13th Meeting of The Study Group on the Future ofAntarctic Science and International Relations
September 14, 2022, 14:40-16:30
Brief Report
By Akiho SHIBATA, Kobe University
Special Guest Speaker: Professor Kees Bastmeijer,
Professor of Arctic and Antarctic Studies
Director of the Arctic Centre - University of Groningen, The Netherlands
JSPS Invited fellow at Kobe University PCRC (Sept.9-30, 2022)

1. Evaluation of the Berlin ATCM (2022)
Achievements:• Having a full-fledged meeting since 2019, despite COVID-19/Russian aggression• 18 Measures: ASPA/ASMA Management Plans updates (only, again)• 4 Decisions (secretariat; liability; strategic work plan; letter to UNFCC; EIES)• 6 Resolutions (heritage value; site guidelines update; air safety; climate change; permanent
tourism facilities; post visit report)
Intense ICG consultations on Resolution 5 on permanent tourism facilities; heightened interest with theBelgian proposal for “Antarctic University”; China also constructively engaging; original Measureproposal then downgraded to Resolution to accommodate some parties’ concerns (mostly domestic);
continue informal intersessional consultation with Finland and India as next hosts of ATCM to have aconcrete outcome at 2024 India ATCM.

• Final Report adopted but NOT BY CONSENSUS:“The Meeting adopted the Final Report of the 44th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting inaccordance with Rule 25 of the ATCM Rules of Procedure. Consensus was not reached onparagraphs 10 and 11 and paragraphs 35-40.” (FR, para.353)
Majority adoption only on few paragraphs: efforts by ATCPs to reach consensus still prevalent.

1. Evaluation of the Berlin ATCM (2022)
Difficulties:(1) Emperor Penguin SPS designation: FR. para.94-101; legal framework 132-137“With one exception, Members voiced strong support for the recommendations that the emperor
penguin should be designated a SPS under Annex II of the Protocol, and that the Action Plan shouldbe implemented. The Committee did not, however, reach consensus on this matter despite receiving
full support from all but one Member.”“one CEP Member had submitted a parallel Working Paper with the goal of countering the ICG’srecommendations”: not to be precedent?

China:“the real best available science on this matter”; “reiterated its position that the emperor penguin was
not currently eligible for such a designation, and recommended the ATCM develop a targeted
research and management plan for the emperor penguins as a Near -Threatened species to provide
early-warning.”

SCAR:“a powerful signal from Parties on their level of concern about the impacts of climate change andthe need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”

1. Evaluation of the Berlin ATCM (2022)(2) Climate Change and its implications for AT area: FR, para.260-284• SCAR and the role of scientific advise to the Antarctic policies: FR, para.266-269:“SCAR emphasised that the report provided a global consensus, agreed by thousands of scientists,on the current physical and living environmental situation in the Antarctic, especially with respect
to ice sheets, projections for the future, and implications, both globally, such as for sea level rise,
and regionally, such as for Antarctic and Southern Ocean biodiversity.”• China: “put forward in the papers, noted the scientific uncertainties in the rate of sea level rise

trends, biodiversity and climate models SCAR had raised in its report, as well as the achievabilityof the proposed management goal to preserve the Southern Ocean environment in a state close tothat known in the past 200 years. Recognising the crucial role of SCAR in providing independentand objective scientific advice to support and inform the work of the ATCM and CEP, as expressed
in Resolution 7 (2019), China expressed concerns on whether SCAR was the appropriate body toprovide policy recommendations.” (FR, para.270)
Both (1) and (2) involve the effective (or political use of) science-based decision making and thedifferent understanding and application of precautionary approach; arguments on scientific gaps anddemands for “complete science” are used not to take decisions.
The real political/strategic aim of using those (not-too-convincing) arguments by one Party is notevident. All marine resource related?

1. Evaluation of the Berlin ATCM (2022)(3) Canada’s application for CP status : FR. para.118-122.
“All but two Consultative Parties agreed that Canada’s application met the requirements of theguidelines set out in Decision 2 (2017), including the requirement for substantial scientific research
activity in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX to the Antarctic Treaty.”“Two Consultative Parties raised concerns regarding Canada’s request. Both China and the RussianFederation stated procedural as well as substantive grounds for not taking a decision at this ATCM”.
• Background information: politicization (?) of CP status conferment:
Art. IX: “shall be entitled to appoint” vs RoP requires unanimity of existing CPs
Venezuela in 2016, led to Decision 2 (2017) (this new criteria has its own controversies),
deferred again in 2018 (probably because of domestic politics), did not attend 2019 ATCM
Belarus in 2019 expressed its intention (IP 96); 2021 application deferred based on
in-person mtg required; no action in 2022; 2023 on the draft agenda
Waiting list: Turkey, Malaysia, etc
Important role of German host regarding Belarus (pre-consultation); “substantive grounds” on theCanada’s case were raised at the late stage; 2023 ATCM draft agenda contains both Belarus and Canada
as candidates; may pose difficulty for the next host in 2023 ATCM.

1. Evaluation of the Berlin ATCM (2022)(4) CEP’s role in the ATS:
“uphold the spirit of consensus and to move forward together, working constructively to maintain aregular flow of high-quality advice to the ATCM, prevent any departure from science and technicaldiscussion”. FR. para.44

China:“supported the decision-making system already established under the Antarctic Treaty System. In
response to comments made by most Parties, China reiterated its willingness to work towards
consensus in accordance with the Antarctic Treaty and Environmental Protocol on the basis of soundscience, and emphasised that Parties needed to abide by those rules that had been agreed to,including those contained in the CEP and ATCM Rules and Procedures.” FR, para.45

ASPA 145 revised management plan:
No agreement on MP: Port Foster, Deception Islands, South Shetland (proponent, Chile) FR. para.
80.
The advisory role of CEP to the ATCPs and the need (or not) for “consensus” adoption of its report; mayreflect the both majority views as well as minority views2. Russian invasion implications to ATS:Real or political performance?
• German host opening statement in FR, para.10• Walk-outs: “substantial number,” FR, para.39• Ukraine’s demands:“It also urged the Meeting to deprive the Russian Federation of its right to vote in future ATCMs, toreject any initiatives made by the Russian Federation, to terminate ongoing joint projects with theRussian Federation, and to refuse to purchase services from, or supply services to, the RussianFederation or other actors directly or indirectly affiliated with the Russian Federation.” (FR, para.35)• Russia’s view: FR para. 38: “remain within the bounds of ATCM mandate”• China’s view: FR para.39: ATCM not discuss geopolitical issues and not go beyond its mandate; ATCM
not to be politicised. FR. para.40• Informal ICG led by Russia on ATS’s challenges, including climate change discontinued. FR. para. 126.
Based on overlaps with other fora (diplomatic way to “reject initiatives made by Russia”?)
Antarctic treaty as a part of global system; “Antarctic exceptionalism” still relevant? fundamental
challenge to the Rule of Law (German State Secretary’s statement); different treatment from apartheid
regime in 1970-80’s? Russian actions did have impact on Ukraine Antarctic program (IP 85 rev); change
in Russian delegation and the level of engagement (online participation); the explicit wording in the Final
Report; etc.

3. (Near) Future topics requiring strategic attention:
ATCM Finland (2023), India (24), Italy (25), Japan (26)(1) Antarctic Tourism: FR, para.285-340• Lessons learned from the process leading up to Resolution 5 (2022): Permanent facilities fortourism and other non-governmental activities in Antarctica.
• The importance of information exchange: utilization of EIES• The strengthened role of National Competent Authorities (NCA)
See above. Towards “strategic vision on tourism”: intersessional consultation led by France, India,Finland, UK, and Netherlands; open to other delegations; WP at 2023 ATCM, continue ICG andoutcome at 2024 ATCM in India; delegations’ continuous efforts to promote consensus with mediumterm planning, involving future host governments.

3. (Near) Future topics requiring strategic attention:
ATCM Finland (2023), India (24), Italy (25), Japan (26)(2) Liability Annex and Next Step: FR, para.21, 151-158“The Meeting agreed to continue to evaluate the progress made by Consultative Parties to ratifyand adopt Annex VI on Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies and bring the Annex
into effect in accordance with Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty. Parties that had not yet
approved Annex VI were encouraged to do so as a matter of priority.”
19 Approved (Australia, Chile, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Peru, Poland, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, the United
Kingdom and Uruguay).
5 domestic legislation implemented (Belgium, Finland, Norway, South Africa and Sweden)
8 remaining: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, India, Japan, RoK, USA

30 years of negotiation and approval process; no serious impediments indicated for its approval;raising “effectiveness” concern of ATCM hard-law-making in academia; four Asian CPs notapproving; possible role of academia to promote its approval.

Next Step:
Decision 2 (2022): Decision in 2025 on “resumption” of liability negotiations

3. (Near) Future topics requiring strategic attention:
ATCM Finland (2023), India (24), Italy (25), Japan (26)(3) Future (post-COVID) ATCM Style: FR, 341-344.
Importance of face-to-face dialogue in Antarctic governance; only once in a year (less carbon footprints); easier to say“no” through online; Paris online meeting was also a success.
(Others)
Bioprospecting: FR, para.159-161“The Meeting reaffirmed that the Antarctic Treaty System was the appropriate framework for managing the collection of biologicalmaterial in the Antarctic Treaty area and for considering its use. The Meeting agreed to retain the item on the agenda, but did not reachconsensus on continuing the ATCM forum on biological prospecting or retaining this item on the Multi-year Strategic Work Plan.”

Transparency of the ATS: Information Exchange System: FR, para.162-171.
Scientific information: EIES and other databases, ICG (FR, para.168)
Non-compliance : “recorded and presented to their competent authorities” (FR, para.165)
Non-governmental (tourism) activities: EIES

Role of Science and SCAR in the ATS: Climate Change: FR, para.260-284: See above
Integral Policy Responses to AT and CCAMLR: CCAMLR report: 3 additional MPA proposals/resolution on
climate change did not gather consensus (FR, para.25); UK, Argentina territorial dispute (FR, para.350-351):
CCAMLR marine resource disputes creeping into ATCM?
Role of NGOs and Industry in ATCM: merits and demerits of becoming a “part of the system”; mobilization ofpublic.