September 2, 2024
Report by Kobe PCRC Fellows on “Consensus-Building based on Best Available Science”
Katharina Heinrich1 and Marco Volpe2
Kobe PCRC Fellows funded by KAKENHI 21K18124
ATS Resilience under Anthropocene
2Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of Social Science, University of Lapland, Finland
Session 46: Consensus building based on best available science under Antarctic
Treaty System (Co-convenors: Akiho Shibata and Natasha Gardiner)
1. General description and summary of the session
The session was framed around the topic of consensus building on the basis of best available science (BAS) under the ATS, which is a well-established concept of environmental decision-making and lies at the core for the conservation of Antarctic resources/biodiversity. In light of increasing climate change impacts and rising geopolitical tensions, however, the consensus-based decision-making process often proves strenuous and challenging.
The presentations covered a broad spectrum of perspectives, including newly arising challenges, such as considerations on potential geoengineering projects and the opening of newly exposed marine areas linked to increased anthropogenic warming. Speakers also addressed enablers and barriers to the science-policy interface in the context of the ATCM and CEP and China’s approach to the establishment of ASPAs under the ATS framework.
A common aspect raised throughout the session was linked to the relevance of science for Antarctic governance, which is provided by bodies such as the Scientific Committee to CCAMLR, a number of specific Working Groups, as well as other experts and scientific bodies, such as SCAR.
The discussion that arose from the presentations was extremely lively and stimulating. Legal aspects of geoengineering projects raised multiple concerns about their applicability in both polar regions. The gap between the advancement of many geoengineering projects and the limited understanding of potential benefits, social impacts and the legal framework needed for their implementation made the discussion extremely timely and created room for further discussion and investigation. Beyond that, the discussion also focused on the issues surrounding the concept of BAS, as it has been used by member states on numerous occasions to hinder the establishment of conservation measures and protected areas, (potentially) concealing their political and economic agendas.
2. Presentation: Consensus in the absence of best available science in times of change: Conservation Measure 24-04 (Katharina Heinrich)
The presentation “Consensus in the absence of best available science in times of change: Conservation Measure 24-04” focused on the need for a more robust and swift decision-making process under CCAMLR, which accounts for changes in the marine environment. While CCAMLR has been praised for its success in establishing the World’s largest MPA in 2016 and is seen as a frontrunner of the implementation of a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach, it does not come without its challenges and has also been subject to more critical voices considering whether it is still fit for purpose in its current form. Especially, the decision-making process for the establishment of conservation and long-term protection measures has been strenuous due to the lack of consensus, a prerequisite for CCAMLR’s decision-making, which is, in turn, based on the best available science (BAS). Difficulties in reaching consensus under CCAMLR are linked to different aspects, such as scientific uncertainty or the lack of scientific information as an argument to delay management decisions. Evidently, this hampers efficient and proactive management and delays decision-making.
Against this background, the presentation explored to what extent the mechanism and aspects of Conservation Measure 24-04 on the establishment of Special Areas for Scientific Study (SASS) in newly exposed marine areas following ice-shelf retreat or collapse (2016), provides an opportunity to proactively address concerns surrounding the robustness of scientific information or the lack of scientific evidence for data-poor regions, which are known obstacles for the establishment of long-term protection measures. Especially, its interim nature awarding an area with protection by closing it to marine activities, to review existing science and undertake further scientific research to understand ecosystem processes in view of climate change impacts, was highlighted as a relevant and useful mechanism. Even though CM24-04 offers a perspective towards a more dynamic and proactive approach to marine management in view of climate change impacts, also beyond the Southern Ocean, it is not without its challenges. Therefore, a critical perspective on the measure was offered to identify aspects requiring further consideration and improvement to positively shape CCAMLR’s management approach in a changing and dynamic future.
3. Presentation: China’s Polar Science Diplomacy: The Case of ASPAs (Marco Volpe)
The presentation, “China’s Polar Science Diplomacy: The Case of ASPAs,” explored China’s involvement in the polar regions by examining the recent discussions surrounding the establishment of ASPAs. Although there is no internationally recognized definition of Science Diplomacy, many experts agree that it involves using scientific cooperation to build bridges and enhance relationships between countries. The right to conduct scientific research and to engage in international cooperation are among the foundational principles of the Antarctic Treaty, and the interaction between these principles justifies the focus on ASPAs, which are regulated by Article III of Annex V of the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty. However, reaching a consensus on the establishment of these areas presents its own set of challenges.
In this context, the presentation analyzed China’s stance on the establishment of ASPAs, as discussed in recent ATCMs. It drew on findings from ongoing content analysis based on semi-structured interviews with scientists and state representatives from China, Italy, and South Korea—three countries involved in establishing ASPA 178. The results indicate a transparent discussion among the parties, leading to a smooth process in agreeing on the values to be protected, the size of the marine area to be included, and the exclusion of historical sites from the specially protected area. Each party values the specific expertise that cooperating countries can contribute to expanding scientific knowledge on the Adélie penguin colony, Skua colony, and the paleontological features of the site. Additionally, the presentation discussed two other cases where China expressed concerns: the inclusion of prohibited zones within the ASPA proposed by Belgium in parts of the Western Sør Rondane Mountains, Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica, and the inclusion of marine environments within ASPA 139 proposed by the USA. In the first case, China raised concerns about using prohibited zones as a mechanism to protect areas by preventing any human presence, which, in China's view, could impede or even halt scientific research and monitoring. In the second case, China questioned the sufficiency of the scientific data supporting the inclusion of the marine area and suggested that the proposal be referred to CCAMLR for review.
China's ambivalent approach reflects its growing engagement in Antarctic science, alongside a more vocal stance on scientific matters. This mirrors not only its support for global governance but also a more assertive role in international science diplomacy.
I found the discussion that followed the presentation particularly intriguing. Stronger and closer cooperation among ASPA managing parties was emphasized, as my own research on ASPA 178 suggests that current cooperation mainly involves discussing and revising management plans, with parties separately pursuing their research agendas without jointly conducting scientific research. The role of China as a global power and its increasingly assertive position within the Antarctic regime was also thoroughly discussed. In this context, it is crucial to understand China’s domestic policy, where advancements in research and technology have been prioritized, even over economic growth—which has been the top priority for China’s leadership for decades. This shift, coupled with a more sophisticated diplomatic approach, positions China as a key player in Antarctic science and underscores the need for future research on China’s stance towards the implementation of measures and specially protected areas within the consensus-based system of the ATS.
4. Attending SCAR OSC 2024 - impressions and reflections
The SCAR OSC 2024 conference was attended by a large number of natural scientists, which is at the core of Antarctic research. However, disciplines such as social sciences, art and law were well represented within the program of the four-day conference, showing the links between the different disciplines in Antarctic research and exploring the interconnection between legal, political and social aspects of doing science in Antarctica. The many presentations and lively discussions throughout the conference highlighted the potential challenges Antarctic governance is facing in the future, paving the way for a strengthened cooperation nexus in the face of new developments of Antarctic science. Attending the conference, its plenaries and session, reemphasized the relevance of increased Antarctic research in view of climate change impacts and the need for strengthened cooperation between nations and researchers. Thus, it was extremely valuable in order to connect with researchers discussing issues, concerns but also perspectives for future research and management of the region. The conference was well organized and left enough room to explore the art exhibitions and installations, attend book presentations and workshops, network with old and new colleagues and enjoy the view of the Volcán Villarica overlooking the city. (August 31, 2024)
This report can also be downloaded from here.
August 13, 2024
SCAR Open Science Conference Presentation Documents
Director Shibata will make three presentations in two breakout sessions. All dates and times indicated below are those of Chilean Standard Time (-13 JST).
August 20 (Tue) Block 2 (14:00-15:30)
Session 33 Antarctic Governance
Akiho Shibata “The law, politics and science in the Consultative Party acknowledgment process: A worrisome precedent at Kochi” 
August 23 (Fri) Block 2 (11:45-13;15)
Akiho Shibata, with the assistance of Ridzanna Abdulgafur “An introduction: Institutional framework to implement Antarctic governance based on best available science”
Akiho Shibata “A reality? Giant underwater curtains in the Antarctic and Legal issues potentially raised during its early phase”
May 13, 2024
Antarctic governance seminar at 46 ATCM in India on May 20!
Co-organized with Korea’s KOPRI and Indian host government NCPOR, Kobe PCRC is convening an Antarctic governance seminar on May 20, the first day of 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in Kochi, India. Because it is held inside the conference venue, in-person access is limited to ATCM delegates, but it will be live streamed online! Panel 1 will discuss the current Antarctic governance challenges in light of “science diplomacy” and “diversifying voices”. Panel 2 will discuss our (current generation’s) responsibilities and commitments towards the future generation, taking up the topics such as globalized Antarctica, environmental liability, tourism and safety. Please access the Indian ATCM host website for details including online access URL. https://www.atcm46india.in/panel
” (2021-26). 
Despite the successes of the ATS, critics have recently called the strength of the system into question. Scholars in the field of international relations claim that since key instruments of the ATS will come up for renegotiation in the coming decades, the regime could become drastically weakened or collapse completely. Of note is the possible review of the Protocol on Environmental Protection (Madrid Protocol), the agreement that banned mineral exploitation and strengthened the environmental protection regime on the continent. These scholars also state that the current consensus-based decision-making used in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) is becoming ineffective as the number of states involved with the ATS grows. Finally, natural scientists that work on the continent claim that their advice is not adequately considered within the current Antarctic governance regime. These claims place doubt in the strength, legitimacy, and resilience of the current Antarctic Treaty System and challenges the continuation of the continent’s peaceful status quo. 
Akiho Shibata delivered the opening address by presenting the arguments given by critics of the ATS and set the workshop’s hypothesis that the ATS is resilient, legitimate, and can withstand future challenges due to the flexibility built into the system. While it is not a perfect system of governance for the continent, it is better than a weaker regime or no regime at all and is, therefore, important to defend. For this reason, the purpose of this workshop was to begin the work of the greater ATS Resilience project by identifying the present and future challenges that the system must face. These credible challenges will be used to craft scenarios to test the resilience of the system and determine which areas need further strengthening. 
