One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20004-3027
T 202.691.4000 | www.wilsoncenter.org

European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hearing on "The EU and Antarctica:
a foreign policy perspective,” 14 June 2022 from 14.30 to 16.00 CET - online public hearing
Intervention by Evan T. Bloom, Senior Fellow, Wilson Center, Washington, DC - "theinstitutional framework of Antarctica and its possible future evolution."
Prepared remarks (check against delivery)
Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing.
My name is Evan T. Bloom. I am a senior fellow at the Polar Institute of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. I am a lawyer and former diplomat who led
U.S. Antarctic diplomacy from 2006-2020 as head of delegation to the Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Meeting and as U.S. Commissioner at the Commission for the Conservation ofAntarctic Marine Living Resources.
I appreciate being given the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing, and I have been asked toaddress the “institutional framework of Antarctica and its possible future evolution". It is a timely
topic because Antarctica and its governance are relevant and important to policy concerns in thenorthern hemisphere and throughout the planet. That is especially the case given the importanceof the climate change issue. Climate research being done in Antarctica is vital for understanding
the impacts of climate change worldwide. Moreover, climate change is having important impacts
in Antarctica itself, with implications for sea-level rise in particular. In addition, Antarctica has
its geopolitical aspects, and cooperation there depends on how its institutional frameworks aremaintained and evolve.
In the brief time given to me, I plan to cover the basics of Antarctic governance, focus on some of
the key policy issues that are implicated, and finally refer to current strains on Antarctic
cooperation related to the Ukraine crisis.
First, some background on Antarctic governance. We speak of the Antarctic Treaty System torefer in effect to three treaty instruments that are at the core of international rules related toAntarctica, as well as their implementation: The Antarctic Treaty of 1959, the Environmental
Protocol to that Treaty, and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine LivingResources.
The Antarctic Treaty is a Cold War-era agreement that set aside political rivalries and allowed theregion to be devoted to peaceful purposes and freedom of scientific exploration. The treaty
maintains the parties’ differing positions on claims. Seven countries currently maintain claims,
including EU Member State France.

Tackling global issues through independent research, open dialogue and actionable ideas .

The Antarctic Treaty is considered the first modern arms control treaty. It in effect demilitarizes
the continent, although military personnel and equipment are explicitly allowed for use to promotescience or for non-military purposes. The Treaty also established an inspections regime.
There are currently 54 parties to the Treaty, including 29 with consultative status that allows forparticipation in decision-making. The parties meet annually; the last Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting was held last month in Berlin.
The geographic scope of the Treaty is the entire area south of 60 degrees South Latitude, which
includes not only the continent and its ice shelves, but marine areas as well.
The parties to the Antarctic Treaty, reacting to concerns about management of krill resources,
established the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR), via the CAMLR Convention in 1980. The Commission currently has 25 states plus
the European Union as Members, plus ten additional acceding states. The Commission meetsannually in October in Hobart, Tasmania, where it focuses in particular on management ofAntarctic fisheries, even though its mandate is broader than fisheries. Indeed, in recent years, theCommission has become known for its cutting-edge work on establishment of marine protectedareas.
The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1991 and enteredinto force in 1998 and to a significant degree makes up for the fact that the Antarctic Treaty fromthree decades earlier did not focus on the environment. Its most well-known provision, in Article
7 and generally referred to as the “mining ban,” prohibits “any activity related to mineral resources,
other than scientific research.”
A key feature of Antarctic diplomacy is that decisions at ATCMs and at the Commission of theCAMLR Convention are taken by consensus of all the Consultative Parties or Members of theCommission, respectively. This has a considerable impact on the operation of both bodies, making
it impossible to move forward on items (such as marine protected areas) when agreement of all
Consultative Parties or Members cannot be obtained.
The ATCM and CCAMLR are the twin pillars of Antarctic diplomacy and both forums need to betaken into consideration in any meaningful evaluation of trends in Antarctic policy. That isespecially true as, in recent years, issues with the most political resonance internationally (fisheries
management and marine protected areas) have tended to reside in CCAMLR rather than in theATCM.
The EU, due to its competence in fisheries matters, plays an active role in CCAMLR as a party,and eight EU Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spainand Sweden) are also Commission Members. (Bulgaria, Finland and Greece are also accedingstates there.)
The EU per se does not play a role at the ATCMs, as it is not a party nor does it send observers.
But twenty EU Member States are parties, either consultative parties or non-consultative, andTackling global issues through independent research, open dialogue and actionable ideas.

maintain Antarctic science programs, send their scientists there and/or operate science stations on
the continent.
Thus Europe, and the EU in particular, play a crucial role in Antarctic matters, in terms of its
politics, the science that is done there, and the human impacts on the region. Of particular
relevance are the major European science institutions that are involved in Antarctic work at
considerable scale.
The institutions I’ve described have worked relatively well over the past five decades, in keeping
the peace and creating conditions that foster science. There have been some notable limitations,however.
Let me focus on some of the key policy issues that present current challenges:
A central concern of treaty parties relates to environmental protection – how to protect thecontinent and surrounding waters from human impacts; and how to protect both the land and theanimals that live there. In large measure this involves ensuring proper and sustained
implementation of the environmental protocol’s rules for area management, environmental impact
assessments, response to environmental emergencies and limiting marine pollution. It means
ratifying liability rules. It means participating meaningfully in the Committee for Environmental
Protection that meets along with the ATCM. It also means thinking through issues related toimpacts from tourism that are rising again now that the pandemic is subsiding.
These days this means in particular integrating worldwide efforts related to both studying anddealing with climate change with climate-related policies and actions that can and should be takenby the Treaty System.
Then there are issues related to resources. The Southern Ocean has a generally well-regulatedfishery, in which the EU is a leading actor. CCAMLR Members are engaged in contributing toscience within CCAMLR and applying best available science to fisheries management decisions.
In recent times, there are major challenges related to management of the toothfish and krill
fisheries, and difficulties related to ensuring high standards of compliance. This has been
particularly difficult given differences of view between most states on the one hand, and China
and Russia on the other.
A different sort of resource issue relates to the mining ban under the Environmental Protocol. Itis common to hear concerns that some countries either wish to cheat on this prohibition or would
walk away from this obligation at some point in the future, perhaps at the time when the Protocol,including this provision, could come under review in 2048. It is worth remembering that this is aprovision to which all parties are bound, and indeed no country currently speaks against it. In myview, it is worth continually focusing on the importance of this prohibition, as it is a lynchpin for
all the environmental rules.
Another issue has received attention at the highest level of many Member States, and that is theimportance of making progress on establishing large-scale marine protected areas in the SouthernOcean. There have been some significant successes, including the agreement in 2016 to establish

Tackling global issues through independent research, open dialogue and actionable ideas.

the world’s largest MPA, in Antarctica’s Ross Sea. However, since that time, China and Russia
have made it difficult to implement existing MPAs and have stood strongly against creating any
new ones, thus bringing to a halt three major proposals – in East Antarctica, in the Weddell Sea
and in the Antarctic Peninsula.
I could list many other policy issues that relate to Antarctica, but these are some of the major ones.
Given the important role of international mechanisms and cooperation in Antarctica, it is quite
understandable that the European states would play a major role.
In terms of evolution of the institutional framework, I would say it is hard to predict. One the one
hand, the ATCM and CCAMLR have very broad capabilities to take action to establish new rulesthat meet current policy priorities and objectives. However, we find at the ATCM that adopting
measures that require ratification to enter into force tends to be hard and work very slowly. An
example is Annex VI on liability that was adopted in 2005, but still hasn’t entered into force. This
year, there was wide support to increase protections for Emperor Penguins, but China would notagree and there was no action. CCAMLR has similar authority to act via conservation measures,
but the organization finds it hard to gain consensus on important rules to fight IUU fishing or
promote compliance. The reason is usually that it is impossible to achieve consensus.
The conflict in Ukraine has made work in Antarctic bodies more difficult, as has been the case in
the Arctic context. Indeed, at Berlin, we had a situation where two consultative parties at war witheach other participated (Ukraine in person and Russia virtually). The tensions certainly had animpact on the meeting, which began with statements related to the conflict, and ended with Russian
objections to adoption of the report of the meeting.
There is much concern that these tensions could create considerable difficulties in October atCCAMLR where agreement on fish quotas, much less MPAs, requires a spirit of compromise.
That spirit is hard to achieve when communications break down.
I will stop there. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.

Tackling global issues through independent research, open dialogue and actionable ideas.