Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties 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.

Survey of a snow petrel nesting site in a remote high mountain region to inform designation of an Antarctic Specially Protected Area

Despite the sensitivity of ecosystems in extreme conditions, only 0.029% of the Antarctic continent is currently granted special protection as Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA). Additionally, protected areas are unevenly distributed and unrepresentative of the biodiversity of Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are thus striving to establish a more coherent network of protected areas. In this context, the Otto-von-Gruber-Gebirge was identified as an area highly worthy of protection due to its unique ecosystem including one of the largest snow petrel breeding sites, and relative pristine nature. However, in the process of designation, an update of knowledge, particularly of the population status of snow petrel in the area, was recognized to be needed. This study was aimed at estimating a population census of snow petrel breeding pairs in the Lake Untersee catchment, an important subarea of the potentially protected area. Investigations were severely limited by the remoteness and harsh conditions of the area, enabling only a short fieldwork period with limited resources. Thus, a combination of remote sensing and traditional methods was applied. We conducted a ground survey of a smaller reference area, including locating nest sites and assessing nest site characteristics. Snow petrels usually nest in the cavities of large boulders and we thus classified habitat suitability based on boulder presence. To do so, the study area was remotely surveyed by unpiloted aerial vehicles to gain orthophotomosaics in sufficient resolution to distinguish on-ground conditions for breeding. We then calculated nest site densities for the reference area. We also studied nest site data such as nest cavity depth, orientation, and attendance to gain basic knowledge of the characteristics of the breeding site. Finally, we measured a sample of four live snow petrels to determine which morph was present at the site. We were able to obtain nest site data and to extrapolate it, which produced population numbers of 11,765 breeding pairs for the whole study area. This underpins the size of the breeding site and thereby its importance for the species.

Regulating Antarctic Tourism: The Challenge of Consensus-Based Decision Making

AbstractIn the 2022–2023 season, more than 104,000 tourists visited Antarctica. This represents an increase of more than 40 percent compared to the 2019–2020 pre-pandemic season. This Current Development discusses this trend and the limits of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, which govern on the basis of consensus, in responding with regulatory action. Options for strengthening regulation in this area are also considered.

Ice-locked huts, snow-buried cairns, and sunken ships: the prevailing discourse on heritage in antarctica

ABSTRACT Cultural heritage in Antarctica simultaneously represents vulnerable historic remains and powerful political resources curated by nation states, for nation states. Political actors transform dilapidated huts, piles of rocks, and submerged ships into opportunities for strategic gain within the practice of Antarctic affairs – but what is the nature of this political discourse? This paper proposes the existence of a prevailing discourse on cultural heritage found in Antarctica comparable to that of Smith’s Authorised Heritage Discourse (the AHD). This discourse embodies how nation states active in the region – the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties – think and talk about heritage in Antarctica, and subsequently determines how this heritage is managed in practice. The first two sections investigate how discourse on Antarctic cultural heritage is situated, and how it has been realised. The third and final section scrutinises the characteristics of the Antarctic discourse in relation to the AHD. Consideration of the situation, realisation, and characterisation of a discourse on Antarctic cultural heritage, produces an in-depth account of the discourse overall. Key findings reveal that this discourse behaves very similarly to pre-existing models for global heritage.

Marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean: Is the Antarctic Treaty System ready to co-exist with a new United Nations instrument for areas beyond national jurisdiction?

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a fundamental tool for effective marine conservation and areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) prove most challenging for their designation. Largely to blame is the currently fragmented and sector-based governance framework under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982). In the face of rapidly deteriorating biodiversity in ABNJ, negotiations are underway for a new international legally binding instrument (ILBI) mandated to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction using tools including MPAs. The Southern Ocean, however, is a uniquely governed space, with two MPAs already established in ABNJ under the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). This article critically examines the status quo for designating MPAs under the ATS and uses the findings to reflect on how the system might interact with the new United Nations ILBI. Despite this critique, complementary synergies between the two instruments are still possible. I therefore hypothesise that Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) and members of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) must collectively engage with the ILBI process and across instruments within the ATS, to ensure the future interplay is one of opportunity, not conflict. The article concludes with recommendations to help ATCPs and CCAMLR members more proactively and effectively engage with progressions in the international law of the sea.

The shore is the limit: marine spatial protection in Antarctica under Annex V of the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty

ABSTRACTThis paper examines the role of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty in relation to marine spatial protection, with a focus on the designation of marine or partially marine areas as Antarctic Specially Protected or Managed Areas (ASPAs and ASMAs). For an improved understanding of this ASPA and ASMA practice, the competence arrangements between the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) are also examined. Five categories of ASPAs and ASMAs are identified according to their location and values relative to marine environments and ecosystems. A series of maps illustrate the outcomes of this inventory. The analysis and maps show that the use of ASPAs and ASMAs in marine or partially marine areas has been limited, although such protection is clearly within the mandate and competence of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. In part to explain these outcomes, the paper examines some recent ATCM discussions on marine protection issues. It is concluded that stronger spatial marine protection through ASPAs and ASMAs, as well as a strengthened integrated protection of the marine environment, requires stronger collaboration between the ATCM and CCAMLR, as well as mutual respect between these bodies.

Ecosystem services and Antarctica: The time has come?

Antarctica's status as a unparalleled place of international scientific collaboration was entrenched in the Antarctic Treaty 1959, and its designation as a “natural reserve, devoted to peace and science” formally referenced in the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEPAT) 1991 (PEPAT 1991, Article 2). The continent's importance for maintenance of the global ecosphere has more recently been confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Anisimov et al., 2007). However, the expanded scale and scope of commercial tourism in Antarctica over the last quarter century raises issues about whether the laissez-faire approach to tourism management that has been taken under the auspices of Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) governance is sufficient to protect the Antarctic environment and its “wilderness” values from the negative impacts of tourism (PEPAT, Article 3(1)). This is an subject that has occupied a number of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), who form the decision-making group within the ATS, and resulted in a recent question by The Netherlands to fellow ATCPs as to whether “a system of obligatory or voluntary payments by individual tourists or tourist organizations (as a payment for ‘ecosystem services’)?” should be established within the ATS (The Netherlands, ATCM XI, 2012).This paper considers the Dutch question about payment for ecosystem services in Antarctica as a potential tourism regulatory tool. It also examines the legal and related political issues that a proposal for introduction of ecosystem services would generate in an area of the earth which, de facto, is treated as an international commons, but is also the site of continuing contestation and challenge over abeyant claims to sovereignty by seven states within the ATCP group. Issues canvassed in this context include: the different political-philosophical approaches to tourism and the environment evinced by the ATCPs; the limited number of states signatory to the Treaty and the increase in non-state actor activity in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters, and concomitant difficulties of monitoring and compliance in a geographically expansive and remote area of the earth; and the potential of ecosystem services in Antarctica to help realise some of the United Nations’ post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

Towards a tipping point? Exploring the capacity to self-regulate Antarctic tourism using agent-based modelling

ABSTRACTAntarctica attracts tourists who want to explore its unique nature and landscapes. Antarctic tourism has rapidly grown since 1991 and is currently picking up again after the recent global economic downturn. Tourism activities are subject to the rules of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and the decisions made by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), but within this context, the industry has considerable freedom to self-organise. The industry is self-regulated by a voluntary member-based group, the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). Researchers and policy-makers express concern about IAATO's ability to deal with further tourism development and the environmental consequences. This study applies a new approach to understand what affects self-regulation, consisting of a literature review and agent-based modelling (ABM). The review identifies four challenges for self-regulation: operator commitment, tourism growth, operator diversification, and accidents. The ABM simulations help conceptualise the complex concepts and theories surrounding self-regulation. Self-regulation is measured by the capacity of the simulated self-regulatory system to maintain a majority membership at the end of 20 years. The model suggests that a number of the challenges are nonlinear and have tipping points. This approach provides insights that industry officials and policy-makers can use to proactively regulate Antarctic tourism.

Demonstration of “substantial research activity” to acquire consultative status under the Antarctic Treaty

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are entitled to participate in consensus-based governance of the continent through the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. To acquire consultative status, an interested Party must demonstrate “substantial research activity,” but no agreed mechanism exists to determine whether a Party has fulfilled this criterion. Parties have generally demonstrated substantial research activity with the construction of a research station, as suggested within the Treaty itself. However, this largely demonstrates logistical capacity, rather than research activity, and often results in major and persistent impacts on Antarctic terrestrial environments. Our study found that national investment in Antarctic infrastructure, estimated by the number of bed spaces at stations, was not a reliable indicator of scientific output. Therefore, we investigated metrics to evaluate research activity directly, and identified both the overall number of Antarctic papers and the proportion of national scientific output these represented as meaningful metrics. Such metrics could (1) demonstrate a nation’s level of research activity in Antarctica or (2) help Consultative Parties assess the level of research activity undertaken by a Party seeking to acquire consultative status. Our data showed that, even without land-based Antarctic infrastructure, Canada, Denmark and Switzerland may have reasonable grounds to demonstrate “substantial research activity” on a level comparable with existing Consultative Parties. The use of these metrics may help dispel any perceived requirement for the establishment of a research station to reach consultative status, by putting a greater emphasis on generation of scientific research outputs rather than construction of Antarctic infrastructure. Keywords: Environmental Protocol; scientific output; geopolitics; human impact; Antarctic infrastructure; bibliometric search. (Published: 15 December 2016) Citation: Polar Research 2016, 35 , 34061,http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/polar.v35.34061

Why Has There Been a ‘Long Peace’ in Antarctica?

This article draws on the work of John Lewis Gaddis, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian particularly well known for his scholarship on the Cold War. In his 1986 paper, “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System” Gaddis posited a range of plausible reasons for why neither the United States nor the Soviet Union took the ultimate step of initiating a nuclear war against the other. This restraint was founded on principles of mutual understanding of the consequences of such an action and contributed to what he termed the ‘long peace’ in post-Cold War international relations. This article examines why there has also been a ‘long peace’ in Antarctic relations, using Gaddis’s theories and applying them to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties’ dealings with each other in the context of the Antarctic Treaty System – the legal regime that governs Antarctica. It finds that despite a radically different set of international relations circumstances today, Gaddis’s theories hold true. How long this long peace will last is not the point here; merely that it exists is cause for optimism.

Assessing the effectiveness of specially protected areas for conservation of Antarctica's botanical diversity

Vegetation is sparsely distributed over Antarctica's ice-free ground, and distinct plant communities are present in each of the continent's 15 recently identified Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). With rapidly increasing human activity in Antarctica, terrestrial plant communities are at risk of damage or destruction by trampling, overland transport, and infrastructure construction and from the impacts of anthropogenically introduced species, as well as uncontrollable pressures such as fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) activity and climate change. Under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, the conservation of plant communities can be enacted and facilitated through the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). We examined the distribution within the 15 ACBRs of the 33 ASPAs whose explicit purpose includes protecting macroscopic terrestrial flora. We completed the first survey using normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) satellite remote sensing to provide baseline data on the extent of vegetation cover in all ASPAs designated for plant protection in Antarctica. Large omissions in the protection of Antarctic botanical diversity were found. There was no protection of plant communities in 6 ACBRs, and in another 6, <0.4% of the ACBR area was included in an ASPA that protected vegetation. Protected vegetation cover within the 33 ASPAs totaled 16.1 km(2) for the entire Antarctic continent; over half was within a single protected area. Over 96% of the protected vegetation was contained in 2 ACBRs, which together contributed only 7.8% of the continent's ice-free ground. We conclude that Antarctic botanical diversity is clearly inadequately protected and call for systematic designation of ASPAs protecting plant communities by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, the members of the governing body of the continent.

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties’ engagement in wilderness protection at home and in Antarctica

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty has stipulated the protection of Antarctica’s wilderness values since it came into force in 1998. A review of 2800 documents from the website of the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty indicates that the consideration of wilderness is a very small component in the discussions and decisions of the 29 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties between 1998 and 2014. Fourteen Parties have never or very rarely spoken or written about wilderness, yet at least three of them have wilderness legislations for their domestic territories. The existence or absence of domestic wilderness policies or wilderness areas in a Party’s home country cannot explain the degree of its engagement on the issue of Antarctica’s wilderness values. Instead, Parties’ engagement on the issue of Antarctica’s wilderness values can be seen as a subset of the larger pattern of their engagement within the Antarctic Treaty System in general and on Antarctic environmental matters in particular. For Parties that have engaged little on the issue, we postulate that wilderness is unlikely to be a priority. For Parties that have engaged on the issue, we postulate that they envision Antarctic wilderness within a strongly anthropocentric utilitarian framework, similar to that adopted domestically within the European Union, and in contrast with the more existential framework adopted domestically by the USA. We argue that an anthropocentric utilitarian framework, together with de facto zoning of the Antarctic Treaty area into infrastructure and protected zones and Every Man’s Land, cannot provide effective protection to Antarctica’s wilderness.

Antarctic cruise tourism: a taxing issue?

Antarctic tourism numbers have expanded greatly over the last quarter century. With the additional interest generated by the recent International Polar Year, tourism numbers are expected to increase into the foreseeable future. At the same time, negative anthropogenic effects upon the silent continent are becoming more apparent. Tourism is one of the contributors to the human footprint in Antarctica, and its potential to exacerbate that footprint is compounded by the laissez-faire approach to tourism policy and limited tourism policy framework established by the continent’s decision-makers, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. This raises issues about what interventions may be undertaken to help reduce the burdens imposed on the Antarctic environment, a critical component of the global ecosystem. Because it is both practically unfeasible to ban Antarctic tourism, and would be extremely difficult to limit tourist numbers via extant Antarctic Treaty System regulations and measures, one possibility is to introduce an Antarctic tourism tax on commercial cruise operations. This article examines the idea of an Antarctic cruise tourism tax, why a tax has not been previously introduced, and the advantages and disadvantages of an Antarctic cruise tourism tax. The uses to which revenue generated through commercial cruise tourism could be put, including recovery of costs incurred through tourism and revenue generation for research and education about Antarctic tourism, are also considered.

Access and benefit sharing of Antarctica's Biological Material

Searching and sampling of Antarctic Biological Material (ABM) is happening with no explicit regulation on access and benefit sharing requirements. Patents already exist on inventions stemming from Antarctic living organisms. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) provides mechanisms to ensure that scientific knowledge and data generated from the collection and use of ABM are shared, although commercialization might be a threat to this free exchange of scientific knowledge. Some of the underlying problems regarding the access and benefit sharing of ABM are that under the ATS there are gaps concerning definitions, access to specimens, benefit sharing, commercialization and reporting issues. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) have decided that the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) is the competent body to discuss the matter, and the ATS is the appropriate framework for managing the collection of biological material in the Antarctic Treaty area and for considering its use. Nevertheless, opinions diverge as to the need for more specific rules on access and benefit sharing other than that already resulting from the obligation to give prior notification and share scientific results.

Progress towards the mandatory code for polar shipping

A mandatory international code for safer shipping, which in turn will help protect vulnerable marine environments in polar waters, is imminent. It began life as recommendatory guidelines from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to apply only to ships in Arctic waters. But a request from the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties prompted the expansion of these guidelines into mandatory rules for shipping in both polar regions. Choices for the form and scope of the code included, among others, the adoption of a separate convention or the addition of annexes to supplement the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The technical difficulties associated with a mandatory code applying to ships servicing the Arctic or the Antarctic or both have largely been overcome and a risk-based code is about to be adopted and applied, in the first instance, to SOLAS-rated vessels.

Antarctic tourism management and regulation: the need for change

Antarctic tourism has experienced a boom period over the last thirty years. Beginning in the 1980s, the number of tourists who visited the continent annually began to rise sharply, and within the space of twenty years the numbers had increased by more than six hundred percent. Despite a global recession and downturn in visitor numbers over the last two austral seasons, the expectation is that Antarctic tourist numbers will trend upward again as the world tourism market recovers and the demand for Antarctic visits increases. In a continent renowned both as the last great global wilderness and as a place dedicated to scientific research in the interests of humankind, tourism on this scale presents a formidable range of issues for the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) to contend with. This article suggests that the rapid growth in Antarctic tourism, and the impacts of that tourism coupled with the lack of a comprehensive regulatory and management framework for tourism now pose a considerable challenge to both the Consultative Parties and to the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) itself. The obligations and duties of the ATCPs under the Antarctic Treaty and other ATS instruments require a robust, strategic response by them to the issues and concerns generated by the growth of tourism. What is needed, it is argued, is for the parties to initiate a more interventionist pro-active policy approach to create a holistic, binding tourism framework so that they may fulfill more effectively their stewardship and governance roles in Antarctica, prevent degradation of Antarctica's environment, and reduce risks to tourists themselves.

Cooperation of the Antarctic Treaty System with the International Maritime Organization and the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators

As interest in resources, tourism and marine transportation grows, the Antarctic governing regime, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), must contend with increased regional participation. The ATS has been historically dominated by key original signatory states to the Antarctic Treaty. Increased involvement by non-traditional Antarctic states has the potential to change the dynamics of the ATS. There is, however, potential for it to maintain its principles of cooperation, absence of conflict and priority of science alongside the increasingly divergent participation with engagement of more international organizations. This paper examines the engagement of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting and Parties (ATCM/ATCP) with the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators and the International Maritime Organization in the regulation of shipping and tourism. The cooperation between these organizations demonstrates awareness by the ATCPs of the need to coordinate with a broader audience. Despite the complexities involved with regulating tourism and shipping, the institutional relationships developed between the organisations mentioned have enabled ATCPs to promote regime principles across many stakeholders without relinquishing authority over Antarctic issues. A similar approach might be plausible for other increasingly difficult regulatory issues and to contend with a broader participation of politically diverse states within the ATS.

Antarctic Treaty System Ready for a Challenge

In their Policy Forum “Challenges to the future conservation of the Antarctic” (13 July, p. [158][1]), S. L. Chown et al. discuss concerns about the Antarctic Treaty System's (ATS's) ability to navigate future challenges. We believe ATS has demonstrated that it is both robust and adaptable. ![Figure][2] United. Treaty nation flags fly over the South Pole. CREDIT: PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS JOHN K. SOKOLOWSKI/U.S. NAVY Chown et al. raise the issue of marine resource harvesting, biological prospecting, and potential mineral and hydrocarbon exploitation. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regulates the harvesting of marine resources in the Southern Ocean, and it has arguably the most highly developed system for ecosystem-based management of any international agreement ([ 1 ][3]). Underpinning CCAMLR's decision-making processes is the precautionary approach which, as it has evolved, has set very conservative catch limits on fish stocks and provided other mechanisms for reducing harvesting impacts. The Southern Ocean krill fishery is arguably the largest underexploited fishery in the world. For many years, CCAMLR has been developing mechanisms in advance of projected escalation of interest in the fishery, including setting precautionary catch limits, establishing small-scale management areas, and invoking trigger points where, when a predesignated catch is exceeded, additional conservation measures will apply. In their discussion of the submissions of several Antarctic claimant states to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), Chown et al. have misconstrued both the actions of those Antarctic Treaty Parties and the effects of those actions. All Antarctic Treaty Parties are bound by the Antarctic mining ban ([ 2 ][4]). Submission of data to the CLCS in relation to Antarctic or other continental shelves has no bearing on that ban or a party's obligation to uphold it. Mitigating unacceptable human impacts in Antarctica is a substantial focus for the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, as Chown et al. note. There is no evidence that human interest in Antarctica will outpace the capacity of the ATS to respond. The historically steady climb in Antarctic tourism numbers from the 1990s has been reversed since the 2008 financial crisis ([ 3 ][5]) and also since the International Maritime Organization introduced a ban on the use and carriage of heavy and intermediate fuel into the Antarctic Treaty Area in 2011 ([ 4 ][6]). Tourism is subject to ongoing monitoring, oversight, and management, mainly through the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO)—an organization mindful of the extraordinary responsibilities it carries for maintaining the integrity of the pristine Antarctic environment. Local impact is minimized by a system of site guidelines and rules about behavior ashore—the latter originally adopted by IAATO in its by-laws and later formalized by the ATS. The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have addressed past challenges firmly and overtly within the Antarctic Treaty's twin pillars of peace and science ([ 5 ][7]). Reforms to the operation of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, increased opportunities for engagement with relevant international organizations, and the presence of nongovernmental organizations as observers to ATS meetings and as members of national delegations since the mid-1980s all work to strengthen the institutional resilience of the ATS. The number of parties acceding to instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System has steadily increased (including, notably, Malaysia and Pakistan in 2011). At the same time, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have increased engagement with relevant international organizations: among them, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization regarding IUU fishing; the International Hydrographic Office in relation to charting Antarctic waters; and the International Maritime Organization in the development of the Polar Shipping Code. We concur that the challenges facing the region defy complacency. The quickening pace of global change requires scientists and policymakers to work together. With this as a fundamental underpinning for future action, we believe the ATS is well placed to meet these challenges. 1. [↵][8] 1. A. Constable , Fish Fisheries 12, 138 (2011). [OpenUrl][9][CrossRef][10][Web of Science][11] 2. [↵][12] Article 7, Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, Antarctic Treaty Secretariat ([www.ats.aq/e/ep.htm][13]). 3. [↵][14] International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, Tourism Statistics ( ). 4. [↵][15] Annex I, Chapter 9, “Special requirements for the use or carriage of oils in the Antarctic area,” International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (International Maritime Organization Resolution MEPC.189(60), 26 March 2010). 5. [↵][16] Articles I and III of the Antarctic Treaty, Antarctic Treaty Secretariat ([www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf][17]). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1222821 [2]: pending:yes [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #ref-3 [6]: #ref-4 [7]: #ref-5 [8]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DFish%2BFisheries%26rft.volume%253D12%26rft.spage%253D138%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1467-2979.2011.00410.x%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00410.x&link_type=DOI [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290540700003&link_type=ISI [12]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [13]: http://www.ats.aq/e/ep.htm [14]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [15]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [16]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in text [17]: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf

Introducing strategic environmental assessment to the Madrid Protocol: Lessons from international experience

This article advocates potential reform of the Madrid Environmental Protection Protocol to introduce strategic environmental assessment (SEA), which applies environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures to policies, plans and programmes. Since government decisions are targets for SEA, together with strategic proposals concerning tourism, these are likely to be the main focus. In the case of the former, reform may prove controversial because of the importance of science to the Antarctic Treaty System. Yet there is momentum for SEA internationally, with the European Union (EU) SEA Directive (currently limited to plans and programmes) having recently been reviewed after its first five years of operation, and the Kiev SEA Protocol to the Espoo Convention (which encourages application also to policies), now in force. Noting decisions by the EU and Espoo Convention Parties to prepare a separate SEA legal instrument, and the overlap between them and Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, it considers whether a separate SEA Annex is feasible.

Biological prospecting: the ethics of exclusive reward from Antarctic activity

Biological prospecting is being undertaken in the Antarctic and, as novel material starts to yield significantly higher commercial rewards, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties might decide to regulate it through the Antarctic Treaty System. This will be problematic since activities are already being undertaken, patents have been filed and products developed. Furthermore, there are differing perceptions of the status of the Antarctic, with some considering it global commons and oth- ers considering it the common heritage of mankind. These 2 doctrines can be inferred from the rhetoric of the Treaty and its subsequent legal instruments through which human activities, includ- ing the use of resources, are managed. However, the Antarctic Treaty System does not support either in practice because activities such as fishing and bioprospecting already return an exclusive reward for effort, with no benefit-sharing arrangements. Under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the Parties determine allowable catches for a fishery based on scientific assessment, and this may discharge them from providing access and benefit-sharing arrangements to the international community potentially available through other international law (e.g. the Law of the Sea Convention or the Convention on Biological Diversity). The major turning point in Antarctica came when the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities — which acknowledged the rights of the international community — failed to enter into force. Today the international community is rewarded with a relatively healthy Antarctic environ- ment and free access to some scientific information, which are benefiting all mankind. But the inter- national community does not get direct financial reward from Antarctic activities because access is constrained by law and by a lack of capacity. There is no mechanism for disbursing compensation to all mankind in any case, although the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties could certainly rectify this if they had the will to do so. So far they have not.