The leadership of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in designating large-scale marine protected areas (MPAs) is in question due to the lack of progress in MPA designation over the last ten years. However, CCAMLR’s science-based decision-making process remains commendable, as it has convinced all but two members of the Commission that those MPAs are well-designed and useful. This paper aims to draw lessons from this process by reviewing the different approaches applied by CCAMLR and its members to compiling, organising, and communicating the scientific rationale behind their MPA proposals. Our analysis focuses on how these efforts address the challenges of data scarcity and climate uncertainty, and accommodate competing interests such as fishing. We also examine the discussions at the Scientific Committee and its working groups to understand how it has responded to different approaches. These lessons may inform the international cooperation on MPA designation under other instruments, including the BBNJ Agreement.

To examine how the role of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) has evolved over 64 years, we developed a systematic analysis of all available ATCM Final Reports from ATCM I (Canberra, 1961) to ATCM XLVII (Milan, 2025). The scale of the corpus — 47 meetings, 90 source documents, and approximately 38,000 pages of text — precluded manual coding at the passage level. We therefore employed a large language model (LLM) pipeline to identify and classify every mention of SCAR in the corpus, producing a structured dataset of 6,824 mentions across 13 role categories. It shows that while SCAR began as a voice at the ATCM table — a scientific observer whose evidence shaped early conservation measures. Over 64 years, through the Madrid Protocol negotiations, the establishment of the Committee for Environmental Protection, and now a rapidly changing climate, it has become an indispensable scientific authority to the Treaty System.

This year’s 48th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting included significant discussion of the topic of transparency of ATCM meetings and operations.

This presentation will examine the current approach of the ATCM to transparency including the ATCM’s, and its parties', current understanding of the concept of transparency. The presentation will also examine the current state of the ATCM’s consideration of potential self-initiated transparency reforms.

In order to illuminate the situation for the ATCM, the presentation will examine transparency approaches of selected external international organisations including their relevancy to the ATCM. The paper will consider the additional potential relevancy of emerging arrangements such as those relevant to the BBNJ Agreement. The presentation will also compare the approaches of the ATCM and CCAMLR.
Having examined the current situation of the ATCM and that of other comparable organisations the presentation will then consider potential future approaches for the ATCM in relation to transparency.

Co-presenter:
Dr Indi Hodgson-Johnston, Senior Lecturer, UTAS

In Antarctica, science is used both to gain knowledge about the environment and to inform decision-making. Science has therefore been described as a ‘diplomatic currency’ in Antarctic governance. However, the relationship between state scientific engagement and state leadership in governance has received only limited analysis. Previous studies focus on counting research papers published, or papers submitted to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM). A high ranking of states against these metrics does not necessarily equate to governance leadership. This study aims to advance understanding of Antarctic governance leadership by taking an alternative approach. Using general leadership theory, this research examines the concepts of power, influence and leadership in multilateral decision-making, and applies these to the ATCM. This study found that the legally binding outputs of ATCM decision-making may be a more effective indicator of Antarctic governance leadership. Preliminary quantitative analysis showed that 26 states participated in ATCM leadership between 1961-2025, with nine original signatory states accounting for over 86% of leadership of legally binding outputs. This study also found that science can be considered one of the principle ‘powers’ that states might utilise to influence others in ATCM decision-making.

・ At the 47th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, the Netherlands, Australia and Korea jointly submitted WP16, "Towards enhanced transparency and engagement in ATCM and CEP", which instigated a lively discussion. Both the Committee for Environmental Protection and the ATCM included the issue of transparency in respective future Work Plans.
・ Originally the Antarctic Treaty and its key provisions, negotiated amid Cold War tensions, were intended to manage the region's security threats. Article III on information exchange and Article VII on inspections provided the key components of mutual reassurance among Antarctic Treaty Parties that the core rules of the Treaty – ensuring that Antarctica be used for peaceful purposes only and be free of militarisation and nuclear explosions –were being maintained.
・ The reporting and inspections provisions of the Treaty can enhance the transparency of state actions and mutual reassurance among the Treaty Parties that key rules of the system are being obeyed; and reflect this to outside observers.
・ To increase transparency in the Antarctic Treaty System, build mutual reassurance among Parties, and garner broad support among civil society, Antarctic Treaty Parties should consider:
(a) More extensive, timely, and transparent reporting of activities;
(b) Modernising inspections;
(c) Looking at new ways to involve NGOs and civil society in Antarctic Treaty activities; and
(d) Increasing the transparency of Antarctic meetings through more engagement with media.