![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) have been active outside and inside the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) since the 1970s and are considered to have played crucial roles in the negotiations leading to the mining ban and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Protocol). Compared to this earlier period, relatively little has been written in the academic literature on ENGOs’ work to advance the protection of the Antarctic environment after the Protocol has come into force in 1998. This paper aims to provide a personal snapshot of ENGO activity under its umbrella organization Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) at the meetings of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting’s (ATCM’s) Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP), mostly for the period from 2006 to 2013. ENGO representatives are typically highly skilled individuals, often passionate about the environmental protection in general and Antarctica in particular. Their year-round work of advocacy and public outreach is brought into sharp focus during the annual CEP meetings. They switch between different roles of watchdog, Jiminy Cricket, partner, technical advisor, court jester and visionary to address different audiences on different issues. Based on a simple consideration of the direct effects of the presence or absence of ENGOs, I conclude that ENGOs’ involvement in Antarctic affairs is indispensable in: (i) prioritizing environmental protection, (ii) raising public awareness of and facilitating public engagement in Antarctic environmental issues; (iii) drawing Treaty Parties’ attention to environmental issues, especially to those that have received little interest; and (iv) raising the ambition of Treaty Parties and the public on standards of environmental protection and in doing so, making them think differently about the relationship between humans and nature.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Alan Hemmings for the invitation to embark on this thoughtful project and for his mentorship. Thanks to my ASOC colleagues Jim Barnes, Ricardo Roura and Jessica O’Reilly for a decade of comradeship. Thanks to Kees Bastmejier, Harry Keys, Jana Newman and Kevin Hughes for their authenticity which made me see that, behind the national flag, government delegates are also just simple human beings, with their hopes and fears, and, often, a love for the Antarctic.
Notes
1 Antarctic Treaty: Opened for Signature December 1, 1959, 402 UNTS 71 (entered into force June 23, 1961).
2 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling: Opened for signature December 2, 1946, 161 UNTS 74 (entered into force November 10, 1948).
3 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora: Adopted as Recommendation III–VIII at the Third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Brussels, 1964.
4 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals: Opened for signature June 1, 1972, 11 ILM 251 (entered into force March 11, 1978).
5 Atkisson “The Antarctica Project”; Kimball “The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations”.
6 Kimball, Ibid.
7 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources: Opened for signature May 20, 1980, 19 ILM 841 (entered into force April 7, 1982).
8 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: Opened for signature June 2, 1988 (not in force).
9 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty: Opened for signature October 4, 1991, 30 ILM 1455 (entered into force January 14, 1998).
10 Kimball, Ibid. Clark, “The Antarctic Environmental Protocol”; Herr, “The Changing Roles of Non-governmental Organizations”; Ngaatzam, The Making of International Environmental Treaties.
11 Kimball, Ibid. Orheim et al., “Managing the Antarctic Environment”.
12 ASOC, “Antarctica Needs Marine Protected Areas”.
13 Bastmeijer, Implementing the Antarctic Environmental Protocol.
14 Roura, “The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition”.
15 The CEP was set up by the Protocol as an advisory body to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) on environmental matters. Since its establishment in 1998, it has been meeting annually. CEP membership includes all 29 Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty and 7 non-Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty that have ratified the Protocol. “Relevant scientific, environmental and technical organizations” are invited to to the meetings of the CEP as observers. Observers may participate in the discussions, but do not participate in the taking of decisions (ATS, Complete CEP Handbook). In addition to ASOC, regular observers to the ATCM include: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (SC-CCAMLR), Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) (see for example, ATS Final Report 2012).
16 O’Reilly, The Technocratic Wilderness.
17 ASOC, “ASOC Council”; ASOC, “Campaign Team and Staff.”
18 Roura and del Acebo Ibáñez, “Percepción Ambiental.”
19 Tin et al., “Public perception of the Antarctic wilderness”.
20 Tin, unpublished data.
21 See e.g. Tin et al., “Enhancing the Environmental Legacy”; Hoyt and Ainley, “Proposed Ross Sea Marine Protected Area.”
22 See webpage at http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/take-action/Take-action-online/Save-the-Last-Ocean/
24 See e.g. Australia, “Subsidiary Group on Management Plans”: France, “Environmental Monitoring and Reporting; Czech Republic, “Response to the Comments”; New Zealand, “Intersessional Report”.
25 O’Reilly, The Technocratic Wilderness.
26 The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website (www.ats.aq) is a repository of papers submitted to the ATCM and CEP meetings. It also holds final meeting reports and other official documents of the ATS.
27 ASOC, “Report of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition” in 1998, 2000, 2004, 2012a.
28 AOA, “Antarctic Ocean Legacy”.
29 ASOC, “Management Implications of Tourist Behaviour”.
30 ASOC, “Strengthening the CEE Process”.
31 ASOC, “Implications of Antarctic Krill Fishing”.
32 Roura and Tin, “Strategic thinking and the Antarctic wilderness”.
33 Barnes, “Protection of the Environment in Antarctica”; Hansom and Gordon, Antarctic Environments and Resources: 287; ASOC, “Antarctica Needs Marine Protected Areas”; Bastmeijer, The Antarctic Environmental Protocol: 373.
34 See e.g. ASOC, “Report of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition” in 1998, 2005 and 2006.
35 Herr, “The Changing Roles of Non-governmental Organizations”.
36 Orheim et al. “Managing the Antarctic Environment”.
37 O’Reilly, The Technocratic Wilderness.
38 See e.g. ECO, 2013; ASOC, “ASOC Report on XXIX ATCM”; ASOC, “The Antarctic Environmental Protocol 1991–2011”.
39 UK and Norway, “Antarctic Trial of WWF’s Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic Ecosystem Resilience”.
40 ASOC, Australia and UK, “Earth Hour Antarctica”.
41 ASOC, “Strategic Needs and Decision-making”.
42 ASOC, “Tourism and Land-based Facilities in Antarctica”.
43 SCAR, “Communicating the Science of Climate Change”; ASOC, “An Antarctic Climate Change Communication Plan”.
44 Clark, “The Antarctic Environmental Protocol”; Herr, “The Changing Roles of Non-governmental Organizations”.
45 Clark, Ibid.
46 Nagtzaam, The Making of International Environmental Treaties.
47 ECO 2002.
48 ECO 2004.
49 ECO 2007a. Number 1
50 ECO 2012a. Number 1.
51 ECO 2007b. Number 3.
52 See ECO 2002, 2006, 2012b. Number 2.
53 See ECO 1998, 2001.
54 ASOC, “Key Elements of a Strategic Vision for Antarctic Tourism”; ASOC, “Making Tangible Progress on a Strategic Vision”.
55 See ECO 1998, 2007b. Number 3
56 Suter, Antarctica: Private Property or Public Heritage?; Barnes, “Legal Aspects of Environmental Protection”; Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics; Bastmeijer, The Antarctic Environmental Protocol: 72.
57 Nagtzaam, The Making of International Environmental Treaties; Dodds, “Governing Antarctica”.
58 See e.g. Reviews in: Böhmelt and Betzold, “The Impact of Environmental Interest Groups”; Worth, “The WA Forest Conflict”: and Betsill and Corell, NGO Diplomacy.
59 Convey et al. “Continental Governance and Environmental Management”.
60 See e.g. ASOC Papers: “ASOC Report on XXIX ATCM”, “The Human Footprint of the IPY 2007–2008”, “Mapping and Modeling Wilderness Values”.
61 New Zealand, “Towards Additional Protection of Antarctic Wilderness”; New Zealand, “A Review of the Antarctic Protected Areas System”; New Zealand and Netherlands, “Concepts for Wilderness Protection”.
62 Australia, “Protection of Antarctica’s Intrinsic Values”.
63 UK, “Wilderness and Aesthetic Values”.
64 See e.g. “Report of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition,” 2006 and 2013e.
65 See for example, Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics; Betsill and Corell, NGO Diplomacy.