence of the ivory trade.

Supply side interventions include ‘sustainable use’ policies – which incentivise conservation of wildlife and wider ecosystems by providing social and economic benefits to ‘elephant neighbour’ communities. These should be supported by global mechanisms that share among donors the financial costs of paying for the conservation of wilderness landscapes, or community-led natural resource management.

The paper finds, for example, that some kind of cross-border ‘biodiversity tax’ may be needed to limit elephant habitat shrinkage and fragmentation. On the thorny issue of hunting, it takes a pragmatic view that in some contexts, to protect land used for wildlife, this will have to serve as a short term buffer against competing development priorities, as problematic as that might be.

As for the latter suggestion, we know that community members living with or near elephants need to become drivers of conservation. The third paper in the series explored community-led natural resource management, highlighting that for this to succeed, those living near elephant populations need to derive benefits from protecting them and be empowered and engaged in conservation.

Ultimately, if it is to succeed, conservation needs to be mainstreamed into the broader development agenda instead of being treated in isolation.

Nurturing changes in attitudes and values

Getting both demand side and supply side policies right is vital, as we are at a critical moment for the elephants. The crucial link between the two is values – what people believe about elephants and all they stand for, and ivory and what it has come to represent.

As the last paper in the series highlighted, getting supply side policies right will be an uphill struggle. The reality is that global norms often jar with local value sets. In other words, a total ivory trade ban may not produce an immediate reversal of the poaching pandemic.

Illegal bush meat trade, for instance, also spurs poaching (though the scale is incomparable), while communities that resent the imposition of external norms may respond by poaching wildlife – this is dangerous for as long as trade continues. Likewise, demand is driven by several things; a desire for prestige, by those looking for ‘good investments’, and by ignorance of the link between ivory consumption and poaching.

The good news is that well-constructed, locally sensitive campaigns have been shown to effectively shift values away from poaching and consumption and towards conservation. We need global cooperation on this, in order to move towards a world without an ivory trade, and with a flourishing elephant population.

If our children are to see elephants roaming wild across the African continent, we must seize this moment and have the confidence to step out together with open minds and generous hearts.

Ross Harvey is an economist and a senior researcher with the Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs.

Alexander Rhodes is a solicitor at London law firm Mishcon de Reya, and the outgoing CEO of Stop Ivory.