Luwowo Coltan mine near Rubaya, North Kivu. (MONUSCO/Sylvain Liechti)
The mining industry has recently descended on Cape Town for the Investing in African Mining Indaba conference, Africa’s biggest mining conference, which wrapped up last week. At the top of the agenda for many of the delegates was still the issue of cobalt, which companies such as Apple have moved to the category of conflict mineral in regards to sourcing it.
Despite moves by the Trump administration to relax laws on conflict minerals, a recent report by RCS Global’s Dr Nicholas Garrett, director at one of the world’s leading raw materials supply chain auditors, revealed the extent of the challenge to the market in finding ‘ethical’ supplies of the mineral, which is being mooted for inclusion in the controversial conflict minerals category.
Over 60% of the global cobalt supply comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where a legacy of civil war, the persistence of de-industrialized, basic forms of mining, and a weak state all come together to make ethical and transparent sourcing hugely challenging.
“[DRC] mining operations tend to be split between what is called artisanal and small scale mining […] where you have small, independent miners extracting cobalt but hand or with rudimentary tools. In the upstream you also have larger industrial miners extracting cobalt through modern mechanized mining techniques. In the DRC, some industrial mines purchase artisanal production to supplement their own industrial production. For the artisanal production cobalt ore is then sold through local traders who sell the mineral in bulk to international traders and buyers, including refiners,” Dr Garrett says.
In response to complaints of unsafe conditions or labour violations at these artisanal mines, some companies, including Apple, who rely on the mineral to help power their products, have already prescribed cobalt as a conflict mineral, overnight increasing the pressure on the wider electronics markets to do the same. But at the same time demand is set to rise in 2017 as the nascent electric vehicle market goes mainstream. The mineral’s provenance is rapidly becoming a bellwether issue for observers interested in how the wider minerals mining sector is evolving in terms of ethics and transparency.
“Increasingly regulators, NGOs and consumers are requiring brand companies to take a degree of responsibility for their activities in the supply chains […]. The worldwide response to conflict minerals has demonstrated that they do have the power to influence the entire supply chain.” Dr Garrett tells African Business.
The goal for downstream businesses from Tesla to Huwai is how to secure their cobalt supply in an increasingly squeezed market while also proving to their customers and regulators that their supply chain is transparent and ethical. In the last year, regulators in the U.S. and China have intimated that scrutiny will be further tightened while the EU formally announced it would implement a new framework and new regulation to force greater mineral supply chain transparency.
Rising supply chain standardsBut the market is responding. According to Dr Garrett, RCS Global itself has researchers, advisors and auditors physically on the ground in mine sites in Africa and other producing regions plus staff in China, the U.S. and Europe who engage with the firms responsible for moving the mineral from mine to market Fine. His firm checks these actors’ facilities and activities as well as working with the industry bodies to develop the systems, processes and tools to support responsible sourcing of the mineral. Other auditors are also now offering similar services as demand for due diligence increases.
But downstream businesses are also directly addressing the issue of supply chain standards for themselves, setting up the Responsible Cobalt Initiative. The driving force behind the initiative is the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters, but companies ranging from HP to Sony are also involved.
Dr Garrett, this move is hardly surprising: “It is now both legally and ethically the responsibility of downstream companies—those that ultimately use the raw material in their products—to ensure actors in their supply chain are adhering to the highest standards.”
Meanwhile with the DRC set to remain the dominant player in the cobalt production, ensuring supply can be verified as ethical and transparent will be key for cobalt producers and downstream customers, he says. Over the last two years cobalt production there has remained stable at 63,000 metric tonnes with an increase in production possible in coming years, dwarfing its competitors.
He explains: “Sourcing can continue as long as [cobalt] shipments are tracked down to mine sites and the integrity of the chain of custody can be assured. There are systems out there, like the Better Sourcing Program, which operationalize hands on due diligence approach in the upstream and are designed to operate in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.”
If firms can secure ethical cobalt supplies he thinks, it will also go a long way to proving real progress in the wider African mineral sector. Only time will tell if this can be achieved but with the Trump administration now considering using an executive order to repeal U.S. legislation (part of the Frank-Dodd act) covering transparent supply chain sourcing in the name of reducing bureaucratic burdens on business, the issue is suddenly looking very topical.
The post Ethical Cobalt Extraction & Trump’s Possible Rules Repeal appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Donát: latin eredetű; Jelentése: Istentől ajándékozott.Lukács: latin eredetű; Jelentése: Luciana tartományból való férfi.
Idézet„Az emberek, akármit is mondjanak, többnyire azt a foglalkozást űzik, amelyre mindig is vágytak. Például azt mondja egy hivatalnok: “Bárcsak felfedező lehetnék, s isten háta mögötti helyeken élhetnék nomád módra”. Aztán kiderül, hogy szeret ilyen tárgyú regényeket olvasni, de a maga részéről nagyon is megbecsüli az íróasztala nyújtotta biztonságot és a viszonylagos kényelmet.”
Agatha Christie
EZEN A NAPON EMLÉKSZÜNK RÁ:
Czabán Samu (Rozsnyó, 1878. február 17. – Nagyszőlős, 1942. december 16.). Pedagógus. Az eperjesi tanítóképző elvégzése után Pest, Nyitra, majd Temes megyében tanított. 1912-ben az Állami Tanítók Országos Egyesületének elnökévé választották. 1914-ben izgatás vádjával elbocsátották állásából. 1918-ban a közoktatási minisztériumban kapott állást. A Tanácsköztársaság idején a budapesti III. kerületi direktórium elnöke volt. A tanácsköztársaság bukása után börtönbe, majd rendőri felügyelet alá került.
1921-ben Csehszlovákiába emigrált. A csehszlovák tanügyi hatóságok a beregszászi 2. sz. elemi iskolába nevezték ki (ma a Kossuth Lajos Középiskola épülete). A Czabán család Beregszászban a Bankudvarnak nevezett épületsorban bérelt lakást. Czabán Samu tanított, természettudományi és történelmi előadásokat tartott gyári munkásoknak, gyermekkórust szervezett, olvasókönyvet szerkesztett. Samu bácsi néven beindította a Jó Barátom Kiskönyvtárat, színdarabokat jelentetett meg, módszertani könyveket írt. 1927 és 1929 decembere között Jó Barátom címmel illusztrált gyermeklapot jelentetett meg, melyben saját verseit és elbeszéléseit Tóni bácsi, Tanító bácsi és Samu bácsi aláírással közölte. A lap illusztrációit többek közt Boksay József készítette. 1934–ben Új Korszak címen beindította a „csehszlovákiai progresszív irányú magyar tanítók lapját.” A lap főmunkatársa volt veje, Ilku Pál, Vári község állami tanítója, Magyarország későbbi művelődésügyi minisztere. A lap utolsó száma 1936. december 10-én jelent meg. Czabánt 1938-ban újra megfosztották állásától, fegyelmi eljárást indítottak ellene. A család ezután Nagyszőlősre költözött, de a csendőrség itt is zaklatta. A letartóztatások, vallatások és súlyos szívbetegsége megtörték egészségét. A nagyszőlősi temetőben helyezték örök nyugalomra.
Forrás: Keresztyén Balázs: Kárpátaljai Művelődéstörténeti Kislexikon (Hatodik Síp Alapítvány – Mandátum Kiadó, Budapest – Beregszász, 2001.)
MAGYARORSZÁG KULTÚRTÖRTÉNETÉBŐL:
Básti Lajos, Kossuth-díjas színész (1911) sikereit elsősorban vonzó külsejének, elegáns megjelenésének köszönhette, amorózóként (a fiatal szerelmes férfi szerepköre a színművészetben) kellemes orgánuma emelte ki az átlagból. Kivételes beszédtechnikája Shakespeare-darabokban (Hamlet, Lear király) és történelmi drámákban érvényesült (pl. Föltámadott a tenger), könnyed humorát pedig vígjátékokban kamatoztatta (Pygmalion, My Fair Lady).
Eperjes Károly (1954) Jászai-díjas színész születése.
Forrás: Magyarország kultúrtörténete napról napra, Honfoglalás Egyesület 2000.
A BÉKESSÉG BELSŐ MUNKA
„Ezért így szóltam: Miért nincs szárnyam, mint a galambnak, hogy elrepülhetnék, és nyugton lennék?” (Zsoltárok 55:7)
A zsoltáros azt írta: „Miért is nincs nekem szárnyam, mint a galambnak, hogy elrepülhetnék, és nyugton lehetnék?” Éreztél már valaha így? Sajnálom, de nincs menekvés! Bárhová mész – te ott leszel! A békesség belső munka. Az óceánkutatók azt mondják, hogy még a legnagyobb tengeri viharok is csak ritkán hatolnak a felszíntől számított 7-8 méternél mélyebbre. Az orkánok felkorbácsolhatják a tengert, akár harminc méteres hullámokat is keltve, de a felszín alatt 7-8 méterrel a tenger olyan nyugodt mint egy tavacska. A lényeg ez: az egyetlen hely, ahol békére találhatsz az élet viharai között, az egy mély megtapasztalás Istennel. A koreai keresztyének között elterjedt egy mondás, ami Krisztusért elszenvedett üldöztetések között keletkezett: „Mi éppen olyanok vagyunk, mint a szegek. Minél jobban ütsz minket, annál mélyebbre kényszerítesz, és minél mélyebbre jutunk, ott annál nagyobb a békesség.” Azzal, hogy megengedi a viharokat, Istennek egyik célja az, hogy mélyebbre kényszerítsen – mélyebb függésre, mélyebb kapcsolatra vele. Valaki mondta: „Isten kezébe veszi az törött darabjait, és töretlen békével ajándékoz meg minket. Ha Istenre összpontosítasz, aki számara nem létezik megoldhatatlan gond, ahelyett, hogy a problémára figyelnél, amit nem tudsz megoldani, megtapasztalod ezt a mély belső békét. És ezt a békét magaddal viszed mindenhová, ahová mégy. Mások is észre fogják venni, és tanácsot kérnek tőled, ha gondokkal küzdenek. Isten kezébe veszi az élet törött darabjait, és töretlen békével ajándékoz meg minket. Ha tudod, hogy Isten, aki benned él, uralkodik a világmindenség fölött akkor nem fog megrendíteni az, ami körülötted történik.
A fenti elmélkedés a Keresztyén Média UCB Hungary Alapítvány napi elmélkedése (honlap: maiige.hu), melynek írója Bob Gass. Magyar nyelven negyedévre szóló kiadvány formájában megrendelhető az említett honlapon, vagy a következő címen: Mai Ige, 6201 Kiskőrös, Pf. 33.
A Szervita rend hét szent alapítója
A hét firenzei férfinek érzékeny volt a szíve Isten hívására. Előbb remeteként, majd rendalapítóként a Szűzanya iránti tisztelettel élték meg hitüket, és tanították kortársaikat.
A XIII. században, amikor annyi pártviszály volt, a florenci (ma Firenze) nemesek közül hetet választott ki a Gondviselés egy új szerzetes család alapítására (Monaldi, Bonagiunta, Antella, Amidei, Uguccione, Sostegna, Falconieri). A Szent Szűz megjelent nekik, és a tökéletesebb életre hívta őket. Elhagyták otthonukat 1233. szeptember 8-án, és egy vidéki házacskába vonultak vissza. Rendi alkotmányukat ötödik általános főnökük, Benizzi Szent Fülöp (+1285) tökéletesítette. A Hét Szent Rendalapító a Monte Senarión van eltemetve Firenze mellett.
bacskaplebania.hu
With the Trump administration having introduced “alternative facts” into the U.S. political lexicon, rational and objective analyses of the threats facing America are more important than ever. At the same time, the administration’s intolerance of alternative points of view decreases the likelihood that they will influence policy.
The National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) latest quadrennial report—Global Trends: Paradox of Progress—invites needed debate over where the world is headed over the next two decades. The report arrived in the wake of President Trump’s unexpected victory and is a chance to assess whether some of the most pressing foreign policy topics are being considered from all angles. On one such topic the report points to some fresh thinking: just how big a threat is Russia?
With discussions on Russia focused with the Trump-Putin relationship, the report offers useful comparative data points. Projecting to 2035, it expects Russia’s population to be slightly more than 1/3 the size of the U.S.’ (135.6 million and 365.2 million respectively). Additionally, after a period where Russian life expectancy plummeted immediately after the collapse of the communist regime, the country will experience only small gains in life expectancy by 2035 (67.1 years for men, 77.8 years for women) and will remain far behind America (80.4 years for men, 83.9 years for women). Russia’s population will also be slightly older than America’s in 2035 (Russia’s median age is projected to be 43.6 years, compared with 40.8 years for America).
By the numbers then, former President Barack Obama was on solid statistical ground when, during his final press conference last December, he described Russia as a “smaller” and “weaker” country. How, then, could it significantly weaken America?
The report cites further economic pressures that could inhibit Russia’s ability to project power. If global growth were to weaken over a lengthy period of time, energy prices would likely decrease, undercutting Russia’s chief source of economic strength and one of its main levers to exert political pressure on its near abroad. Meanwhile, the more nations seek to move away from fossil fuels to combat climate change, the more demand for Russia’s hydrocarbons reserves could weaken, further impacting its economy.
Despite the risks to its economic prospects, the NIC considers projections based on Russia’s recent actions that would see it continue to build its regional influence. In a section considering the near-term prospects for Eurasia, the report concludes that “Russia’s aggressive foreign policy will be a source of considerable volatility in the next five years.”
One of the report’s scenarios sees an international system devolving to individual nations seeking to be “islands in a sea of volatility.” This scenario predicts Russian actions that harken back to George Kennan’s Cold War-era description of Russia’s view of itself, defending its sphere of influence against what it sees as an ever-encroaching world. In this projection, Russia will continue to be active in the former USSR territories both to re-assert its great power status and, in its view, to protect itself. At stake is the independence of the former Soviet satellites and the degree to which America and its NATO allies will defend their security guarantee.
Importantly, the NIC explores the degree to which China’s rise in Asia will impact Russia. Two American antagonists, united in their opposition to U.S. influence in Asia, are likely to devote increasing attention to their own rivalry. “To counter Western attempts to weaken and isolate Russia,” the report reads in a section on spheres of influence, “Moscow will accommodate Beijing’s rise in the near term but ultimately will balk before becoming a junior partner to China—which would run counter to Russia’s great power self-image.”
One weakness of predictive reports is a tendency to assert predictions that are in fact retellings of the past and affirmations of the present. “Moscow will test NATO and European resolve,” the report predicts, “seeking to undermine Western credibility.” This is a timeless statement of Russian policy since the end of World War II, and therefore a safe one to make.
Overall, however, the NIC report delivers on a needed premise: to challenge the discussion on global threats to expand beyond clichés and into fresh thinking. Across its different scenarios, the NIC presents a picture of the world to come as more complex, divided, and volatile. It stops short of flatly predicting the world will be a more dangerous place in 2035, but that perspective permeates its findings. That is enough to give today’s foreign policy planners pause.
The post What does the National Intelligence Council think of Russia? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, February 15, 2017. (AFP / Saul Loeb)
Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump met yesterday. There are many things to unpack from the first meeting of these two world leaders. Here are some takeaways from a few of the issues that were covered, following their short press conference.
Bibi’s Untenable CoalitionMembers of Netanyahu’s own coalition warned him not to mention a two-state solution in his talks with President Trump. They warned him the “earth would shake” if he supported a Palestinian state, a concept he has supported—though tenuously—since 2009.
Netanyahu’s biggest threat these days does not come from the Palestinians, the Iranians or the UN Security Council, but rather from the Israeli right. He needs them to keep his coalition in place, and he no longer enjoys the bogeyman that was President Obama. With an overtly friendly American president—the first Republican in the White House concurrently with Netanyahu’s long reign—placing international blame elsewhere will be much harder to accomplish.
Bibi seems to understand that Trump, due to his unpredictability, is not a man to be trifled with. Trump speaks (shallowly) of his love of the Jewish state, but he is unlikely to remain silent if he feels that Netanyahu is embarrassing or undermining him. It’s not hard to imagine an early morning tweet storm from @RealDonaldTrump or @POTUS literally leading to new elections in Israel.
On America’s [New] Foreign Policy Toward IsraelPresident Trump undermined decades of American foreign policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when he declared “I’m looking at two-state and at one-state, and I like the one that both parties like.” This is a fine concept for a neutral party, but Trump is now representing generations of diplomatic efforts aimed specifically at creating a two-state solution to the conflict. President Trump, new to government and diplomacy, still doesn’t seem to understand the weight of his words as they relate to American foreign policy.
SettlementsThe joint press conference opened with each leader delivering brief statements; Trump kicked things off by reading some prepared remarks: “The United States will encourage a peace, and really a great peace, deal. But it is the parties themselves who must directly negotiate such an agreement. Both sides will have to make compromises.” Trump—the king of adding spontaneous asides to his prepared statements—then looked at Bibi and added this little doozy: “you know that, right?”
Bibi strongly stated that settlements are not an obstacle to peace. Despite Trump’s appointment of an ambassador to Israel who has helped raise millions of dollars to fund settlement expansion and the fact that his trusted and powerful son-in-law has also helped fund West Bank settlements, he clearly isn’t quite as convinced, stating that he would “like to see [Israel] hold back on settlements for a little bit.”
Why would Israel hold back on settlements if they weren’t an obstacle to peace? A good answer did not emerge from the remarks or the Q & A that followed.
Anti-SemitismWhen Trump was asked by an Israeli reporter what he would say to those in the Jewish community who “believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones,” he responded by bragging about his electoral college victory.
“Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had: 306 Electoral College votes. We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there’s no way to 270.”
Moving the American Embassy to JerusalemCandidate Trump promised to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. It is an easy promise to make, a far harder one to fulfill.
Such a move might give Bibi some positive talking points with his rightward flank back home, but in the long run it would cost him more political capital with America than he is probably prepared to accept. And it is hard to imagine such a move not leading directly to bloodshed.
Trump purportedly had plans to make the U.S. Embassy move his first act as President. Literally. He allegedly planned to declare a directive to move the embassy at 12:01 on Inauguration Day. But he was seemingly convinced of the broader political ramifications of this choice and opted instead to push off the decision, like many of his predecessors before him.
When asked about the move, Trump said, “I’d love to see that happen, we’re looking at that very, very strongly. We’re looking at that with great care, and we’ll see what happens.”
For a straight shooter who has proven himself to mix things up quickly and sometimes without foresight, it is interesting to see him moderate this particular campaign promise. It is also promising that he understands—for now anyway—that if he wants to be remembered for brokering “the ultimate deal,” he can’t simply do anything he pleases in the build-up.
Pre-conditions for PeacePrime Minister Netanyahu has a long history of demanding the Palestinians drop all pre-conditions to direct negations while simultaneously setting forth several of his own.
A quick Twitter search of @Netanyahu and @IsraeliPM finds over a dozen tweets stating that preconditions are impediments to peace and that he is prepared to come to the negotiating table, so long as there are no Palestinian preconditions in place.
I have written before about Bibi’s blind spot regarding his own pre-conditions. Today, he again undermined his longstanding argument by clarifying his own pre-conditions that must be met before he will come to the table:
The first will always be a deal breaker for the Palestinians. While they have long recognized Israel’s legitimacy as a state, 20% of the population of Israel is Palestinian. President Abbas isn’t going to recognize Israel as a Jewish state any sooner than the U.S. is going to recognize Taiwan as the legitimate seat of the Chinese state.
The second “prerequisite” is likely to be attained, but only within the confines of a grander peace deal. Why would the Palestinians acquiesce on the right to retain security control over their new state without receiving something in return from Israel? The very concept of preconditions declare that the issue is not up for negotiation—neutralizing it down the road as a bargaining chip.
The Palestinians won’t cede this chip in advance, just like Bibi will not accept preconditions on Jerusalem, the Palestinian Right of Return or settlement expansion. And Bibi knows it. But his language allows him to talk about peace on the world stage while also ensuring that no progress is actually possible.
Netanyahu is well on his way to becoming the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel’s history. He has shown again and again that he will do anything in order to retain that seat. But really, Netanyahu is not so much Israel’s bold leader as he is a somewhat powerful member of the ruling coalition, working desperately to keep it from falling apart.
Trump threw a few barbs and Netanyahu weathered them. But he also got to stand on the stage as Trump—purposefully or inadvertently—changed America’s longstanding policy regarding the two-state solution.
All in all, this was a good trip for Netanyahu: he can go home with some breathing room from his own conservative wing. At least for a little while.
Follow me on Twitter @jlemonsk.
The post Takeaways from the Trump-Netanyahu Meeting appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.