VERSAILLES, France, March 10 (Reuters) – European Union leaders on Thursday condemned the “untold suffering” Russia was inflicting on Ukraine, but at a summit in France they refused a call from Kiev to early membership in the bloc and differed on the scope of sanctions against Moscow.

The Russian invasion – the biggest assault on a European state since World War II – has upended the European security order and prompted EU capitals to rethink what the bloc should represent, its economic policies, defense and energetic.

The EU was quick to impose sweeping sanctions and offer political and humanitarian support to Ukraine, as well as arms supplies, in the days following Russia’s February 24 attack.

However, cracks have appeared in the bloc’s united front, from its reaction to Kiev’s demand for fast-track membership of the wealthy club to how quickly it can wean itself off Russian fossil fuels and how best to shape a economic response.

“No one joined the European Union overnight,” Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic said as talks between the 27 national leaders ended in the wee hours of Friday.

Leaders’ chairman Charles Michel said in a show of sympathy and moral support: “Ukraine belongs to the European family.”

But others have made it clear that Ukraine will not be allowed to join in a rush, something Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has called for and which enjoys the support of Ukraine’s neighbors on the EU’s eastern flank.

“There is no fast-track process,” said Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a prominent opponent of EU enlargement, while adding that the bloc would continue to deepen its ties with Kyiv.

The door to membership could not be closed either, said French President Emmanuel Macron.

“Can we open an accession procedure with a country at war? I don’t think so. Can we close the door and say: ‘never’? That would be unfair. Can we forget the balance points in this region? ? Let’s be careful.”

Joining the EU is a process that usually takes years and requires meeting strict criteria ranging from economic stability to the eradication of corruption to liberal respect for human rights.

RUSSIAN OIL AND GAS

The invasion of Russia, which Moscow calls a special military operation, shattered the post-war European security order that emerged from the ashes of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. .

More than 2 million people have fled the country, thousands of civilians have been killed and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s troops have besieged several Ukrainian towns. Read more

“It’s a war crime,” Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament, told leaders.

Some EU leaders have pushed for tougher sanctions that would hit Russia’s oil and gas industries, even if it meant repercussions for European nations dependent on Russian fossil fuels.

Latvian Prime Minister Krisjanis Karins, whose country shares a border with Russia, said cutting off Russian oil and gas would be the most effective way to bring Putin to the negotiating table.

“We should go much further and much faster,” Karins said.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has not commented on whether the bloc should ban imports of Russian oil, something Berlin has ruled out so far. Russia supplies about a third of Germany’s gas and crude needs.

But the EU should stop using Russian fossil fuels by 2027, von der Leyen said, adding that it would come up with a roadmap for that in mid-May.

Leaders resume at 09:00 GMT on Friday to discuss policy on tackling war-related defense and energy spending in Ukraine. Divisions have emerged over the possibility of a new joint EU debt issuance, advocated by countries such as France and Italy but opposed by Germany, the Netherlands and others. Read more

“The war in Ukraine is an immense trauma… But it is also most certainly something that will lead us to completely redefine the structure of Europe,” Macron said.

Reporting by Jan Strupczewski, Michel Rose, Juliette Jabkhiro, Richard Lough, Philip Blenkinsop, Marine Strauss, Andreas Rinke, Sabine Siebold and Benoit van Overstraeten; Written by Gabriela Baczynska and Richard Lough; Editing by Gareth Jones and Rosalba O’Brien

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

On December 9, 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal for legislative initiative on the working conditions of platform workers. On the same day, he also offered a series of Guidelines this would redefine the scope of European competition law in order to allow collective bargaining between self-employed workers. In the meantime, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act has also been making its way through the legislative pipeline for nearly a year.

These initiatives came after years of intense discussions between experts and policymakers on the disruptive impact of digital platforms and AI on the world of work, both in terms of working conditions and labor market transformation.

However, with these proposals, it is conceivable that the digital transition will also prove to be an opportunity to launch broader constructive reflection on how to ensure the future resilience of labor rights. And, just as significantly, the Commission seems to have realized the importance of approaching this reflection from a multidimensional perspective. The direction taken is certainly promising. But how far is the wind of change blowing?

Platform work and AI regulation

The first dimension through which the Commission approaches digitization is the regulation of platform economy. The draft directive intervenes in the rich debate on the correct classification of platform workers as “employees” or “self-employed” and aims to clarify this issue. The proposed legislation introduces, where specific criteria are met, a presumption of employment status that would help to correct the platforms’ evasive strategies regarding the application of national employment and social protection systems.

This initiative would undoubtedly grant more dignity to platform workers and, at the same time, hold platforms accountable for their social responsibility.

However, it could have gone even further. The directive risks covering only these platforms this to organise work carried out by individuals (Article 2), thus potentially excluding certain crowdworkers. Furthermore, more needs to be done to decouple workers’ access to labor rights from the “subordination vs. autonomy” dichotomy.

Perhaps it is time to recognize that the future of workers’ rights lies in the abandonment of this dualism in favor of a plus universalist approach.

This could be done, for example, by extending the recognition of labor rights to all cases of algorithmic management. The proposal already establishes that in the presence of automated decision-making, a series of rights must be conferred on all workers on the platform regardless of their status (a right to transparency on the system deployed; a right to information and consultation of worker representatives; a right to monitoring of automated mechanisms by human rights; measures to prevent health and safety risks; and data protection rights). Nevertheless, a paradigm shift has not yet been achieved since the rights to employment and social protection remain linked to the existence of an employment relationship.

This brings us to the Commission’s approach AI and automated decision making: the second dimension through which the EU approaches the digital transition in the world of work. The Commission seems to have realized the potentially harmful effect of AI applications on workers’ rights. According to the proposed AI law, AI systems used in a work-related context are considered “high risk” and therefore must undergo a specific ex ante compliance assessment. And, as mentioned, the draft directive on platform workers reinforces these guarantees by assigning a series of rights in the case of algorithmic management.

However, both the proposed AI law and the draft directive do not provide strong enough safeguards. In one case (the AI ​​law), the standards are not strict enough because they are mainly based on self-assessment procedures; and, in the other (the proposal for a directive), the scope is still too narrow since it only concerns platform workers.

There is therefore a need to open an institutional debate in order to address in a more comprehensive way the risks that AI applications pose to all workers and to do so in a way that better integrates labor rights with labor law. of data protection, with existing non-discrimination instruments and with ad hoc and stricter rules on product liability and product standardization in mind.

Monopsonist firms and political will

The Commission has also demonstrated its awareness of the need to intervene in a third dimension, namely the emergence of companies with extraordinarily strong entrepreneurial power.

The digital transition enables monopsonies in the labor market, created when few companies (or only one) “buy labour”. These monopsonist employers, of which Amazon is a prime example, are therefore able to drive down labor costs and cause a general deterioration in working conditions across entire industries and production sectors.

By recognizing the right of the self-employed to collectively bargain their working conditions, the Commission is taking a positive step to limit the excessive bargaining powerof these “super companies”.

The scope of the guidelines is quite broad, since it covers all self-employed persons who are first of all in a “situation comparable to that of workers”, i.e. those who draw at least 50 cent of their total annual income related to the work of a single entity, those who work “side by side” with workers and those who work via digital work platforms. It also covers those who are in a “weak negotiating position vis-à-vis their counterparts and [who] may therefore be unable to significantly influence their working conditions”. This covers those who provide services to entrepreneurs of a certain economic strength who represent an entire sector or industry, or who have a cumulative annual turnover of more than 2 million euros or a workforce of more than 10 workers ( individually or jointly). It also covers all self-employed self-employed persons authorized to bargain collectively under national or EU law.

However, the scope of this initiative could be much wider. It should also be noted that the single self-employed workers described above are simply considered to fall outside the Commission’s enforcement priorities, while remaining firmly within the scope of Article 101 TFEU (unlike self-employed who are in a “situation comparable to workers”, who are designated as outside its scope).

The Draft Guidelines therefore appear to indulge in a classic and undesirable (timid) regulatory fallacy, whereby greater personal scope tends to be correlated with diminishing returns in terms of substantive rights and protections afforded. Hardly a paradigm shift and a movement towards universalism, as also noted by the European Trade Union Confederation.

Moreover, Recital 16 of the Guidelines is quite problematic, as the Commission considers de facto that the exercise of the right to strike by the self-employed “may raise competition concerns” and, therefore, should be subject to a test of proportionality. A memory of Regulation Monti IIdifficult to reconcile with International Labor Organization Convention 87.

The digital transition has accelerated the labor law crisis but, at the same time, it offers the opportunity to open a debate on the reorientation, or even progress, of labor law. EU policymakers have approached a crossroads. The Commission’s proposals have the great merit of creating momentum, previous the initiatives of many national legislators. At the same time, these initiatives could take workers’ rights even more into account.

The policy-making process has just started: the directive on platform workers will have to be discussed, amended and only then finally adopted, after discussion in the European Parliament and by national governments in the Council, while the guidelines on competition law are at the advisory stage. The direction that will be taken will reveal the real political will of the EU institutions and whether it is strong enough to prevent workers’ rights from being (once again) sacrificed on the altar of market forces and powerful actors. companies.

In short

In the not too distant past, many believed that artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) would not significantly change the practice of law. The legal profession was considered – by its very nature – to require specialized skills and nuanced judgment that only humans could provide and would therefore be immune to the disruptive changes brought about by digital transformation. However, the application of ML technology in the legal industry is now increasingly mainstream, particularly as a tool to save lawyers time and provide richer analysis of ever-growing datasets. voluminous to facilitate legal decision-making in court systems around the world.

---

More in detail

One of the main areas of application of ML in justice systems is “predictive justice”. It involves the use of ML algorithms that perform a probabilistic analysis of a particular legal dispute using case law precedents. To function properly, these systems must rely on huge databases of previous court decisions which must be translated into a standardized language which, in turn, is capable of creating predetermined patterns. These will ultimately help the machine learning software generate the prediction.

Does this technology mean that trials are completed at the speed of light, that lawyers can know in advance whether or not to take legal action, that the courts decide a case immediately? Well, there is still a long way to go and we also have to balance the inherent risks of using these technological tools. For example, the data used to train the ML system could lead to biases and consolidate stereotypes and inequalities that would be validated simply because they were produced multiple times by the AI. So beware of possible additional complexity in creating new precedents and case law against the odds!

To assess the opportunities and challenges brought by predictive justice systems using ML tools, it is instructive to examine examples of case law, as often history is an indicator for understanding the future.

Machine Learning in Justice Systems

The first time “predictive justice” began to emerge was in the United States in 2013 in State v. Loomis where it was used by the court in sentencing. In that case, Mr. Loomis, a US citizen, was charged with driving a car during a drive-by shooting, receiving stolen property and resisting arrest. During the trial, the circuit court was assisted in its sentencing decision by a predictive machine learning tool and the end result was that the judge imposed a custodial sentence. Apparently, the judge was convinced by the fact that the machine learning software tool had suggested that there was a high probability that the defendant would reoffend in the same way.

On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the software because the judge would have reached the same result with or without the machine learning software. The decision included the conclusion that the risk assessment provided by the AI ​​software, while not determinative in itself, can be used as a tool to improve a judge’s assessment, taking into account the application of other evidence of conviction when deciding on the appropriate sentence for an accused.

In essence, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized the importance of the role of the judge, stating that this type of machine learning software would not replace their role, but could be used to assist them. As one can imagine, this case opened the door to a new way of dispensing justice.

Indeed, fast forward to today and we read news from Shanghai telling us the story of the first robot ever created to analyze case files and indict defendants based on a verbal description of the case. AI scientists have perfected the robot using a huge amount of cases so that the machine is able to identify various types of crimes (i.e. fraud, theft, gambling) with precision claimed by 97%.

AI-based predictions used to aid courts are becoming more prevalent and can raise significant concerns (including bias and transparency). Several regulatory authorities are cooperating to advance a set of rules, principles and guidance to regulate AI platforms in justice systems and more generally.

For example, in Europe, a significant step towards digital innovation in judicial systems has been taken with the creation of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) which published the “European Ethical Charter on the artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment”, one of the first regulatory documents on AI (“charterThe Charter provides a set of principles to be applied by legislators, legal professionals and policy makers when working with AI/ML tools aimed at ensuring that the use of AI in justice systems is compatible with fundamental rights, including those of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.

Recently, the CEPEJ defined its Action Plan 2022 to 2025 for “Digitalization for better justice” identifying a three-step path to ensure fair use of AI in courts according to the visual representation below:

Source: EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) – Revised roadmap to ensure appropriate follow-up to the CEPEJ Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment.

The CEPEJ’s commitment does not stop there. Indeed, the table below gives an overview of the development of IT tools in the judicial systems of EU Member States (civil and criminal) and the acceleration of the use of information technologies in EU courts.

Source: Dynamic database of European judicial systems.

More generally, the European Commission is currently focusing on developing a set of provisions to regulate AI systems, which are outlined in a draft AI regulation (“Regulation“) published in 2021. The regulation proposes harmonized rules for applications of AI systems. It follows a proportionate risk-based approach that differentiates prohibited, high-risk, restricted and minimal-risk uses of AI systems. Regulatory intervention therefore increases with the increase in the potential of algorithmic systems to cause harm. To learn more, read our alert New draft rules on the use of artificial intelligence.

AI systems used for law enforcement or in the administration of justice are defined as high-risk AI systems under the regulations. Note that the use of real-time biometric identification systems in public places by law enforcement is (subject to certain exceptions) prohibited. High-risk AI systems are subject to requirements, including ensuring the quality of datasets used to train AI systems, applying human oversight, creating records to enable compliance checks, and providing relevant information to users. Various stakeholders, including suppliers, importers, distributors and users of AI systems, are subject to individual requirements, particularly with regard to the compliance of AI systems with the requirements of the regulation and CE marking. of these systems to indicate compliance with the regulations.

The regulation still has a long way to go before it is finally approved and becomes binding on member states, but it’s already a step forward in AI regulation — not just because it can be used in the administration of justice, but also because it can have a profound impact on the way we work, communicate, play, live in the digital age.

Camille Ambrosino contributed to the preparation of this editorial.

This article originally appeared in the January 2022 edition of LegalBytes.

A cross-party coalition of MEPs has co-signed a letter to the European Commission demanding EU-funded research into the potential risks and analytical detection of genetically modified organisms, stressing that this is necessary to create informed policies on the matter.

the letter sent on 8 February, stresses that the EU executive cannot just invest in European research to advance genetically modified (GM) technology and its applications, but should also “urgently invest in European research to deepen our knowledge of potential risks and enable the detection and traceability of GM products throughout the food chain”.

‘Only a comprehensive research program on genetic engineering will allow the EU to develop well-informed policies in this regard,’ MEPs said.

The appeal follows an intense debate over whether the 2018 European Court of Justice ruling – which found that genetically modified organisms fall under the EU’s stricter Genetically Modified Organisms Directive ( GMO) – can be confirmed without any means of distinguishing these crops from conventionally bred varieties.

In the absence of a robust test, EU countries have been unable to test their imports for the presence of GM crops, despite calls for stricter monitoring processes.

This issue must be addressed in the interests of public and environmental safety, letter states, emphasizing that organisms developed with genome-editing technology pose “new and different” risks compared to conventional breeding and currently commercialized genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Gene editing is a growing issue in the EU.

Following the results of a 2021 Commission study, which concluded that the current legal framework governing GE is insufficient, the EU executive is currently reviewing EU rules on technology. The presentation of a legislative proposal is expected in the second quarter of 2023.

The signatories argue that just as it is possible to develop innovative new GM products based on breakthrough genome-editing technology, it is also “possible to develop state-of-the-art risk assessment and detection methods for them.” of technology”.

However, opinions are divided on this point.

Following the development of what activists hailed as the first open source detection method for a genetically modified cropthe industry was still not convinced of its validity.

The EU seed sector told EURACTIV at the time that there had never been any scientific doubt that these genetic changes could be detected, but rather that detection could prove whether the change was of natural origin or a consequence of genetic editing.

Challenging this position, MPs criticized the fact that, so far, there has been no concerted effort to back it up.

“We are convinced that the EU can and must overcome these challenges to maintain a high level of protection for our public health and the environment. However, this will not be possible without dedicated European research,” they say.

According to the European Commission, the EU has spent €685.5 million on research focusing on the bioeconomy related to NGT, including €271 million on plant biotechnology research, between 2007 and 2020. EU member states reported spending €356 million on NGT research over five years. year.

The EU executive explained that most of the funding has been dedicated to the development of these technologies and their applications in agriculture, health and industry.

However, only 1.6% of the 356 million euros spent by EU member states went on research on detection, risk assessment and monitoring methods. At the same time, the EU has not invested in specialized research into the specific risks posed by new GMOs or into ways to detect such GMOs, MEPs point out.

Green MEP Martin Häusling, one of the signatories of the letter, accused the Commission to pluck claims about the safety and untraceable nature of GM crops “from scratch”.

“Neither EU bodies nor national governments have invested money to actually investigate these issues. It is time for the Commission to recognize this and invest European funds in specific research on the potential risks and detection strategies of new GM crops,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, another signatory to the letter, MEP Eleonora Evi, warned that the current inadequacy of monitoring strategies could lead to a “real danger of these new GMOs ending up on our plates unchecked”.

She added that the release of genetically modified crops into the environment poses a serious risk to the EU organic sector, warning that it would “irreparably undermine the credibility of our agricultural production and our national agri-food chain”, which, according to her, has built its strength on “non-GMO” insurance.

“The Commission has a duty to ensure the correct application of European rules, which establish the same authorization, control and traceability process for new GMOs as for traditional GMOs, in order to protect public health and the environment. , as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of justice,” she added.

[Edited by Alice Taylor]

Poland’s ruling party has proposed a bill to amend a disputed disciplinary chamber for judges, in a bid to defuse a long-running row with Brussels over the rule of law.

The chamber was ruled illegal by the EU’s highest court and became a flashpoint in a dispute that has seen Brussels withhold billions of euros in funding from Warsaw.

However, amid growing tensions in neighboring Ukraine, there have been indications that Poland is looking for ways to ease its standoff with Brussels. Last week, President Andrzej Duda outlined his own plan to change the disciplinary system for judges, warning that Poland “didn’t need this fight” in light of “shocks on the international scene”.

According to the proposal put forward by MPs from the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party on Friday, the disciplinary chamber would continue to exist, but would no longer deal with cases involving judges, but only those concerning other legal professionals.

Disciplinary cases involving judges would be handled by panels of three or seven judges drawn by lot from among the members of the Supreme Court.

The law would prevent judges from being sanctioned for the content of their decisions and provide for the reinstatement of those already suspended for this reason, except in cases where the decisions are the result of “serious and totally inexcusable conduct on the part of the judge”. . ”.

The standoff between Brussels and Warsaw over the rule of law has led to a stalemate over Poland’s bid for a €36 billion tranche of the EU’s NextGenerationEU recovery plan. European officials have said Poland should scrap the disciplinary chamber, change its rules and reinstate dismissed judges as conditions for approving Warsaw’s request for pandemic recovery funding.

Duda’s recent opening was hailed in Brussels as a step forward, following failed efforts to address EU complaints about judicial independence in Poland, but was not considered as sufficient to release the frozen funding.

Officials are likely to take a similar view on the latest offer, which could lay the groundwork for more intensive dialogue on Poland’s stimulus package even if it’s not enough to meet the conditions set by the committee.

Daniel Freund, a Green MEP from Germany, said the latest bid was “a step in the right direction” but warned there was a long way to go.

He said: “The conditions are clear. The independence of the judiciary must be restored, unduly dismissed judges must be reinstated and the judgments of the ECJ must be fully implemented. Only then can RRF funds be released.

Jakub Jaraczewski, legal expert at Democracy Reporting International, said while the proposal addressed European concerns “closely” linked to the disciplinary chamber, it failed to address broader criticism of judicial changes in Poland.

“It does nothing about the National Judicial Council, it does nothing about the other problematic chamber of the Supreme Court. . . and it does nothing on the matter with all the new judges who were appointed with a request from the NYC. . . and whose status is increasingly contested before the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights,” he said.

To become law, the bill would have to be approved by the Polish parliament. However, it is unclear whether he would be backed by junior PiS coalition partner United Poland, which is led by hawkish justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro.

Ziobro pushed for a more confrontational approach from Brussels and worked on his own bill amending the disciplinary chamber. Without the United Poland votes, the PiS would need the support of opposition lawmakers to pass the bill.

An EU official said the proposal represented “a step to address issues related to the independence of the judiciary” and as such was a positive development.

But the official added: “It is too early to say whether this satisfactorily addresses the three main issues we have identified. And of course, none of this means much unless and until there is an adoption by the Polish legislator.

The European Commission’s plan to tackle deforestation associated with certain imported agricultural products was unveiled on November 17, 2021. A third of global deforestation is linked to international trade, and it is estimated that the European Union (plus the UK Uni) has an annual “footprint” of around 200,000 hectares, or 16% of global trade-related deforestation.

The Commission proposal provides that before placing a product on the European market, each company must ensure that it is not linked to a deforested territory after December 31, 2020, by geolocating the plots from which it comes. and by setting up a traceability system. The products concerned are palm oil, soya, cocoa, coffee, beef and wood. Surprisingly, natural rubber from rubber trees is not included, although it is one of the drivers of deforestation, although not the most important.

The cornerstone of this project is the obligation of “due diligence” imposed on importers, i.e. all the checks they must carry out to ensure the origin of the product to be imported, its legality and the conditions of its production, thus reducing the risk of commercialization of products involved in deforestation.

A broad “amnesty” for recent deforestation

One of the main elements of this draft regulation is the mention of a “deforestation deadline” set at 31/12/2020. Concretely, this means that if the conversion of forests took place before this date, they are not considered to be participating in deforestation. The end date of 2020 is more than a compromise, it is the upper limit of a range mentioned by the European Commission (“between 2015 and 2020”) a few months ago.

The European Parliament had voted in 2020 a resolution stipulating that the date of January 1^st, 2015 had to be retained. The date proposed by the Commission is clearly a gesture towards the importing industry (and the producing countries) who were asking for the adoption of a date close to the present. And that “amnesties” a lot of recent deforestation in major producing countries, like Brazil, whereas low-deforestation countries like Gabon that might want to develop their agriculture by clearing now will likely find that they are penalized more.

See related: How do the Glasgow and New York declarations on forests compare?

The thorny question of legal deforestation

The other important point is the adoption of the FAO definition of forests, namely 10% tree cover (excluding oil palms for example) on a minimum area of ​​0.5 hectares. However, many countries have adopted a minimum threshold of 30% tree cover to define forests, ie a narrower definition of forest. By setting a 10% threshold to define zero deforestation products, products considered legal in the country of origin (whose conversion may have involved an ecosystem with, for example, 20% coverage) will be unacceptable to the EU, and, in principle, will not be allowed to be imported. This will create strong trade tensions and possible retaliatory measures (one can think of the sales of Airbus).

The idea of ​​having a single definition of forest for all countries (i.e. the same for Gabon, a country of dense forests, and Burkina Faso, a country of dry and open forests) and all biomes, poses a problem of realism. It would be more appropriate to look at things on a case-by-case basis, or even biome by biome, since some countries have several forest biomes. To move in this direction, it would probably be better for the EU to rely on independent certifications such as the Rainforest Alliance for cocoa, or the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) for oil palm, which have recently Adopted the “Zero Deforestation” Criteria.

On the other hand, the adoption of a single threshold of 10% tree cover to define forest risks allows the conversion of many parts of wooded savannahs, such as the Brazilian Cerrado, into soybean fields. Indeed, these savannas rich in biodiversity and rich in carbon in their soils are often below the threshold of 10% tree cover. The European Commission announces that it will probably consider extending its regulations to other natural ecosystems in a second phase. It should be noted, however, that the adoption of a general measure of “non-conversion of natural ecosystems” (which would essentially aim to protect the Cerrado) would go against the orientations proposed by the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), a coalition of donor organizations of which the European Commission is a stakeholder, to ensure that large-scale cultivation (oil palm in particular) develops in savannahs (and therefore natural ecosystems such as Cerrado).

While there are large tracts of degraded and abandoned pasture in Brazil that could be rehabilitated for new crops or plantations, this is hardly the case in the Congo Basin. Taking the context into account will therefore be crucial in order to make relevant decisions and avoid adverse effects. If it seems difficult for a bureaucratic machine such as the Commission to be able to take the context into account in detail, it is reasonable to think that independent certifications meeting the precise specifications of the public authority will do so.

Tropical timber imports under threat

For tropical timber, a rather unexpected threat appears with the mention of forest “degradation” in addition to deforestation. This consideration of degradation seems to be the result of listening to lobbies against logging. The definition of degradation is rather vague: the European project states that degradation means exploitation operations “that are not sustainable”, while the following paragraph indicates that sustainable exploitation means the absence of degradation (of forests primary). It looks like a circular reference.

See related: Mongabay series explores Congo’s massively carbon-rich, highly biodiverse peatland forests

Avoiding degradation involves, by some definitions, maintaining the original species composition, age structure or rate of distribution of a forest stand. All this is modified by selective logging, even controlled and certified (not to mention the CO₂ roads, damage caused by harvesting and logging). The Commission’s draft specifies that forestry operations must not lead to “loss of biological or economic productivity” or affect “the complexity of ecosystems”. These criteria will be difficult to interpret and few operations can claim to fully meet them.

It is a sword of Damocles suspended above the tropical woods, since they are the ones explicitly concerned by this mention of degradation in the draft regulations. The Commission does not question the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR) of 2013, which aims to sanction importers who place illegally felled timber on the European market. This suggests that there will be no short-term stop to tropical timber imports, but NGOs can raise the issue at any time and ask the EU to be consistent with its non-degradation criteria. It is likely that imports of wood from forests considered “primary” (little disturbed by human activities) will be quickly called into question, which will pose a problem for many foresters in Gabon, Congo and Cameroon, even those certified by demanding labels such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

Finally, a benchmarking (comparative analysis) of the countries will be carried out to measure the level of due diligence according to the country risk. The criteria for comparison should be deforestation rates, production trends of products at risk of deforestation, national policies, quality of governance, etc. While this approach makes sense, it may discourage importers from sourcing from countries such as Cameroon, Cambodia or the Democratic Republic. of the Congo, given the effort they will have to make in terms of guarantees. By not wanting to rely on “zero deforestation” certifications to declare the product “negligible risk”, the Commission will penalize “clean” producers in contexts of “difficult governance”. This amounts to collective punishment.

Alain Karsenty is an environmental economist and senior researcher at the French Center for Agricultural Research for International Development (CIRAD) in Montpellier, France. He is the author of dozens of scientific articles and co-author of several books.

Banner image: Felling rainforest trees for a road in Gabon. Image © Markus Mauthe/Greenpeace Media Library.

Related listening: Our podcast recently explored mining and palm oil in the Democratic Republic of Congo, sectors where human rights violations and environmental abuses are common, listen here:

The European Union welcomed Sri Lanka’s move to amend its draconian counter-terrorism law, but noted that “important elements” were missing from the published journal and urged Colombo to take further practical steps and administrative procedures to release on bail persons detained under the law without charges.

Sri Lanka is under pressure from the EU to reform the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which allows detention for up to 90 days without being charged with provisions for a further extension of the term.

The Sri Lankan government, through a January 27 gazette notification, announced changes to the PTA, which officials described as its attempt to bring the law into line with international standards of anti-terrorism legislation.

”The EU has welcomed the presentation by the Sri Lankan government of amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). However, the EU noted that important elements had not been included in the draft amendment law published in the Official Gazette,” said a joint press release issued after the 24th meeting of the EU-Sri Lanka Joint Committee meeting in Brussels on Tuesday.

“The EU urged Sri Lanka to continue to reduce the use of the PTA and to take further practical and administrative measures to release on bail those detained under the PTA without charge,” she said.

Colombo noted the views expressed by the EU to take further steps to bring the PTA fully in line with international standards and assured that further practical and administrative steps to release on bail those detained under the PTA without charge would be taken, according to the press release.

The Joint Committee, which oversees the 1995 EU-Sri Lanka Cooperation Agreement on Partnership and Development, deals with a wide range of bilateral and multilateral issues of common interest. Its tasks are to ensure the proper functioning and implementation of the Agreement, to set priorities and to make recommendations.

In June 2021, the European Parliament had called for the repeal of the PTA and urged the European Commission to consider temporarily withdrawing Sri Lanka’s access to GSP+, a privileged trade concession for the island’s exports.

The amendments published in the Official Gazette included measures such as the reduction of the period of detention, the visit of magistrates to places of detention to eliminate torture, the access of lawyers to detainees, the authorization to communicate with relatives, speeding up the hearing of cases and introducing a new section to allow bail for PTA detainees.

The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday that the PTA Amendment Bill, which the government intends to introduce in Parliament and once enacted, would be salutary legislation that would give people a tangible protection.

After 43 years since its enactment, ”this would be the most progressive step that would give those subject to said law, tangible protection to secure, advance and protect their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights”, he said. he declares.

Senior EU officials visited the island nation in October last year and discussed the PTA, recalling that its amendment was a key commitment in Sri Lanka’s readmission to GSP+ in 2017.

GSP+ preferences for Sri Lanka were withdrawn in 2010 due to significant shortcomings in the country’s implementation of three UN human rights conventions.

Sri Lanka was readmitted to GSP+ in May 2017. The EU’s GSP+ trade concession allows Sri Lankan exports to Europe without taxation. This has been a big boost for Sri Lanka’s garment and fishing industries.

The EU remains Sri Lanka’s main export partner, followed by the United States and India. Over 80% of Sri Lanka’s exports to the EU are eligible for GSP+ concessions.

(This story has not been edited by the Devdiscourse team and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

The Sri Lankan government is using the discredited Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) to commit prolonged arbitrary detentions and torture, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The European Union, other trading partners and donors should push for time-bound action to repeal the abusive law and reject the government’s vague promises of reform.

The 59-page report, “Into a legal black hole: Sri Lanka’s failure to reform the Prevention of Terrorism Act,” documents the misuse of the PTA by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration against Tamil minority communities and Muslim women, and to repress civil society groups. . The administration has rejected promises by the previous government to repeal the law after it re-entered the EU’s Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), which grants Sri Lanka special duty-free access to EU markets. EU.

“Sri Lankan authorities continue to use the Prevention of Terrorism Act to sweep away the basic rights of those targeted, reneging on past government promises to repeal the law,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, Asia Director of the South to Human Rights Watch. “EU members and other countries should reject the Rajapaksa administration’s flimsy promises to reform the PTA and push for the swift repeal of the law.”

This report is based on Human Rights Watch research on the Prevention of Terrorism Act conducted since 2018, interviews conducted between January and December 2021, and a review of newly available court documents. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Attorney General of Sri Lanka and the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission, and received a response from the commission which is included in the report.

The PTA allows authorities to arrest people without a warrant for unspecified “illegal activities” and detain suspects for up to 18 months without bringing them to court. This deprives suspects of their basic due process rights and removes safeguards that would protect them from abuse, creating a legal black hole, Human Rights Watch said.

The Rajapaksa administration has used the PTA to detain or intimidate the families of victims of past abuses, human rights activists and lawyers, and journalists. “When you talk to the families of the missing, they say they can be arrested at any time,” said an activist working with the Tamil community. “The police are arresting people for posting photos on Facebook. They can arrest you for anything.

The EU withdrew Sri Lanka from GSP+ in 2010 amid rights abuses at the end of the civil war, but re-admitted the country in 2017 after the then government renewed commitments to adopt and implement 27 human rights and other international conventions, and in particular repeal the PTA. This follows a consensus resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2015, in which Sri Lanka agreed to ensure accountability and reparations for war crimes, investigate enforced disappearances and repeal this law. Most of these commitments have yet to be fulfilled.

In June 2021, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Commission to “advance Sri Lanka’s human rights obligations and demand the repeal or replacement of the PTA” when assessing Sri Lanka’s eligibility for GSP+ status. A review is currently underway and is expected to be completed later this year.

Since the beginning of 2021, the Rajapaksa government has renewed its promises to review the provisions of the law, but no substantive proposal has been put forward. Instead, the government introduced an order in 2021 that would make the law even more abusive. Any proposed amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure would further undermine the protection of human rights.

Before enacting a counter-terrorism law, the Sri Lankan government should carry out meaningful and inclusive consultations with civil society groups and adopt the “necessary prerequisites” set out in December 2021 by seven United Nations human rights experts to uphold Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, Human Rights Watch said.

UN experts have noted that the PTA contradicts Sri Lanka’s obligations under several international human rights conventions. Sri Lanka’s participation in GSP+ includes a commitment to implement these conventions.

“The Rajapaksa administration’s abusive actions have proven stronger than its vague promises of reform,” Ganguly said. “The EU, US and UK should hold the Sri Lankan government to its international obligations and press for meaningful action to protect human rights.”

SAN FRANCISCO—

As much as China and the International Olympic Committee have pushed for the Olympics to be a neutral event, political controversy and boycotts of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics began months before Friday’s opening ceremonies.

But not everyone is entangled in politics.

Boycott supporters, including human rights groups, are calling out Beijing over perceived heavy-handed tactics towards Taiwan, anti-Beijing protesters in the Chinese territory of Hong Kong and the largely Muslim Uighur population in China’s Xinjiang region.

Still, analysts say many developing countries value their economic ties with China, despite political divides, so they have sent officials as well as athletes to stay on Beijing’s good side.

Australia has avoided sending government officials to the Games from Feb. 4-20 because it believes China is violating human rights and refuses to hold talks on trade and diplomatic disputes. Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the move in early December, becoming one of more than a dozen countries to announce diplomatic boycotts.

Most other countries subject to diplomatic boycotts are like Australia – with a history of human rights concerns in China and enough wealth to shrug off economic retaliation. The United States announced its diplomatic boycott in December. Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan and a dozen European countries followed. Although government officials are not present, these nations still allow their athletes to participate in the Winter Games.

“In Europe I think it’s very important and here in the United States and Australia there are people who really care about human rights,” said Scott Harold, a Washington-based senior political scientist at the within the Rand Corporation research group. “It’s not just a stick to beat China or an attempt to contain China’s rise. Part of it is really about living the values ​​that you think guide your politics.

Six Summer or Winter Olympiads in the event’s more than 100-year history have resisted boycotts.

Beijing officials view diplomatic boycotts as an inappropriate mix of sport and politics. They vowed retaliation against the United States in December.

The American diplomatic boycott of its Games “seriously violated the principle of the political neutrality of sport established by the Olympic Charter and that the United States will pay the price”. the state-run China Daily reported.

China has denied accusations of human rights abuses and described the reasons behind some US lawmakers’ call for a diplomatic boycott as “full of lies and misinformation” that are “based on ideology and beliefs.” political prejudice” according to Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

Economic and regional links

China’s economic clout prevents some governments from boycotting, said James Gomez, regional director of the Asia Center, a Bangkok-based think tank. Countries in the developing world, particularly in Asia and Africa, see China’s $15.6 trillion economy as an irreplaceable market for exports and a source of direct investment.

“China is there, it’s big, so let’s just play nice even though they might not mean it because in the game of diplomacy, everyone uses double talk,” Gomez said. “So even though they may be politically aligned in a different way, they still won’t publicly distance themselves from China.”

The Philippines, which has its own list of problems with China, decided to send three officials to the Games along with its only athlete, alpine skier Asa Miller.

Filipinos have had “virtually no public discussion about whether or not to participate” in the Games this month, said Herman Kraft, a professor of political science at the University of the Philippines Diliman. Beijing and Manila have fought with occasional clashes between ships since 2012 for control of the resource-rich South China Sea between them.

“There might be concerns about retaliation, but I think it’s more of a preventative thing in the sense that they’re not too interested in using the Olympics as a forum or an arena where relations with China could actually be endangered,” Kraft says.

Other Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia and Vietnam, also vie with China for maritime sovereignty, but Malaysia has praised China for hosting the Olympics. Vietnamese President Nguyen Xuan Phuc has sent a letter to Chinese officials wishing them a successful Winter Olympics, according to Vietnamese state media Nhan Dan.

A “fear of further sanctions” may explain South Korea’s reluctance to boycott the Games, the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said in a January 13 study. China sanctioned South Korea after deploying the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense anti-missile system in 2016, according to the study, which cost tourism alone $15.7 billion.

Beijing kicked off the Olympics on Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping and International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach at an opening ceremony at the National Stadium.