Science Diplomacy and Environmental Peacebuilding in the Polar Regions: Conservation, Resource Management, Geopolitics and Diplomacy
*Carla Isobel Elliff, Rashmi Ramesh, Sunitha
Anup and Dhanasree Jayaram
The polar regions of our planet, the
Arctic to the north and the Antarctic to the south, are among the world’s most
environmentally vulnerable regions. However, the numerous
geopolitical and geoeconomic contestations embedded in these regions pose
critical obstacles to science diplomacy and environmental peacebuilding. To
discuss these issues and how they interconnect with marine conservation, the
second session of the webinar series on science diplomacy and environmental
peacebuilding brought together Dr. Klaus Dodds, Professor of Geopolitics,
Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom, and Dr.
Cassandra Brooks, Assistant Professor in Environmental Studies, University of
Colorado Boulder, United States, to discuss their research
on polar regions. The session was moderated by Dr. Dhanasree Jayaram, Co-Coordinator, Centre for Climate Studies, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), India.
In his initial remarks, Dr. Dodds
elaborated on how science diplomacy and geopolitics are interrelated, and that
governments indeed recognized science diplomacy as a part and parcel of the
prevailing geopolitics, despite the fact that there has been a tendency to
disassociate science diplomacy from geopolitics and integrate it with the
elements of soft power, mainly due to the controversial nature of the former. This
may put many actors involved in science diplomacy in a rather questionable
position, particularly scientists, who may not think of themselves as
geopolitical actors. As an example, Dr. Dodds highlighted the presence of the United
Kingdom (UK) science and technology initiatives in 47 countries based on
fundamental geographies. One of the countries is Russia, with which the UK is
very keen to use science diplomacy to foster better relations, especially since
the UK and Russia have had a geopolitically discordant past.
Regarding the polar regions, Dr.
Dodds pointed out that geopolitics has been integral to the making of polar
regions, not only as an object of governance, but also to the making of ‘polar
geopolitics’. There has been a history of over 150 years of international
collaboration that has very much shaped the Arctic and the Antarctic. Over this
period, there have been four International Polar Years, each reflecting important
geopolitical and scientific interests of their time. The first was between 1882
and 1883, with 12 nations involved in the Arctic in areas of common interest;
while the latest during 2007-2009 that involved 63 nations also witnessed
engagement with the indigenous and Northern communities, which makes it
distinct. Dr. Dodds specifically focused upon the International Geophysical
Year (1957–58), also at times considered the third international polar year, which
was perhaps the most important one for these regions. This initiative saw 67
countries coming together in a truly global collaboration, of which 12 in
particular were involved in the Antarctic, also ushering in an era of permanent human occupation.
On the issue of infrastructure in the polar regions, a
question from the audience arose as to why the same countries have multiple
research stations in Antarctica. Dr. Brooks explained that in addition to the political
importance of research stations as a means of occupying space on the continent,
multiple science bases have the advantage of working on different scientific
requirements. As an example of science diplomacy, these multiple research
stations are also visited by scientists of myriad nationalities. In fact, Dr.
Dodds went on to discuss how the Antarctic Treaty could only flourish with
science diplomacy. This treaty was signed by those same 12 countries involved
in the International Geophysical Year and entered into force in 1961. Today
there are 53 signatory countries agreeing to the treaty’s terms for peace and
science, and denying claims to sovereignty in Antarctica. The treaty promotes
the freedom of science, prohibits military and nuclear activities (largest
nuclear free zone in the world), suspends sovereignty and bans mining in the
region.
The Arctic and Antarctic have seen a
history of collaboration between various countries to deliberate upon common
areas of concern. Over the years, the focus seemed to be on the Antarctic
rather than the Arctic due to the Cold War geopolitics. Despite the tensions
between superpowers, scientific collaboration in the Antarctic prevailed and
resulted in the Antarctic Treaty, which dedicated the entire continent for
peace and scientific exploration. Such a legal framework is absent in the
Arctic, but the recent Central Arctic Ocean Agreement, 2018 could be perceived
as a science diplomacy initiative. Science, law and geopolitics have made the agreement
possible. The Central Arctic Ocean is defined in terms of law and geography as
an area lying beyond the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the coastal states.
A notable element of the agreement is the mention of local knowledge of the
indigenous communities in the region. The extent of their role and participation
in decision-making is however, debatable.
However, while in the 1950s the
Antarctic could be considered a territory of and for science, Dr. Dodds pointed
out that we needed to recognize that current activities such as resource
exploitation, tourism, biological prospecting, and others, have all complicated
what science diplomacy can and cannot do. His view on how science diplomacy is
really a complex matter and not the silver bullet some envision, particularly
in our current post-truth/fake-news global scenario where science is constantly
challenged, provided a critical perspective to the discussion.
Dr. Brooks threw
light on her experience in the establishment of the world’s largest marine
protected area (MPA): the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area in Antarctica. Despite
being the coldest, windiest and driest continent in the world, with waters
below the freezing point, the Antarctic is rich with marine life; so much so
that over the years it has become an important fishing ground (particularly for
the exploitation of krill and toothfish) to many nations, despite its
remoteness. The Antarctic has the world’s 90 percent freshwater, and it is
known not only for driving the global ocean circulation and regulating the
global climate, but also for the abundance of resources. In fact, both the polar
regions possess some of the healthiest marine systems and even undiscovered
species of marine life. Pressure on these marine systems is being exacerbated
by rapid environmental change too.
The Antarctic, as Dr. Brooks
asserted, “is a de facto World Park, one of humanity’s marvelous achievements.”
Dr. Brooks spoke about the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources (CCAMLR) that takes a consensus-based, precautionary,
science-based, ecosystem approach to marine resource management. The CCAMLR is
the ocean arm of the Antarctic treaty system, governing the waters surrounding
Antarctica. The CCAMLR has been in place since 1980 and it has 25 members.
Therefore, a combination of this approach, the importance of fisheries in the
Antarctic, and the increasing necessity to conserve biodiversity for ecosystem
functioning has resulted in the need for extensive international collaboration.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), popular tools to conserve biodiversity and/or to
promote sustainable fisheries among others, have been discussed under the
CCAMLR as a part of its legal mandate. In fact, the popularity of MPAs have led
to about 7.5 percent of our oceans being protected currently.
The Ross Sea, from very early on,
emerged as a priority area for protection, as it is considered one of the most
pristine (least damaged) marine ecosystems of the world and is also the most
productive stretch of the Southern Ocean, manifested in the form of a
disproportionate amount of marine life in the area, driven primarily by
phytoplankton bloom. It is also considered a living laboratory (particularly
for scientists) due to its healthy marine ecosystems and the best studied
Antarctic continental shelf systems.
As explained by Dr. Brooks, CCAMLR
works on consensus and the member states meet only once a year, that gives them
only one opportunity annually to reach policy decisions. This also means that
all 25 member states must unanimously agree on decisions, such as the creation
of MPAs. Apart from the trade-offs between what you set aside for protection and
for resource use, there have been several geopolitical roadblocks (which have
nothing to do with fishing at all) along the way. The consensus on Antarctic
MPAs is a result of prolonged discussion since the 1990s. It took a long time
to get all countries on board. The area originally proposed for the Ross Sea
MPA was reduced by almost 40 percent in 2013 to accommodate fishing interests
and gain more support.
The intersection between geopolitics
and marine conservation can be best seen in the way a country such as Ukraine
voted on the issue of Ross Sea MPA – up until 2013, it always voted in unison
with Russia, but in 2014, it adopted an independent positon on the issue. However,
it is important to point out that not only fisheries are a source of contention;
sovereignty claims over Antarctica since the 1950s and unequal economic
trade-offs have also played a crucial role in defining the area of the Ross Sea
MPA. External issues such as the geopolitical tensions between the US and
Russia over Crimea (2014) also came in the way of adoption of the Ross Sea MPA,
giving the entire negotiations a “cold war feel”, as observed by Dr. Brooks.
To surpass these and other
obstacles, Dr. Brooks recalled how her colleague Dr. David Ainley led a flood
of scientific efforts, with over 10 years of scientific initiatives, raising the
relevance of the Ross Sea in support of why it should be adopted as MPA. This
included a scientists’ consensus statement with more than 500 signatures, collaboration
with the media to produce numerous news articles, a documentary, public
protests, and so on. In 2015, there were still two countries left to approve
the decision: Russia and China.
With all the public outreach
initiatives Dr. Brooks described, the former State Secretary of the US, John
Kerry became involved in the high-level negotiations in a much greater way,
primarily because he wanted to see the Ross Sea MPA as a part of his legacy. He
managed to bring China on board in 2015, thus isolating Russia, which also
decided to follow suit in 2016. On October 28, 2016, Ross Sea MPA was adopted
as world’s largest MPA, covering an area of 1.55 million square kilometres with
70 percent of it being strictly ‘no-take’, and it came into force on December 1,
2017. As remarked by Dr. Brooks, “It was not only an environmental win for
Antarctica and the whole world, but also a diplomatic win. It felt like a peace
agreement, especially in the context of heightened geopolitical tensions
between the US and Russia. It made me realise that we still do have exceptional
governance despite tensions and contested resource frontiers.”
During the Q&A session, Dr.
Brooks also touched upon the status of the Antarctic Treaty, which is in place
indefinitely. It can come up for review and when it does, all the countries
have the opportunity to think about its status based on unanimous agreement
(consensus). However, according to her, it is very difficult to imagine a
scenario in which the countries would want the agreements that ban various
activities such as mining or the Antarctic Treaty to disappear, even if one
thinks from the perspective of countries that have historical claims in the
region. It is important to emphasise that if these agreements go away, it opens
up to everybody. Moreover, it does not make economic sense to mine in the
Antarctic due to the lack of infrastructure and cost-effective mining options.
At the same time, in light of the absence of regulations for bioprospecting and
tourism, and compromises over fishing regulations, the question of whether this
treaty would continue to be effective should be pondered upon more
seriously.
Both Dr. Dodds and Dr. Brooks demonstrated
through their professional and research experiences that the polar regions of
our planet are indeed the source of much discussion in the fields of science
diplomacy and environmental peacebuilding. Besides the above-discussed points,
during the Q&A, issues pertaining to geoengineering and reformation of the
Arctic Council in the context of the growing presence of extra-regional countries
such as China in the region were also brought up by the audience. The webinar
reinforces the fact that science, despite being a double-edged sword, does have
a crucial role in the process of marine conservation and resource management in
the polar regions. In this webinar the interconnectedness between science-driven
marine conservation, geopolitical/geoeconomic realities, environmental and
other forms of diplomacy pertaining to polar regions, and global governance in
general (including resource management) were brought out succinctly.
The full recording of this webinar can be accessed at
More on Antarctic Geopolitics and the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area by the two speakers (E-International Relations):
Further details of the webinar series and the first webinar's report can be found at
https://manipalclimatecentre.blogspot.com/2019/04/science-diplomacy-and-environmental.html?m=1
https://manipalclimatecentre.blogspot.com/2019/04/science-diplomacy-and-environmental.html?m=1
The webinar series has been made possible with support from the following networks and institutions:
- Centre for Climate Studies, Manipal Academy of Higher Education
- Environmental Peacebuilding Association
- Earth System Governance Project
- Early Career Researchers Network of Networks and Future Earth
- Young Ecosystem Services Specialists
- Network of Early-Career Sustainable Scientists & Engineers
- International Consortium of Research Staff Associations
- Responsible Research and Innovation Networking Globally
*This report has been prepared by Carla Isobel Elliff of Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, representing the Young Ecosystem Services Specialists (YESS)
network; Rashmi Ramesh of Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE); and Sunitha Anup of Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New
Delhi, representing the Network of Early-Career Sustainable Scientists
& Engineers (NESSE).
Comments
Post a Comment