scholarly journals How do we know that the Antarctic environment is fine?

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
D.W.H. Walton
Keyword(s):  
Ross Sea ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
United Nations Environment Programme ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
State Of The Environment ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Nations Environment ◽  
Environment Programme ◽  
Antarctic Environment

One might imagine that the only continent in the world devoted to peace and science would be certain to play a leadership role in global questions that needed a scientific answer. Indeed, to a dispassionate observer, the present situation with respect to reporting on the state of the Antarctic environment must seem bizarre. All the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are members of the United Nations Environment Programme, and all are apparently committed to providing State of the Environment Reports for their respective regions. Why then have some of these very nations been so reluctant to accept that Antarctica is a key part of this world and, to provide the holistic view required, needs to be included in the reporting? The list of excuses for delay is lengthy: no money; no secretariat to organize through; likely to be too expensive; no clear reason to undertake it; not needed at present; who would be the audience; how would we maintain political oversight; etc. but none of them ever appeared insoluble. This has been clearly demonstrated by the recent publication by New Zealand of a State of the Environment Report for the Ross Sea Region.

scholarly journals Science and Policy Interactions in Assessing and Managing Marine Ecosystems in the Southern Ocean

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Press
Keyword(s):  
Southern Ocean ◽  
Marine Ecosystem ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Policy Interactions ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Good Policy ◽  
State Of The Environment ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment

Good policy can only be built and implemented using sound advice, and a clear understanding of risk. Scientific advice will often be qualified by the extent of research and knowledge, and uncertainties about the current and future state of the environment. Bodies tasked with protecting the Antarctic environment are required to make decisions based on the best available advice. To not take decisions in the absence of certainty is contrary to clear obligations to protect the Antarctic environment contained in the instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System. The risk of foreclosing future options to protect the environment by indecision is as great, if not greater, than making decisions with incomplete advice, and then actively managing that decision into the future. This “Perspective” explores the relationship between science and policy in the context of the Conference on Marine Ecosystem Assessment for the Southern Ocean held in 2018—it is a perspective from the view of a policy-maker and end user of scientific assessment and advice.

The United Nations and Antarctica, 2005: the end of the ‘Question of Antarctica’?

Polar Record ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Major Change ◽  
United Nations Environment Programme ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
First Time ◽  
Nations Environment

In November 2005 the ‘Question of Antarctica’ was taken up yet again by the UN First Committee. Following formal placement upon its agenda in 1983 by the Malaysian government, the UN has discussed the topic regularly, initially annually, then biennially, but more recently upon a triennial basis. As usual, in 2005 UN members were guided by a lengthy report produced for the United Nations Secretary General (UNSG) by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in order to outline recent developments affecting Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty system (ATS). In November 2005 the UN First Committee, acting upon proposed amendments advanced by the Malaysian delegation, agreed to a major change of course. Thus, resolution L60, adopted by the committee without a vote, stipulated that the UN, though remaining ‘seized’ of the ‘Question of Antarctica’, would not place the topic upon the agenda of the 63rd. session in 2008. Nor would the UNSG be required, henceforth, to produce a report on Antarctica for members. In December 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted draft resolution L60 as resolution 60/47, once again without a vote. As a result, for the first time since 1983, the UN is no longer scheduled to return to the ‘Question of Antarctica’. Meanwhile, the episode has raised interesting questions about future developments: the UN's role, if any, in the ‘Question of Antarctica’, the direction of Malaysian policy towards the ATS, including membership thereof; the continued ability of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) to manage Antarctica in a democratic, transparent and accountable manner without attracting criticism from the broader international community; and the relevance of the common heritage principle to the Antarctic region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document