Antarctic conservation summit closes with stalemate on MPAs & krill fishing rules – Mongabay

Report on the 44th Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

Executive Summary: Stagnation on Key Sustainable Development Goals

The annual meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) concluded without substantive progress on critical conservation issues, representing a significant setback for the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water). The failure to establish new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and strengthen regulations for the Antarctic krill fishery directly undermines international commitments to conserve marine ecosystems and ensure the sustainable use of ocean resources.

I. Failure to Progress on SDG 14: Life Below Water

A. Marine Protected Areas and Target 14.5

The meeting failed to achieve consensus on the designation of three proposed large-scale MPAs in the Southern Ocean, a key mechanism for fulfilling SDG Target 14.5, which calls for the conservation of at least 10% of coastal and marine areas.

• Proposals for MPAs in the western Antarctic Peninsula, East Antarctica, and the Weddell Sea were once again blocked.
• The vetoes by Russia and China highlight a persistent geopolitical impasse that obstructs the Commission’s conservation mandate and impedes global progress on marine protection.
• This continued deadlock questions the effectiveness of the consensus-based governance model in delivering on crucial environmental outcomes aligned with SDG 14.

B. Krill Fishery Management and Targets 14.2 & 14.4

No agreement was reached on measures to improve the spatial management of the krill fishery, a critical food source for the Antarctic ecosystem. This inaction jeopardizes SDG Target 14.2 (sustainably manage and protect marine ecosystems) and SDG Target 14.4 (effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing).

1. The Commission did not reinstate or replace a previous conservation measure (CM 51-07) that distributed krill catches across different areas, raising the risk of concentrated fishing in ecologically sensitive zones where penguins, whales, and seals forage.
2. A proposal to nearly double the krill catch limit was not approved, but the overall trend indicates a shift toward more permissive fishing rather than the precautionary approach required by the SDGs.
3. The direct overlap between fishing operations and wildlife feeding grounds presents a clear threat to biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, contrary to the principles of sustainable management.

II. Challenges to SDG 16 and SDG 17: Institutions and Partnerships

A. Institutional Deadlock and Geopolitical Tensions

The outcomes of the meeting reflect a failure in international cooperation, undermining SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The clash between member states prioritizing conservation and those focused on expanding resource extraction has paralyzed the Commission’s decision-making process.

• The expansion of krill fishing fleets and operations by nations such as China and Norway, often supported by state subsidies, illustrates a conflict between national economic interests and collective responsibility for global commons. This runs counter to SDG Target 12.2 (sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources).
• Russia’s potential re-entry into the krill fishery and reported interest in fossil fuel reserves further complicates the geopolitical landscape, threatening the integrity of the Antarctic Treaty System.

B. Future Governance and Calls for Action

In light of CCAMLR’s inability to act, observers are looking toward alternative international frameworks and advocating for stronger conservation measures to safeguard the Southern Ocean.

1. The newly adopted BBNJ Agreement (High Seas Treaty) is seen as a potential mechanism to enhance the protection of marine ecosystems beyond national jurisdiction, reinforcing the objectives of SDG 14.
2. A growing coalition of scientists and conservationists is calling for a moratorium on krill fishing in the Southern Ocean to protect wildlife and support climate stability, aligning with SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 14.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • Explanation: The article’s core focus is on the conservation of marine ecosystems in the Southern Ocean. It discusses the failure to create Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the regulation of krill fishing, and the impact on Antarctic wildlife like penguins, whales, and seals. These topics are central to the goal of conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources.

2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Explanation: The article details the proceedings of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), an international body composed of 26 countries and the European Union. The deadlock, vetoes by Russia and China, and the clash between different groups of countries highlight the challenges and importance of international cooperation and partnerships in achieving conservation goals. The discussion of other international agreements like the BBNJ Agreement (High Seas Treaty) further underscores the relevance of this SDG.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

   • Target 14.5: “By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information.”
     • Connection: The article directly addresses this target by discussing the repeated failure to establish three large Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the western Antarctic Peninsula, East Antarctica, and the Weddell Sea. The goal of CCAMLR to create a “comprehensive and representative network of marine protected areas” is a direct effort towards achieving this target.
   • Target 14.4: “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans…”
     • Connection: The debate over strengthening regulations for the krill fishery is a key issue. The article mentions the failure to renew Conservation Measure 51-07, which allocated catches, and the push to increase the krill harvest limit. This shows a direct struggle with effectively regulating harvesting to ensure the sustainability of krill stocks, which are vital for the Antarctic ecosystem.
   • Target 14.6: “By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing…”
     • Connection: The article explicitly mentions a study finding that China “heavily subsidizes its distant water fishery operations, while Norway provides support through close government-industry collaboration and financial partnerships.” This directly links to the issue of subsidies driving the expansion of krill fishing operations. The article also notes that the commission introduced a new measure to counter illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

2. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

   • Target 17.14: “Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.”
     • Connection: The article describes a fundamental lack of policy coherence within CCAMLR. One group of countries pushes for conservation via MPAs, while another focuses on increasing krill fishing. This clash between conservation and economic interests within the same international body demonstrates a failure to achieve policy coherence for the sustainable development of the Southern Ocean.
   • Target 17.16: “Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships…”
     • Connection: CCAMLR itself is a global partnership intended to manage and conserve Antarctic marine life. However, the article illustrates the partnership’s current dysfunction, citing the “deadlock” and failure to reach consensus due to vetoes. This highlights the challenges in making such partnerships effective. The mention of looking to other agreements like the BBNJ Treaty suggests a search for more effective partnership models.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 14 Targets

   • For Target 14.5:
     • Number of new MPAs created: The article states that “no consensus” was reached on the creation of three proposed large MPAs, indicating zero progress.
     • Area of marine ecosystems under protection: The article mentions a voluntary restricted zone of “over 74,000 km²” by an industry body, which can be seen as a partial, non-binding indicator of protected areas.
   • For Target 14.4:
     • Krill catch limits: The article provides specific figures that serve as direct indicators: the current catch limit is 620,000 metric tons per year, and a rejected proposal sought to increase it to nearly 1.2 million metric tons.
     • Status of management measures: The failure to renew “Conservation Measure 51-07” is a qualitative indicator of a weakening regulatory framework for the krill fishery.
   • For Target 14.6:
     • Implementation of instruments to combat IUU fishing: The introduction of a “new measure to counter illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing” is a direct indicator of action being taken.
     • Existence of fisheries subsidies: The cited study confirming that China and Norway provide subsidies for their fishing operations serves as an indicator that subsidies contributing to potential overfishing exist.

2. Indicators for SDG 17 Targets

   • For Targets 17.14 and 17.16:
     • Consensus on conservation measures: The repeated failure to pass MPA proposals due to vetoes by Russia and China is a clear indicator of a lack of consensus and effective partnership within CCAMLR.
     • Qualitative state of international meetings: The description of the meeting as “tense” and resulting in “deadlock” serves as a qualitative indicator of the health and effectiveness of the global partnership.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com