Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Research Articles

Science advice for international governance – An evidence-based perspective on the role of SCAR in the Antarctic Treaty System

Knowledge brokers are essential for science-based international governance. Recently, the objectivity of the Antarctic Treaty System’s (ATS) primary knowledge broker, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), has been questioned, both in discussions at ATS meetings and now in a recent published perspective. Much of the concern is based on a misunderstanding of SCAR’s history, structure and internal operations, and of its interactions with the ATS, in particular at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs). Articulation of these concerns provides a useful basis for an examination of science-based advice in an international governance system founded on peace and science. Therefore, this study provides an evidence-based assessment of SCAR’s operations and history with respect to its interactions with the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs). It shows that the dangers of lack of objectivity by SCAR, or its politicization by one or more of its Members have long been recognised by SCAR, and that SCAR has policies and procedures that are specifically designed to preclude this happening, as might be expected from a reliable international knowledge broker. Evidence-based clarification of SCAR’s interactions with the ATCPs demonstrate that no evidence exists of bias to SCAR’s advice to ATCMs throughout its history. This study therefore shows that concerns about lack of objectivity do not reflect any systematic problems within SCAR. Rather, the study shows they reflect insufficient appreciation of the way in which SCAR acts as a reliable knowledge broker in the ATS. The assessment provides a useful overview of best practice in science-based advice for international governance.

India and the Emerging Geopolitics of the Antarctic

The Antarctic is emerging as a new space for geopolitical contestations. Politicisation of discussions during annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and emerging aspirations of countries to dominate the region pose significant challenges to Antarctic governance. China’s expanding footsteps through its new research bases with dual-use critical infrastructures and its increasing interest in fishing and other Antarctic resources raise global concerns. In this existing model of Antarctic governance, with possibilities and probabilities of structural changes in the future, there are several key areas where India needs to prioritise its engagements to fulfil its broader national interests in the Antarctic.

International law, climate change and the Antarctic Treaty System: re-contemplating governance questions apropos of the mounting challenges

Abstract More than 60 years since it entered into force in 1961, the Antarctic Treaty is experiencing significant challenges. These challenges also affect its associated instruments known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). These are mostly external dynamics that are increasingly challenging the ATS from outside of the Antarctic region. They encompass a spectrum of issues relating to global legal regimes and to what extent they are applicable in the Antarctic context. Climate change appears to be the most significant of these challenges, as the tangible planetary impacts of global warming and the perception of its urgency and seriousness by states have prompted additional challenges to the ATS. The physical changes that continue to be scientifically unveiled in the Antarctic are manifesting severe impacts on a planetary scale, and this fact has underscored the need for broader and more rapid international engagement within the Antarctic governance discourse. Nevertheless, the existing decision-making mechanisms compounded by the adversarial atmosphere within the ATS due to external factors have become challenges of themselves. Such challenges call for the re-contemplation and reassessment of the legal regime of the Antarctic in general, and the ATS in particular, to find ways forward for an otherwise historically effective international legal system. This paper utilizes both scientific and legal lenses to underscore the urgent need to achieve better communication between the ATS generally, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings specifically and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regimes and to overcome the multiple barriers that stand in the way of achieving that objective.

Identifying Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas in Antarctica Using RPAS Surveys—A Case Study of Cape Melville, King George Island, Antarctica

A remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) survey of an area containing the eastern extremity of King George Island, including Cape Melville and an extensive part of Destruction Bay, as well as small offshore islands, was undertaken in December 2022. Using RPAS, an inventory of the Destruction Bay area was performed. Chinstrap penguin and Antarctic shag nests were found on Cape Melville and on Trowbridge Island, Middle Island, and an unnamed area located between the Ørnen Rocks formation and Trowbridge Island. During the survey, 507 Antarctic shag nests and over 9000 chinstrap penguin nests were mapped in the investigated area; 458 Antarctic shag nests and 4960 ± 19 chinstrap penguin nests aggregated together on an 8.61 ha land section of Cape Melville were identified. The quantity of Antarctic shag nests found allows for the classification of the area of Cape Melville as an IBA. Among the 175 currently known colonies of Antarctic shags in Antarctica, this is the fifth largest. In this paper, we present the results of the survey, including orthophotos with mapped nest locations. We propose the following recommendations to policy makers and the scientific community: (1) the area of Cape Melville should be classified as an Antarctic Important Bird and Biodiversity Area; (2) based on the RPAS flight, a new boundary of the Cape Melville IBA is proposed; (3) the threshold value (based on >1% of species) to establish an IBA for Antarctic shags should be changed to 122 to reflect the increased estimate of the global population of Antarctic shags; and (4) an inventory of all areas, including previous IBAs that can be qualified as “major colonies of breeding native birds”, should be recommended at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM). In logistically inaccessible bird breeding sites, such as the one presented here, RPASs should be used to carry out regular monitoring of Antarctic Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas.

The emerging contribution of Türkiye to Antarctic science and policy

AbstractAntarctica is a continent dedicated to ‘peace and science’ and subject to international consensus-based governance through the Antarctic Treaty System. Through the Treaty, decision-making powers are reserved to Consultative Parties, which are those countries recognized as demonstrating ‘substantial scientific research activity’ in Antarctica. Türkiye acceded to the Antarctic Treaty in 1996. In its National Polar Science Program (2018–2022) it first declared a desire to attain consultative status to the Treaty. Here, we examine Türkiye‘s recent development across Antarctic science, policy and logistics. Since 2016, Türkiye’s national Antarctic scientific output has increased threefold, ranking seventh amongst the current 27 non-Consultative Parties, and this output is greater than some Consultative Parties. Türkiye has submitted more papers to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings than any other non-Consultative Party and is actively participating in the development of the Antarctic Protected Area system. To facilitate longer-term research goals, Türkiye is constructing an Antarctic research station (Horseshoe Island, Antarctic Peninsula), has joined several polar organizations, including the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP), and has developed scientific and logistical collaborations with many established Antarctic nations. The exceptionally rapid growth of Türkiye's Antarctic activities provides a firm foundation for the development of a future application for consultative status.

China’s Role of Bioprospecting in Antarctica and Future Prospects

Abstract The rapid advancement of biotechnology in the late 20th century promoted bioprospecting in Antarctica and has been a regular topic of discussion in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) since 2002. However, there still needs to be an explicit regulatory framework in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). Meanwhile, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) posed competitive governance mandates on regulating bioprospecting in the Antarctic Treaty Area and challenging the legitimacy of ATS. China’s increasing Antarctic presence is also reflected in its bioprospecting activities. However, its enthusiasm for bioprospecting remains inconsistent with its approach towards the ATS through reluctant contribution on regulation. This article will analyze the discussions on bioprospecting in the ATCM as contained within the ACTM meeting documents. Then, this article will analyze how China should actively pursue legitimate bioprospecting interests in the Antarctic from three aspects, which include improving domestic laws and regulations on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing activities, speedy enactment of Antarctic legislation, and leading the establishment of regulations on Antarctic bioprospecting in the ATCM. It concludes with an outlook on bioprospecting regulation and China’s role in future prospects.

The Antarctic Stations Status in the Context of Antarctica's Frozen Territorial Claims of the States Parties to the Antarctic Treaty and Applicable National Legislation

The paper analyzes the Russian doctrine of international law and gives a critical assessment of its state, because the problems of Antarctica traditionally belong to international maritime law. However, the author defines the concept of international Antarctic law as an intersectoral international legal institution with a certain independence within the framework of international territorial law. It is noted that the problems of Antarctica have gone beyond the cognitive interest of the academic community, moving into the context of a clash of geopolitical interests among states, which caused the attempts of five states to establish their sovereignty by means of sectoral division. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 established a notification procedure for the establishment of Antarctic stations, the modern administrative regime is provided by the activities of institutional mechanisms. With about 100 Antarctic stations and bases opened by States, their international legal status remains uncertain. The problem has acquired particular importance because Russian stations are located in the sectors of territorial claims, which generates competitive processes. By concluding bilateral agreements with States that have put forward territorial claims, it is possible to partially neutralize the competition of jurisdictions in certain areas of cooperation. In the documents adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATC), attention is paid only to the problems of the station placement and issues of their verification during inspection activities. In order to fill the gap, the author proposed the definition of the Antarctic station as a legal enclave of the State, which is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the founding State and establishes immunity from the jurisdiction of other states. The maintenance and development of Russia’s presence in Antarctica is ensured by Russian Antarctic legislation. In order to develop the Russian expeditionary infrastructure (including Antarctic stations and field bases), it is important to develop and adopt a regulation on the status of the Russian Antarctic station, in connection with which measures to improve legislation are proposed.

Berlin statement on legacy and emerging contaminants in polar regions

Polar regions should be given greater consideration with respect to the monitoring, risk assessment, and management of potentially harmful chemicals, consistent with requirements of the precautionary principle. Protecting the vulnerable polar environments requires (i) raising political and public awareness and (ii) restricting and preventing global emissions of harmful chemicals at their sources. The Berlin Statement is the outcome of an international workshop with representatives of the European Commission, the Arctic Council, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), environmental specimen banks, and data centers, as well as scientists from various international research institutions. The statement addresses urgent chemical pollution issues in the polar regions and provides recommendations for improving screening, monitoring, risk assessment, research cooperation, and open data sharing to provide environmental policy makers and chemicals management decision-makers with relevant and reliable contaminant data to better protect the polar environments. The consensus reached at the workshop can be summarized in just two words: “Act now!”Specifically, “Act now!” to reduce the presence and impact of anthropogenic chemical pollution in polar regions by.•Establishing participatory co-development frameworks in a permanent multi-disciplinary platform for Arctic-Antarctic collaborations and establishing exchanges between the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) of the Arctic Council and the Antarctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AnMAP) of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to increase the visibility and exchange of contaminant data and to support the development of harmonized monitoring programs.•Integrating environmental specimen banking, innovative screening approaches and archiving systems, to provide opportunities for improved assessment of contaminants to protect polar regions.

Advancing Antarctic climate change policy: upcoming opportunities for scientists and policymakers to work together

AbstractClimate change is increasingly affecting Antarctica and the rest of the world. Urgent policy responses are needed to mitigate its associated impacts. Engagement of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) with the issue of climate change has culminated in several important meetings planned for 2023/2024. Researchers play a crucial role in the provision of the best available science to inform action by Antarctic policymakers, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) clearly will play an important role in representing the Antarctic science community and delivering the latest science into the upcoming meetings. However, recognizing the ATCM's call for Parties and other stakeholders to bring experts to its meeting to support the work and with acknowledgement by CCAMLR and CEP of the value of including a range of scientific experts, we highlight the opportunity for and importance of researchers engaging proactively to offer further bespoke scientific support. Given the urgency of addressing climate change in Antarctica and beyond, every effort is needed from researchers and policymakers to work together to facilitate the necessary policy responses at both the national and international level.

Ant-ICON - ‘Integrated Science to Inform Antarctic and Southern Ocean Conservation’: a new SCAR Scientific Research Programme

AbstractAntarctic and Southern Ocean environments are facing increasing pressure from multiple threats. The Antarctic Treaty System regularly looks to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for the provision of independent and objective advice based on the best available science to support decision-making, policy development and effective environmental management. The recently approved SCAR Scientific Research Programme Ant-ICON - ‘Integrated Science to Inform Antarctic and Southern Ocean Conservation‘ - facilitates and coordinates high-quality transdisciplinary research to inform the conservation and management of Antarctica, the Southern Ocean and the sub-Antarctic in the context of current and future impacts. The work of Ant-ICON focuses on three research themes examining 1) the current state and future projections of Antarctic systems, species and functions, 2) human impacts and sustainability and 3) socio-ecological approaches to Antarctic and Southern Ocean conservation, and one synthesis theme that seeks to facilitate the provision of timely scientific advice to support effective Antarctic conservation. Research outputs will address the most pressing environmental challenges facing Antarctica and offer high-quality science to policy and advisory bodies including the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, the Committee for Environmental Protection and the Scientific Committee of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

Regulation of Mineral Resource Activities in Antarctica

Mineral resource activities in Antarctica were brought to the agenda at the 6th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) held in Tokyo for the first time in 1970. The Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA), which regulates the issue in detail, could not enter into force after France and Australia decided not to sign the Convention. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEPAT) was signed after the Special ATCMs that took place in Madrid in 1991 to review the Antarctic Treaty. The Protocol entered into force on 14 January 1998, after the ratification of all Consultative Parties. PEPAT, which does not modify the Antarctic Treaty in any way, is among the legal documents within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) as its annex. Unlike CRAMRA, with the provision of PEPAT Article 7, mineral resource activities are completely prohibited. The only exception to the related prohibition is mineral resource activities for scientific research. This does not mean that the mentioned activities will be carried out in an unlimited way. These activities are subject to PEPAT and Annex 1 Environmental Impact Assessment. Continuity of the absolute prohibition of mineral resource activities is a significant issue. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 25/1 of PEPAT, provisions of the PEPAT may be modified or amended by the unanimous agreement of the Consultative Parties including Article 7. Apart from this, in the ongoing paragraph of the same article, after the expiration of 50 years from the date of entry into force of PEPAT, this period corresponds to 2048, a conference will be held to review the functioning of PEPAT with the notification of any of the Consultative Parties. It was envisaged that the proposed amendments to the PEPAT at the Review Conference would be adopted by a majority of the Parties, including 3/4 of the States which are Consultative Parties at the time of PEPAT's entry into force (1998), including Article 7, which prohibits mineral resource activities. When signed, PEPAT, which is considered to be difficult to enter into force since all of the Consultative Parties' approval has to be given, took effect in line with the emergence of the common interest in this direction. This shows the Consultative Parties' commitment to the protection of Antarctica and especially the prohibition of mineral resource activities. The determination in question was once again expressed by the Declaration published after the 32nd ATCM and the Resolution adopted in the 39th ATCM, although they were not legally binding. Especially in the Resolution, the emphasis on both the continuity of the prohibition on mineral resource activities and the incorrect belief in the media that PEPAT will be expired in 2048 is noteworthy.

Conservation Law in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean: the Antarctic Treaty System, conservation, and environmental protection

ABSTRACT The Antarctic Treaty System provides the corpus of law that governs the obligations of its Parties to protect and conserve the Antarctic environment. The System consists principally of the Antarctic Treaty (the Treaty), the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention), and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protocol). The Antarctic Treaty establishes the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting – the body that makes decisions under the provisions of the Treaty and Environmental Protocol. The CAMLR Convention establishes the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) – its decision-making body. Together, these two international bodies are responsible for the modern-day conservation and environmental management regimes for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. This paper looks at the scope of law developed under the Antarctic Treaty System and its evolution; and at the interaction between the different components of the Antarctic Treaty System. The paper also forecasts some of the future challenges to conservation and environmental protection in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.

Diplomatic culture and institutional design: Analyzing sixty years of Antarctic Treaty governance.

Since 1961 the Antarctic Treaty has been acknowledged internationally as the legitimate forum through which decision-making for the region takes place. Membership growth and the establishment of new conventions are strong indicators of how this international regime has overcome challenges to its functioning, while preserving peace maintenance, scientific cooperation and environmental protection as the main pillars of Antarctic governance. For this special volume of Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Science, this work provides an overview of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings' operation, highlighting how they established specific diplomatic practices: the progressive introduction of issues, the avoidance of contentious issues, and "watered-down", ambiguous text, all of which have enabled parties to circumvent conflict and reach consensual agreement. Based on analysis of the Antarctic Treaty Database, this work shows the main practices developed through the Antarctic Treaty and concludes that the adaptability of Treaty Parties to manage challenges over the last 60 years will unquestionably continue to underpin the regime.

3. Antarctica

This report provides an overview of the policy developments in the past year relating to Antarctica. It only focuses on some issues discussed at the thirty-ninth meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) held online on 27–30 October: impacts of climate change on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources; illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Convention Area; and implementation of objectives of the Convention. Other issues discussed at the CCAMLR meeting include the management of marine resources with the advice from the Scientific Committee, and the review and adoption of new conservation measures, among others (all reports and documents relating to CCAMLR meetings can be found at <https://www.ccamlr.org/en/meetings/26>). The forty-third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting and the twenty-third Committee for Environmental Protection meeting were cancelled due to the pandemic.

3. Antarctica

This report provides an overview of the legal and policy developments relating to Antarctica. It focuses on the forty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), held in Prague, Czech Republic, on 1–11 July; the twenty-second meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), held in Prague on 1–5 July; and the thirty-eighth meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR-38), held in Hobart, Australia, from 21 October to 1 November. After a discussion of operational issues of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), the report emphasizes a few selected issues that were discussed at the ATCM and the CEP meetings, such as bioprospecting, tourism, and non-governmental activities and environmental protection. It then turns to some issues discussed at CCAMLR-38: marine protected areas (MPAs) and the impacts of climate change on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (all reports and documents relating to the ATCM and...

Participation in the Antarctic Treaty

ABSTRACT Participation in the Antarctic Treaty and its main decision-making body – the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) – has been highly sensitive from the outset, in particular due to the fundamental issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ATCM’s decision-making by unanimity. Broader participation means enhanced applicability of the Antarctic Treaty and acts adopted by the ATCM, but does not necessarily improve effectiveness because each new participant obtains a de facto right to veto. There are multiple reasons why States want to participate in the Antarctic Treaty and other key instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System, including reasons related to the issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ability to engage in activities such as scientific research, tourism and exploitation of resources. The objective of this article is to analyse the grounds and requirements for participation in the Antarctic Treaty, their genesis during the negotiations on the Antarctic Treaty, and their subsequent operationalisation and application in practice.

Tourism and heritage in Antarctica: exploring cultural, natural and subliminal experiences

ABSTRACT The guidelines on heritage management adopted by the 2018 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting provide the most recent iteration for an Antarctic tourism sector which had, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, been projected to increase further with various risks and potential impacts requiring careful management. In this paper the role of cultural heritage for tourism prior to the COVID-19 pandemic is examined through three empirical perspectives. First, how the Antarctic cultural heritage is represented through the designation of Historic Sites and Monuments and Site Guidelines for Visitors; then how this is presented through tourism operators’ websites; and, finally, how it is experienced by visitors as narrated in open-source social media information. Each dataset suggests that, while cultural heritage is an important component of an increasingly commodified tourist offering, it is only part of an assemblage of elements which combine to create a subliminal and largely intangible Antarctic experience. In particular, a polarization of the heritage experience between cultural and natural does not appear productive. The paper proposes a more nuanced understanding of heritage tourism in Antarctica which accommodates the notion of a hybrid experience that integrates cultural heritage, the history and stories this heritage represents, and the natural environmental setting.

Biological Prospecting in Antarctica – A Solution-Based Approach to Regulating the Collection and Use of Antarctic Marine Biodiversity by Taking the BBNJ Process into Account

Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) are covering nearly two-thirds of the world’s oceans and are rich in biological diversity. These also include the Polar Regions, where marine organisms adapted to extreme environments and led to increased scientific interest and activities, including bioprospecting activities. As a result, marine biodiversity is increasingly threatened. Thus, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) was established to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity but left ABNJ and bioprospecting activities widely unregulated. In Antarctica, for instance, bioprospecting has raised concerns, and the matter has been discussed since 2002. As a result, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 69/292 concluded the establishment of a new international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity for ABNJ. However, the inclusion of the Antarctic Treaty Area remains unclear. In light of the current BBNJ negotiations, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) only acknowledges the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) as the appropriate framework to regulate these activities in Antarctica. Further, it seems to aim for regulation under the ATS, if at all. Therefore, this paper discusses a solution-based approach for possible regulation of the collection and use of Antarctic marine biodiversity. The negotiations and achievements of the current BBNJ process will be taken into account, as they might provide support for the regulation of these issues in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.

Legal Issues concerning DROMLAN under the Antarctic Treaty System

The purpose of this paper is to explore possible legal issues concerning the Dronning Maud Land Air Network (DROMLAN) under the Antarctic Treaty system. By examining the recent discussion concerning DROMLAN within the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and relevant State practice, this paper argues that States parties have difficulty in fully complying with the obligations of advanced notice under Article VII (5) of the Antarctic Treaty and Environmental Impact Assessment under Article VIII (2) of the Madrid Protocol for DROMLAN’s operation. Finally, this paper suggests that good communication among relevant States parties and private actors is important for enhancing compliance with these obligations.

The Déjà vu System of International Trusteeship in Continental Antarctica: A Textual Analysis

In the name of environmental protection, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting seems to have borrowed the paradigm of international trusteeship of the United Nations for managing the Antarctic land-based protected areas. By comparing and analysing the critical questions highly concerned, this paper offers preliminary thoughts on the development and refinement of the conception of land-based protected areas as a déjà vu system of international trusteeship and its surrounding legal applications and implications in continental Antarctica, and challenges the direction followed by this system in protecting Antarctic intrinsic values in legal discourse.