Many CCAMLR members considered that a rollover of CM 51-07 was the minimum of precaution needed, absent any agreement to a wider package of krill management measures. Its expiration signals a walking away from the precautionary approach – a basic tenet of Antarctic resource management.
This seems a reasonable conclusion. China’s five-year plan includes the expansion of their high-seas fisheries and it is clearly targeting the Southern Ocean as part of that plan. And its many public statements, including at this meeting, calling for a complete overhaul of existing MPA agreements prior to considering any new proposals, reveal no signs of imminent agreement to any new MPAs.
Simultaneously, Russia continues to reject scientific evidence in its efforts to block proposals and it seems comfortable in its “disrupter” role.
China and Russia appear willing to veto proposals they don’t like without engaging in the Antarctic’s well-established and largely successful consensus-building approach – parties working together to find compromises that are mutually acceptable. They have adopted a less-cooperative, more combative style.
The “outcome” of the Hobart meeting requires immediate and firm responses from CCAMLR members. The members need to renew their commitment to maintaining the underlying principles upon which CCAMLR was founded – managing the impact of human activities based on collaboration and cooperation, using the best scientific information available and acting on the basis of precaution.
CCAMLR members need to generate a determined and focused response that calls out China’s and Russia’s actions and demands that they and all parties work cooperatively towards sustainable conservation and precautionary fisheries management goals. No new fisheries should be approved until cooperation and collaboration is restored. This includes any expansion of the krill fishery in any part of the Antarctic beyond existing caps.
Ultimately, if China and Russia cannot engage with CCAMLR according to well-established norms and practices, it raises the question of whether they are in fact committed to Convention’s objectives, and it will be necessary to challenge the approach they are taking at the Commission.