The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) was signed in 1959, and will not be modified until 2048. Climate diplomacy expert Dhanasree Jayaram tells Bertie about the environmental risks that could threaten Antarctica before then, including illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, militarisation, bioprospecting, increased tourism, and resource extraction.
Dr. Jayaram is Assistant Professor at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, and Co-Coordinator of the Centre for Climate Studies, in Manipal Academy of Higher Education, and an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellow.
Further reading:
By Dr. Jayaram:
Click here to visit The Future Unrefined, our curated collection of articles and podcasts on raw materials and extraction.
Find more podcasts and articles at www.landclimate.org
The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) was signed in 1959, and will not be modified until 2048. Climate diplomacy expert Dhanasree Jayaram tells Bertie about the environmental risks that could threaten Antarctica before then, including illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, militarisation, bioprospecting, increased tourism, and resource extraction.
Dr. Jayaram is Assistant Professor at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, and Co-Coordinator of the Centre for Climate Studies, in Manipal Academy of Higher Education, and an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection Fellow.
Further reading:
By Dr. Jayaram:
Click here to visit The Future Unrefined, our curated collection of articles and podcasts on raw materials and extraction.
Find more podcasts and articles at www.landclimate.org
Hello and welcome back to the Land and Climate Podcast. I'm Bertie Harrison-Broninski, and this week we'll be hearing about the governance of Antarctica, with climate diplomacy expert Dhanasree Jayaram, Assistant Professor in Manipal University in the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations. Dr. Jayaram is researching Antarctic geopolitics in Berlin as an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation International Climate Protection fellow. She also published a book chapter last year, arguing that there is a need for a transformative approach to science diplomacy in Antarctica, in light of the climate crisis,
Dhanasree:This will affect governance of scientific research, it will create mistrust between countries, and it will also lead to problems and challenges in terms of environmental and climate related governance in the region.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:You wrote in this article last year that the focus of the larger international community seems to be on the Arctic, rather than Antarctica. I wondered if you could unpack that a little bit. What did you mean by that? Why is it the case and is it right that that is the case?
Dhanasree:When we look at the geopolitics of polar regions, it's usually the Arctic that always comes up in the discussions. And for rightful reasons, because Arctic has littoral countries, and the effects of climate change is unraveling in ways that is also increasing, or at least influencing, the geopolitical dynamics within the Arctic region, considering that the shipping lanes are being opened, or the fact that more countries are showing interest in the resources that are available in the Arctic. So because of these reasons, and because of the fact that there is more kind of geopolitical activity going on within the Arctic, and there is no real Arctic treaty that prevents military deployment, or resource extraction is something that is regulated to some extent (particularly fishing) but then there is still a kind of avoid when it comes to Arctic in terms of a grand treaty like the Antarctic Treaty System. So because of this, there is more discussion around Arctic than Antarctica, where there's no permanent human habitation. You have a lot of scientific stations and bases with temporary scientific communities and others interested in Antarctic research who are there, but otherwise, no permanent habitation. It's pretty far from most parts of the world. It's an isolated continent. You can't have permanent new settlements, either. But this is something that is coming up for further discussion, because if climate change actually leads to large scale changes in the Antarctica, would it mean that, you know, permanent settlements might be possible in the future? But this is something that would obviously be regulated within the Antarctic Treaty System as well. So the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959, and since then, it has largely been a very peaceful continent. It has been used extensively for scientific research, many countries have come up and set up their scientific stations, deployed their scientific communities, but beyond certain territorial claims made by seven claimant states, and of course, US and Russia having the right to do so. But beyond that, no countries have really shown that keenness to militarise Antarctic to the extent that it would become a geopolitical hotspot. But this is changing, and it has changed in recent years. And this is why Antarctic hasn't come up a lot in discussions except, of course, climate change is changing the way people are looking at Antarctica, because the way climate change is changing the landscape of Antarctica in terms of variability in land and sea ice extent, in terms of thinning of the ice shelves, you know, we keep seeing these stories of big ice shelves just cutting themselves off from the land of Antarctic, or the glacial recession, which is also something that has come up a lot, but also like issues such as ocean acidification. And the fact that it's land ice that is melting is something that has been seen as a concern by many scientists, because this can also cause variability in terms of the global sea levels. This is changing how climate scientists in particular are increasingly interested in looking at Antarctica as a context in which these patterns can be studied further, and obviously, you know, we need to protect Antarctic marine resources and its biodiversity. But beyond that, of course, this region or this continent hasn't been looked upon as a geopolitical hotspot so far.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:I think it would be worth clarifying for the listeners what exactly the Antarctic Treaty System is, the different countries involved, and maybe some of the ways in which that's now out of date, if you believe it is.
Dhanasree:So the Antarctic Treaty System, as I mentioned, it was signed during the Cold War, which itself was a huge step for the US and USSR, the erstwhile Soviet Union, to come together and bring this treaty into place. These two countries did not have claims to Antarctic territory. But otherwise, the seven claimant states, which includes Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK, these are the seven claimant states, these states were essentially urged to suspend their claims. So you have to keep in mind they have just suspended their claims, it can obviously be reinvigorated at a later point of time. Some of them, it's purely because they're closer to the Antarctic continent, but others, merely because of their scientific exploration or the fact that they have sent their explorers to Antarctica, such as Norway, for instance. You know, it was essential at that point in time in the '50s in particular, when both the US and the Soviet Union were conducting nuclear tests in the South Pacific and you know, various other parts of the world. It was important that especially the scientific communities came together and decided that we need to push for a peaceful continent, declaring Antarctic as a peaceful zone essentially, where military deployment will not be allowed, nuclear testing will not be allowed, or dumping of radioactive waste will not be allowed, because this is a pristine area that needs to be protected, and we still don't know enough about this continent, and also to promote peace between the superpowers. In some way bringing them together to discuss this treaty was considered important. So the Antarctic Treaty System was established in that sense to promote the continent to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, and to not allow any sort of military bases, to have the freedom to continue to conduct scientific research, to promote international scientific cooperation, and allowing other countries to also use the scientific information, which is why you can see that over a period of time from the initial consultative parties, more and more parties have joined the Antarctic Treaty System. So there are 52 signatories today with the Antarctic Treaty System, out of which 28 consultative parties. Not all of them have territorial claims in the Antarctica. The treaty itself says that you can become a consultative party as long as you have substantial scientific research stakes on the continent. Many decades have passed since then, and overall [the] Antarctic Treaty has been successful, or the treaty system has been successful. It has been able to bring more agreements into the fold of the Treaty System, which includes biodiversity protection, regulating fisheries to some extent, I would say, although there are some problems with that today, the fact that other exploitation of mineral resources has been prohibited. Except for scientific research, the Antarctic continent cannot be exploited for mineral resources. So all these different elements have obviously added to the strength of [the] Antarctic Treaty System. But increasingly what we see today is that this may not be enough to stop many countries, for instance, in engaging in illegal unregulated unreported (IUU) fishing activities. Essentially, it's about exploring naturally occurring microorganisms, plants and animals for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources. So all these different activities, including the fact that many military activities are also being reported now from Antarctic, not necessarily military bases being established, but more like military personnel being there to protect the scientific sites, or the fact that you also are using some of these stations for GPS or, you know, Glonass, from a Russian perspective. So all these different activities have complicated it a little bit more, and the Antarctic Treaty is up for review in 2048. So we have to wait and see, because this is a consensus based system. So we have to see whether this consensus based system would work and whether countries would continue with this Treaty System, or would they like to, for instance, dilute some of the existing principles around mineral extraction or fishing or about bioprospecting or some of the other activities of which these countries might be interested in.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:Some of these activities you've mentioned, such as military buildup but also bioprospecting or mining, fishing. What are some of the environmental or climatic risks with these activities?
Dhanasree:IUU fishing is definitely one of the major concerns. Already countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, Russia, these countries have been blamed for IUU fishing in the region, which will obviously have knock on effects on the broader ecosystems in the region. Because the krill fish, or the tooth fish, ice fish, some of it is regulated to some extent with the declaration of marine protected areas like the Ross Sea. There is more regulation coming in so that you can protect more and more of Antarctica under these existing sort of frameworks. But as the biodiversity gets affected by these activities, because as many more countries show their interest in fishing in the area, this will affect the entire ecosystems of the region, because there are other species, for instance, that feed on the fish, which will also get affected as they disappear or as they become less and less available in the region. But also, mineral extraction is a major concern. Exploration is also something that was not allowed except for scientific research. Now, scientific research, what is allowed, what is not, what is legitimate, what is illegitimate, is a problem area, because you can say that you are using it for scientific research, but if it is commercialised by certain entities, and when the Antarctic Treaty is up for review in 2048, if this becomes a bone of contention between countries, and if they are not able to reach a consensus, this becomes a major problem. Extraction of minerals is something that is also being discussed in Arctic, [and] will have major implications for sure. Because this area, this continent, hasn't been explored, or hasn't seen the kind of mineral extraction that is seen in some of the other parts of the world. And we don't know what kind of effects it could have. Already some scientific studies say that this could have massive impacts on the biodiversity of the region. And also the fact that climate change is already causing ocean acidification and various other problems that's already affecting the marine resources of the region. It will have major problems in terms of like an add on effect. There is also increasing tourism related activities. A lot of people, rich people who can afford to, for instance, go all the way to Antarctic, the number of people wanting to travel to Antarctica is also increasing. Is this tourism sustainable? Is it being done in a sustainable manner? Or will it also have impact on the ecological systems of the continent? And also, I think we have to remember that scientific research is fine. But how many scientific bases and stations do you need for this sort of scientific research, if the point of scientific research in Antarctica is essentially about cooperation? Can this be not done with less impact on the continent itself? Like with these scientific stations, you also have more people coming in, you also have deployment of military in some cases, maybe only to protect the scientists or scientific base. These issues will crop up more and more for discussion in the coming years. And these have long term ecological impacts that cannot be denied.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:One other thing you mentioned in terms of kind of natural resources. In your paper, you briefly referred to freshwater. I was interested for you to just expand on that a little bit. Do you mean the water might be exported from Antarctica to other countries in the future?
Dhanasree:That's one of the discussion points as well. Antarctica has such large freshwater resources. Is it a possibility that countries that are water deficient or do not have sufficient water, would they then try to take water from Antarctica, freshwater resources, to other countries? You know, this is a far off conclusion. There is a possibility that the fact that this continent has a lot of freshwater resources may also come up for exploitation in the future.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:You've spoken a bit about regulation, both in terms of the original treaty and more recent regulations. But what kind of monitoring and enforcement of those rules is there? How easy is it for countries to break those rules?
Dhanasree:These are really strong protocols and agreements that are part of the broader Antarctic Treaty System, but it is increasingly becoming easy to find ways out of it as well, like, as I mentioned, the scientific research bit is something that is increasingly being discussed, like 'is it possible that countries might still be commercialising this knowledge with the scientific research that is available? Will they use it then to their advantage at a later point, whenever the discussion comes up, [about] can we open up some parts of Antarctica for exploration of resources, mineral resources in particular?' Of course, there are some gaps. Climate change related discussions are not really integrated into any of these treaties and protocols, which is a cause of concern. I have seen that countries such as China and Russia in particular, have been reluctant to talk about climate change within these broader discussions, because that would also mean additional responsibilities and obligations, which countries are not willing to take up. So this means that the more you add issues, the more reluctance or resistance countries are going to show in the future. And that way, enforcement and monitoring would become very difficult. But as of now, I mean, even when the Ross Sea marine protected area was declared under the CCAMLR, which is the Convention on Consideration of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, even when the Ross Sea marine protected area was declared, when the negotiations were happening, there were a lot of competing interests, because this was essentially in the area that is still claimed by New Zealand. And, you know, China had opposition to ideas of no fishing zones, but also the US has a big scientific base, and was keen on declaring this as a marine protected area so that they can also avoid other players to become more prominent in the region. So that geopolitical wrangling or that kind of competing interests are there. So when you have such kind of a situation, it's probably better to have more protected areas like the East Antarctic seas, the Weddell Sea, these are the some of the other areas which are also coming under scrutiny, like should we look at them, and probably make ways to declare them as also marine protected areas so that the monitoring and enforcement can be strengthened. On some issues like fishing and bio prospecting, increasingly, you can see that it would be difficult to regulate them. I mean, on fishing in particular, this has met with a lot of challenges. But even here, some countries, or at least fishing companies, have been brought to book. But this may not be enough, because you know, the area is huge. And you have so many countries coming in big numbers to fish in the area.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:You've mentioned quite a few times about military buildup or militarisation. Is there some kind of geopolitical strategy going on there? I mean, what's really behind that? Why would there even need to be soldiers in Antarctica?
Dhanasree:I mean, the reasoning given by countries to have military personnel is to protect the scientific bases or scientific stations, to protect the scientists. But I'm not sure if you need military to do that. This is a big question. Why do we need military at all? Lately, countries such as Australia, in particular, have been talking about the need for having more military on Antarctica because other countries are using Antarctica for military and security related purposes. So this is where satellite navigation systems like Glonass or GPS or Chinese Baidu, I mean, these are some of the systems that can be used for both military and civilian purposes. It can also help with warfare strategies. So in this situation, the insecurity is something that increases when countries become conscious of the fact that Antarctica is being used for military purposes as well. And then it sort of pushes other countries to also build their own military, maybe equipment, or maybe interests, on the continent to prevent other countries from doing so or as sort of countermeasures. This raises questions as to how countries may find their ways to make sure that they have military presence on the continent, if not like the typical military armaments and other such equipment, but at least in this new age of warfare, which includes like space warfare and cyber warfare, it's much more complex, and the line is very blurred in terms of what is warfare and what is not. So yeah, so this is something that will complicate the geopolitics of Antarctica even further. And obviously, this will affect the governance of scientific research, it will create mistrust between countries, and it will also lead to problems and challenges in terms of environmental and climate related governance in the region.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:You mentioned earlier, when we were chatting before the call about how Antarctica wasn't really something that had much relevance to COP27. How much of a gap within the climate diplomacy is there around talking about
Dhanasree:There is no possibility of avoiding Antarctica in this sphere, but it Antarctica? doesn't get represented much in the negotiations or any other platform related to climate change governance. That's also because the idea is that you already have an Antarctic Treaty System, you already have the UN and various other agencies which are involved to some extent in Antarctic governance, which integrates these issues including climate change, although as of now, as I said, climate change is not typically part of the Antarctic Treaty System related issues. It's not part of many of the agreements and protocol or other activities and initiatives that have come up under Antarctic Treaty System. And I haven't seen that push for governance or climate governance within ATS. And because there is resistance from some countries to involve this also as part of ATS, because like I said, this would also lead to further obligations and stuff like that, this is a void. And you know, I don't think countries are going to wait till 2048. But there are ways of including this through informal channels, through existing scientific research, through collaborations between scientific communities of different countries. I mean, that's where science diplomacy can make a huge difference. That, you know, this kind of collaboration can further strengthen the need for more climate policy related instruments to be brought into the ATS in the future.
Bertie Harrison-Broninski:My thanks to Dhanasree for coming on the show. Her book chapter and other further reading is linked below in the podcast blurb, so check that out. And remember, you can always find more articles on our site at www.landclimate.org. If you enjoyed this episode, do subscribe and we'll be back again in a fortnight. Thanks for listening.