Antarctic letters: ‘We care about the same issue’

Dear Jiliang,

Given the deadlock in the search for a consensus on fisheries management in Antarctica, it is becoming necessary to identify common ground.

The catch of Antarctic krill has grown exponentially alongside interest in its use and consumption. At the same time, proposals have stalled for marine protected areas (MPAs) in the region home to the largest population of this crustacean.

China has been critical of the regulation of Antarctic fisheries, particularly with regard to MPAs. Chile, on the other hand, takes a more precautionary approach, and therefore tends to support proposals that protect the Antarctic ecosystem and biodiversity.

The ICLAC Millennium Nucleus, where I work, has objectively analysed China’s stance, with the aim of contributing to the debate at the forthcoming 45th meeting of CCAMLR (19-30 October).

China insists that any fishing restrictions must be based on sound scientific data, rather than on precautionary principles. It draws on an interpretation of Article II of the CCAMLR Convention according to which “rational utilisation” is not subordinate to conservation, but rather balances it. This underpins China’s other objections, including their call for MPAs to have a maximum duration, and the requirement that all decisions be subject to prior review by CCAMLR’s Scientific Committee.

Historically, the convention was established with the aim of regulating fisheries management, not the environmental protection of the Southern Ocean. International systems evolve, and for many of the other parties to the Commission, the latter is now the primary objective. This is not the case for China which has stuck to a literal interpretation of the convention.

One of the conclusions of our study is that China will not be prepared to proceed with other proposals on MPAs until Conservation Measure 91-04, which sets out the rules for MPAs in Antarctica, is amended.

In 2025, China proposed a detailed programme of amendments – which included defining what an MPA within CCAMLR is, clear requirements for baseline data on what exists in the area, and a 20-year lifespan.

If the pattern of its recent interventions is anything to go by, the country may be preparing to shift tack, moving from obstruction to an active proposal that will allow it to negotiate on its own terms, rather than responding to proposals from other countries.

How could Chile and Argentina strengthen their relationship with China to ensure consensus on a proposed MPA for the Antarctic Peninsula?

Regards,

Giovannina

Dear Giovannina,

I am glad we care about the same issue.

Deadlock accurately describes the current negotiation at CCAMLR.

But I think the commission has already identified common ground.

First, CCAMLR agreed to develop the idea of the West Antarctic Peninsula MPA and a new management scheme of the krill fishery in the same area. Second, it agreed to harmonise these two discussions because they interact with the same marine ecosystem. Third, CCAMLR agreed that before the new fishery management scheme is fully developed, interim measures need to be in place.

There is no disagreement on these issues.

Most CCAMLR members have agreed that progress on establishing a West Antarctic Peninsula MPA should be the precondition for the advancement of krill management, as it offers safeguards to the ecosystem.

Maybe we should focus on the common ground that already exists among most CCAMLR member countries and think about how we can build on it. Because this is a multilateral policy decision-making process rather than a bilateral or trilateral problem, CCAMLR has to work things out as a group. Therefore, maybe the proponents of the MPAs should further consolidate the support they have earned and reach out to the parties who still have concerns collectively. There could be more wisdom in a bigger team.

I may have to disagree with your interpretation of the CCAMLR Convention. The negotiation of the convention was triggered by unregulated Soviet krill fishing. Driving it was collective concern for the health of the Antarctic marine ecosystem, as stated in the convention’s preamble.

In earlier years, CCAMLR focused mostly on fisheries management because those issues were more threatening to the convention’s objective. As it has built a functional fisheries management system, it can spend more time on general conservation issues, especially when climate change is multiplying many existing environmental risks. And this is exactly the reason why the majority of CCAMLR members support all MPA proposals.

This is the time; CCAMLR has the science and capacity to fulfil its objective further.

The obligation to cooperate under international law does not mean you have to agree with others’ proposals. Instead, you have to contribute specific ideas to the negotiation. Chile and Argentina are frustrated because China’s proposals have not been specific to them.

Knowing how much Chile and Argentina have done for the MPA proposal, I don’t think you can do more at this stage. The ball is with China now. To me, building consensus is a team effort like scoring a goal on a football pitch: no matter how well the play has been built up, you need someone to finish it. The ball has been passed to China and the goal is near. I believe China will get specific soon. Once it has figured things out, it will act quickly.

Cheers,

Jiliang