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

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Press

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.

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
D.W.H. Walton

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.


Formidable legal and administrative complexities arise from conflicting claims to jurisdiction and the continued absence of generally recognized sovereignty over much of the region. Existing conservation measures fall into three groups: elaborate laws made by governments claiming Antarctic territories, more restricted laws, and simple instructions for particular expeditions. The Antarctic Treaty, 1959, made it possible to begin coordinating all these separate instruments. No claimed jurisdiction has been surrendered or recognized: each government has started to harmonize its own control measures with the ‘Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora’, 1964. This scheme applied only to land areas and has since been evolving in the light of experience. Although not yet formally approved by all the governments concerned, it is working effectively by voluntary agreement. Different approaches are necessary for conservation of Southern Ocean resources, especially krill. A start has been made with the ‘ Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals’, 1972. There are many outstanding problems: all require effective cooperation between scientific and legal advisers, diplomats and politicians. Mention is made of recent British conservation legislation for South Georgia, the Falkland Islands and the Tristan da Cunha group. Some of the next steps are outlined.


1991 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-123
Author(s):  
John A Heap

“Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only …… Freedom of scientific investigation and co-operation toward that end …… shall continue, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty.”These are the fundamental objectives of the Antarctic Treaty as expressed in Articles I and II. What follows in the Treaty, and in most of the many “Recommendations” to the Governments of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs), is aimed at securing these objectives by the creation of a framework of law. Unusually for a system of laws, most of this legal framework is hortatory rather than mandatory in character - it cajoles rather than orders. Perhaps not surprisingly this has given rise to damaging suggestions about its ability to provide adequate protection for the Antarctic environment. The response of the ATCPs to this criticism has been to embark on a review of existing Antarctic law, to make it more consistent, reduce overlaps and more especially, make much of it mandatory. This process began at the XIth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Chile last November. Since it aims to provide greater clarity, accessibility and certainty in the law, it must be welcomed. But within these admirable objectives a prospect of loggerheads begins to loom.


Polar Record ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (152) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck

AbstractIn June 1988, at the final session of the Fourth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) was adopted, bringing to a successful conclusion six years of negotiations. Christopher Beeby, chairman of the discussions, presented the convention as the most important political development affecting Antarctica since the 1959 treaty, especially as it established the ability of the Antarctic Treaty System to reach an internal accommodation even upon matters raising serious political, legal, environmental and other issues. There remain uncertainties regarding the future development of the Antarctic minerals question; for example, when will the minerals convention and the proposed institutional framework come into effect, will its ratification encourage mining, can the fragile Antarctic environment be adequately protected against mining, how will certain key terms and concepts be defined, and will the regime's operation bring latent tensions to the surface? It is also difficult to predict how other governments will react to the convention, in the light of recent UN resolutions on Antarctica. The convention is perceived within the Antarctic Treaty system as a significant development, but it will be some time before a considered evaluation of the Antarctic Minerals Regime can be conducted.


Polar Record ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 27 (160) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorne K. Kriwoken

AbstractThe Antarctic environment has undergone significant local environmental damage and degradation, with nations rebuilding, expanding, or developing stations and bases. The Australian Antarctic Division's ten-year (1985–95) A$76.704 million programme of rebuilding and expanding stations in Australian Antarctic Territory is representative of a continent-wide increase in station numbers and impact, increasing station size, human numbers, lengths of roads, buildings, waste material production, and energy requirements. Environmental planning and impact assessment have not been incorporated in official decision-making; human activities at Australian Antarctic Territory stations had serious impacts on the limited ice-free land and local flora and fauna. Casey, are-developed station, is examined with reference to environmental planning and management under Antarctic Treaty obligations and recent Australian environmental legislation. Recommendations include the setting up of an Australian Antarctic Resources Committee responsible inter alia for environmental planning and management, including regional and station management plans and cumulative and environmental impact assessment for all Antarctic operations.


Polar Record ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (179) ◽  
pp. 399-408
Author(s):  
Martijn Wilder

ABSTRACTSince the Antarctic Treaty came into operation, Antarctic affairs have been characterised by international cooperation. The major issues of potential conflict, namely sovereignty, military activity, and mining, have now been largely removed. As a result, the remaining disagreements between parties have been resolved through consultation and negotiation. No dispute has ever found its way to judicial settlement, with most disagreements usually resolved at an early stage through ATCMs. While there is no reason to suspect that the use of consultation and negotiation will not continue, with the introduction of far more comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment, combined with the significant increase in activity in and around the continent, there is a greater likelihood of situations occurring that clearly breach these principles or give rise to a dispute. In addition, where extensive damage to the environment has already occurred, negotiation may be limited, so that the other mechanisms for settling disputes must be instituted. The dispute procedures of the Protocol, taken almost entirely from CRAMRA, represent the most comprehensive system for the peaceful settlement of disputes arising in any Antarctic instrument to date. However, clear problems such as remedies, enforcement, and uncertainties with respect to standing and liability remain. Until these problems are resolved, all aspects of all disputes cannot be covered, and comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment specified in the Protocol will remain an objective, not a reality.


2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin V. Angel

In 1902 the Discovery sailed into an ocean that was almost totally unknown biologically. Even so, its living resources of seals had been extensively hunted almost to the point of extinction. Exploitation of the whales was about to begin. The expedition resulted in the discovery of 23 new zooplankton species; 5% of the presently known mesozooplankton fauna. The results were worked up within six years, and paved the way for the next century of research. The ultimate target was to provide the scientific basis for the sustainable management of the Southern Ocean especially the whale stocks. This paper summarizes the knowledge base at the start of the expedition and how the various strands of research became woven into our understanding of the biological oceanography of the Southern Ocean. The science has been both technology driven and technology limited. It failed to convince decision-makers in time to prevent the gross overexploitation of the whales, but the Antarctic Treaty now provides a framework of protection. However, within the last two decades we have come to realize that it is not just whales that are at risk, and that the remoteness of the Southern Ocean is proving no protection against the pervasiveness of anthropogenic influences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document