1 Introduction
Non-use measures (ie measures that ban or suspend the use of a resource) and restricted- or limited-use measures (ie measures that restrict certain types of uses) form one important set of tools for conserving the marine environment. In larger management frameworks, such as in marine protected areas (MPAs), the two approaches are often intertwined.1 Measures are tailored to the conservation objectives of the MPA and as a result can be extraordinarily diverse. Furthermore, they can apply to the whole range (or most) of an activity (eg fishing) or species (all fish taxa), or be much more specific.2 Often, MPAs do not prohibit a use altogether, but use more specific restricted- or limited-use measures that take the form of rules specifying the appropriate method of use (eg minimum mesh sizes for nets, prohibition of certain fishing gear). In this case, the smooth transition between non-use measures and use measures becomes clear, highlighting the concepts are in fact on a continuous spectrum.3 The geographical scope of non-use measures may be applied to the entire MPA, so-called ‘no-take’ MPAs, or be limited to sub-areas, known as ‘zones’. Some MPAs may also contain a combination of geographical and temporal scopes, such as non-use measures that are only in place in certain zones during certain seasons (eg no-fishing zone during spawning season).
The case study in this chapter examines an MPA in the Southern Ocean, one of the world’s last great wilderness regions that contribute significantly to global marine biodiversity and ecosystem services.4 While the Southern
To protect the life of the Southern Ocean, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) – the body responsible for conserving biodiversity in the Southern Ocean – is working on the establishment of a representative system of MPAs around Antarctica that largely utilises a non-use approach, albeit with zone-specific restricted-use measures for fishing activities and certain allowances for scientific research.
The following chapter discusses the MPA conservation planning of a large-scale international MPA proposal in the Weddell Sea as a case study. Beginning with a brief overview of spatial conservation planning in the Southern Ocean under the CCAMLR regime in general (section 2) and MPA planning in the Weddell Sea in particular (section 3), we provide insight into the rationale for protecting the Weddell Sea ecosystem (section 4) and present the non-use and (restricted-) use measures of the MPA (section 5). In doing so, we address the following questions: To what extent is the MPA with associated measures an embodiment of the precautionary approach? And to what extent is the Phase 1 of the Weddell Sea Marine Protected Area (hereafter: WSMPA P1) proposal related to the global problem of climate change? Finally,
2 CCAMLR and MPAs – the Protection of Marine Living Resources of the Southern Ocean
Several initiatives are currently underway to establish MPAs in the high seas of the Southern Ocean under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention).10 The objective of the Convention is the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources which includes their rational use.11 It utilises precautionary, ecosystem-based, and science-led approaches for which it has been applauded internationally.12 The Convention is implemented through CCAMLR. Under its auspices, 27 Contracting Parties determine the use of Antarctic marine living resources through consensus-based decision-making based on the best available scientific information. CCAMLR’s conservation measures span the spectrum from restricted- or limited-use measures to non-use measures.
In 2009, CCAMLR and its Member States committed themselves to the establishment of a representative system of MPAs in the Convention Area13 as a key tool to achieve the Convention’s objective of conserving Antarctic marine living resources while enabling, and in some cases, benefiting their rational use. Since then, two MPAs have been established in the Convention Area: (1) The Southern Shelf Area of the South Orkney Islands MPA in 2009, the first MPA beyond national jurisdiction,14 and (2) The Ross Sea Region MPA, the
3 MPA Planning in the Weddell Sea
The whole WSMPA remains, to the day of writing this chapter (July 2024), unadopted. For reasons explained below, the focus here is on a proposal related to part of the WSMPA, known as Phase 1. It has so far failed to achieve political consensus within CCAMLR.
The wider Weddell Sea region lies east of the Antarctic Peninsula and includes the Weddell Sea as well as the smaller Lazarev and Riiser-Larsen Seas (Figure 12.1(a)). The Weddell Sea region is important with regards to the global climate, biosphere, and human well-being, as it contributes significantly to global marine biodiversity17 and ecosystem functions, such as primary and secondary production18 and services, such as carbon sequestration.19
At the 35th Meeting of CCAMLR in 2016, the European Union and its Member States submitted the first proposal for a conservation measure to establish an MPA in the Weddell Sea region.
The scientific work underpinning the proposal was carried out by a team at the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) (Bremerhaven, Germany).20 The
The original WSMPA proposal was split into two sub-proposals in 2019: WSMPA P1 (west of the prime meridian) and WSMPA P2 (east of the prime meridian) (Figure 12.1(b)).22 This division into two phases occurred because Norwegian scientists had raised concerns about differences in the data availability between the western and the eastern parts of the Weddell Sea region, and the implications of such differences on the statistical modelling efforts. A Norwegian team of scientists has been redeveloping the scientific basis for a WSMPA P2 conservation measure proposal and submitted this to CCAMLR in 2023. In the meantime, the German team (who had drafted the original proposal) amended the original proposal for a WSMPA conservation measure to cover only P1. The WSMPA P1 proposal is updated regularly to reflect major scientific discoveries, such as the world’s largest fish nest colony.23 It has been resubmitted to the CAMLR Commission every year, most recently in 2023. Nevertheless, to date, no consensus on either the WSMPA P1 or P2 proposals has been achieved among Member States within the CAMLR Commission.
One of the main aims behind the WSMPA P1 proposal is to ensure that the Weddell Sea can function as a climate refugia for ice-dependent species (like Antarctic krill, Weddell seals) or species with low heat tolerance (like many Antarctic fish species). The reasoning is that the Weddell Sea is expected to be one of the last regions of the Southern Ocean where the consequences of climate change will manifest due to its ice cover and favourable currents.24 It is therefore conceivable that these cold-adapted species will use the Weddell Sea as a refuge in the future. Researchers have already found that some ice-dependent penguin species are abandoning their traditional colony locations due to a lack of ice cover.25 Furthermore, some projections suggest that favourable habitats for Antarctic krill might be shifting southward, resulting in possible declines in abundance and/or biomass.26 The extent to which habitat shifts have already occurred and the potential future effects on individual species or the ecosystem as a whole continue to be the subject of debate and active research. Detailed scientific evidence may not be available until species shifts (which are likely irreversible) have occurred, therefore a precautionary approach is required.
The WSMPA P1 proposal also recognises that the Weddell Sea ecosystem deserves protecting in its own right, as it is a pristine ecosystem (compared to other regions in the Southern Ocean), home to many important species and has no major current threats.27 The area offers an important breeding and foraging ground for birds and mammals,28 and a habitat for many rare species or
While the proposed WSMPA P1 cannot prevent the effects of climate change, it can serve to minimise other important stressors to increase the region’s resilience to climate change. It can also support research and monitoring that will improve our understanding of the Antarctic ecosystems and the effects of climate change disentangled from other human activities. Given the uncertainty about the future extent and potential consequences of climate change on biotic ecosystem components of the Weddell Sea, the MPA proposal argues for protection under the precautionary principle. The rationale is that by minimising anthropogenic impacts on the Weddell Sea ecosystem, we maximise the likelihood of being able to pass on this natural heritage to future generations. This is especially pertinent given that exploitation of living marine resources in the area is likely to expand. With climate change affecting sea ice cover, previously inaccessible areas may become accessible in the future. The Weddell Sea has already seen a slight increase in fishing activity in recent years, catches for Antarctic toothfish have increased from below 100 tonnes in the early 2000s to >300 tonnes each year in 2017–2023.36 Given continuous advances in fishing technology and increasing need for food globally, it stands to reason that economic interests may look to expand into the Weddell Sea in the near future. The WSMPA P1 proposal seeks to restrict fishing activity as a
5 Zone-Specific Regulations
In line with the precautionary approach, the WSMPA P1 proposal addresses the potential increase of economic use by pre-emptively assigning three management zones (Figure 12.2) that have different main aims and allow or prohibit different activities of fishing as well as scientific research (see Table 12.1). This approach is already applied in other MPAs established within CCAMLR (see
Summary of specific provisions in each of the WSMPA P1 management zones. AMLR: Antarctic marine living resources; CM: Conservation measure
| Zone | Specific management provisions |
|---|---|
| Fisheries Research Zone – (Restricted-) use | |
| Prohibited | Fishing:
Directed fishing for all finfish and non‐finfish taxa (incl. krill), except of Dissostichus spp. |
| Permitted (with limitations) | Fishing:
Directed fishing for Dissostichus spp. between 550 m and 2100 m water depth in accordance with established CCAMLR procedures and CMsa |
Scientific research:
|
|
| Permitted | – All other scientific research on AMLR |
| Scientific Reference Area and General Protection Zone – Primarily non-use | |
| Prohibited | Fishing:
Directed fishing for all finfish and non‐finfish taxa (incl. krill) |
| Permitted (with limitations) | Scientific research:
|
| Permitted | – All other scientific research on AMLR |
| Special Protection Zone – Non-use only | |
| Prohibited | Fishing:
Directed fishing for all finfish and non‐finfish taxa (incl. krill) |
Scientific research:
|
|
| Permitted | – All other scientific research on AMLR |
For example, CM 22–08 (2009) (n 41); CM 41–04 (2022) (n 39)
Antarctic krill and Antarctic toothfish constitute the main species of commercial interest in the Southern Ocean.38 At the moment, there is only one
The Proposal’s Fisheries Research Zone (FRZ), which includes a Scientific Reference Area (SRA) (Figure 12.2) was designed specifically to contribute to science-based management of the Antarctic toothfish stock through ongoing research by fishing vessels. The FRZ encompasses an existing CCAMLR research area (Research Block 48.6_5) for exploratory fishing for Antarctic toothfish. It is intended to be managed in accordance with established CCAMLR procedures and conservation measures,41 and therefore does not require an addendum to existing CCAMLR regulations. However, an addendum would be required for the proposed SRA, as fishing for Antarctic toothfish would not be permitted there. The proposed SRA is located spatially adjacent to the FRZ and would allow researchers to directly compare the fished FRZ to a ‘controlled’ unfished area.42 This enables the study of potential wider ecosystem effects and trophic impacts of longline fishing for Antarctic toothfish, thereby reducing uncertainty around this issue in the future. Both the FRZ and the SRA have a limit of one tonne per vessel per year for all other fisheries exploiting finfish and
The other two zones, the General Protection Zone (GPZ) and the Special Protection Zone (SPZ), were designed with the goal of ensuring that the Weddell Sea can function as a climate refugia for ice-dependent species or species with low heat tolerance. The zones are intended to provide a general level of protection (eg for representative examples of pelagic and benthic ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats) or enhanced protection for known vulnerable marine ecosystems and unique, rare or biodiverse and/or endemic habitats and features. To ensure this protection and prevent possible impacts from fishing under the precautionary principle, no fishing activities are allowed. In the GPZ, only scientific research on marine living resources shall be allowed at five tonnes per vessel per year for Antarctic toothfish and one tonne per vessel per year for all other finfish and non-fish taxa (such as krill). In the SPZ, all fishing activities (including scientific research fishing) are to be prohibited. For other scientific research activities, the same restriction shall apply for the GPZ and SPZ as that of within the FRZ.
The WSMPA P1 should therefore be viewed not as a single non-use/(restricted-) use measures, but rather a combination of several measures bundled into a larger management framework (see definitions at the beginning of this chapter).
6 Arguments of the Opposition to the WSMPA
Throughout its lifetime, the WSMPA P1 proposal has faced major opposition. The Republic of China and the Russian Federation have continued to be the most vocal members of the opposition throughout the years, blocking the proposal in both the Scientific Committee and the Commission. Their main arguments condense down to concerns about the CCAMLR principle of ‘best available science’ (ie the adequacy of scientific evidence underpinning the proposal),44 citing the need to provide more scientific data to demonstrate threats to the ecosystem and thus justify the rationale behind the WSMPA P1 conservation objectives. The opposition’s reasoning may be a reflection of
The Republic of China and the Russian Federation most often apply this line of argumentation to question the non-use and (restricted-) use measures associated with the proposed GPZ and SPZ, which would restrict their long-distance fisheries in the future. In contrast, the majority of other CCAMLR fishing Member States (eg the United Kingdom, New Zealand) recognise that MPAs are an effective tool for marine conservation and may even have positive effects on commercially exploited fish stocks (see for instance the UK’s leading role in the Global Ocean Alliance46).
The opposition’s narrative using ‘best available science’ argumentation is not always focused on individual measures but also applied broadly within larger CCAMLR discussions. For instance, the Republic of China and the Russian Federation apply it to question the development process of MPA proposals generally and to any topics related to the link between fishing pressure and climate change. They articulate the need to provide more scientific data to demonstrate threats to the ecosystem that would be caused by fishing or climate change. As highlighted previously, such data are not currently available, nor is it likely that a substantial amount of it becomes available before some of the intended aims of the WSMPA P1 proposal have already become impossible.
This narrative continues despite the fact that the Scientific Committee certified the process of scientific work (described above) to develop the MPA proposal to reflect the ‘best available science’ in 2016. In CCAMLR, the role of science is clearly defined. Scientific representatives from each Member State are represented in the Scientific Committee. The task of the Scientific Committee as a whole is to evaluate the best science currently available and to outline the risk and benefits of any proposed management measures. It is only in the CAMLR Commission that Member States must decide what credence to give to the scientific recommendations in favour of a WSMPA P1 proposal.
As has become evident in the discussions in the Commission, some CCAMLR Member States are far more content to err on the side of caution (accepting potential economic consequences of non-use or restricted-use measures), while others seem to prioritise economic interests. This is underscored by the
7 Conclusion
As the recent 3rd CCAMLR Special Meeting on MPAs (Santiago, Chile, 19 to 23 June 2023) showed, CCAMLR has not been able to resolve the deadlock in the MPA negotiations. Rather, the deadlock crystallised more clearly than ever. The scientific and political debates in CCAMLR appear to be moving further apart, ie scientific findings and recommendations from the CCAMLR Scientific Committee seems to be increasingly ignored by the CAMLR Commission, where economic concerns over the non-use or (restricted-) use measures dominate. It is likely that a breakthrough must be sought at much higher political levels. In forums such as the European Parliament,49 there are increasing calls for high-level political commitment to support the WSMPA P1 proposal and those for other MPAs around Antarctica. Hopefully, given the increase in political pressure and will, the issue of marine conservation around Antarctica can be placed on the agenda of future high-level political discussions to break the current deadlock in MPA negotiations in CCAMLR. Such negotiations should exercise great caution, however, to ensure any compromises do not result in concessions below the level of current protection afforded by the overall non-use and (restricted-) use measures enacted by CCAMLR.
Wider Weddell Sea region (Antarctica) including the Weddell Sea as well as the smaller Lazarev and Riiser-Larsen Seas (A); 2023 Weddell Sea Marine Protected Area Phase 1 (WSMPA P1) Proposal alongside the Planning Area for which a Phase 2 Proposal was first proposed in 2023 (B). Base layers for Antarctica and the ice shelf taken from Quantarctica
K. MATSUOKA ET AL, “QUANTARCTICA, AN INTEGRATED MAPPING ENVIRONMENT FOR ANTARCTICA, THE SOUTHERN OCEAN, AND SUB-ANTARCTIC ISLANDS” (2021) 140 ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE 105015
Weddell Sea MPA Phase 1 Proposal with planned management zones: The General Protection Zone (GPZ), the Special Protection Zone (SPZ), the Fisheries Research Zone (FRZ), and the Scientific Reference Area (SRA). It also shows the CCAMLR fisheries research blocks (48.6_3, 48.6_4, 48.6_5) that are already in effect. Base layers for Antarctica and the ice shelf taken from Quantarctica
K. MATSUOKA ET AL, “QUANTARCTICA, AN INTEGRATED MAPPING ENVIRONMENT FOR ANTARCTICA, THE SOUTHERN OCEAN, AND SUB-ANTARCTIC ISLANDS” (2021) 140 ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE 105015
This is also discussed by Guggisberg in chapter 2 of this volume.
ibid.
ibid.
M. C. Kennicutt II et al, “Sustained Antarctic Research: A 21st Century Imperative” (2019) 1 One Earth 95–113; N. S. Steiner et al, “Climate change impacts on sea-ice ecosystems and associated ecosystem services” (2021) 9 Elementa.
R. D. Cavanagh et al, “Future risk for Southern Ocean ecosystems: changing physical environments and anthropogenic pressures in an Earth system” (2021) 7 Frontiers in Marine Science 615214.
C. M. Brooks, “Competing values on the Antarctic high seas: CCAMLR and the challenge of marine-protected areas” (2013) 3(2) The Polar Journal 277–300.
S. Stammerjohn et al, “Regions of rapid sea ice change: An inter-hemispheric seasonal comparison” (2012) 39 Geophysical Research Letters; C. L. Parkinson and N. E. DiGirolamo, “Sea ice extents continue to set new records: Arctic, Antarctic, and global results” (2021) 267 Remote Sensing of Environment 112753.
D. G. Vaughan et al, “Recent Rapid Regional Climate Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula” (2003) 60 Climatic Change 243–274; M. P. Meredith and J. C. King, “Rapid climate change in the ocean west of the Antarctic Peninsula during the second half of the 20th century” (2005) 32 Geophysical Research Letters.
J. Turner et al, “Antarctic climate change and the environment: an update” (2014) 50 Polar Record 237–259; S. A. Morley et al, “Global Drivers on Southern Ocean Ecosystems: Changing Physical Environments and Anthropogenic Pressures in an Earth System” (2020) 7 Frontiers in Marine Science 547188.
For more information on MPAs in the Southern Ocean, see the discussion by Guggisberg in chapter 13 of this volume.
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention) (adopted 20 May 1980, entered into force 7 April 1982) 1329 UNTS 47, art II.
D. G. M. Miller and N. M. Slicer, “CCAMLR and Antarctic conservation: the leader to follow?” in S. M. Garcia, J. Rice, A. Charles (eds), Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution (John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2014) 253–270.
CCAMLR, “Map of the CAMLR Convention Area” (last updated October 2017), available at <www.ccamlr.org/node/86816> accessed 18 July 2024.
CCAMLR, “Conservation Measure 91–03 (2009) Protection of the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf” (2009) CM 91–03, available at <https://www.ccamlr.org/en/measure-91-03-2009> accessed 18 July 2024; P. N. Trathan and S. M. Grant, “The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area: towards the establishment of marine spatial protection within international waters in the Southern Ocean” in: J. Humphreys and R. W. E. Clark (eds) Marine Protected Areas. Science, Policy and Management (Elsevier 2020) 67–98.
CCAMLR, “Conservation Measure 91–05 (2016) Ross Sea Marine Protected Area” (2016) CM 91–05, available at <https://www.ccamlr.org/en/measure-91-05-2016> accessed 18 July 2024; C. M. Brooks et al, “Reaching consensus for conserving the global commons: the case of the Ross Sea, Antarctica” (2020) 13 Conservation Letters e12676.
K. Teschke et al, “Planning marine protected areas under the CCAMLR regime – The case of the Weddell Sea (Antarctica)” (2021) 124 Marine Policy 104370.
T. Brey et al, “Antarctic benthic diversity” (1994) 368 Nature 297–297; A. Brandt et al, “First insights into the biodiversity and biogeography of the Southern Ocean deep sea” (2007) 447 Nature 307–311.
J. Gutt et al, “Reviews and syntheses: A framework to observe, understand and project ecosystem response to environmental change in the East Antarctic Southern Ocean” (2022) 19 Biogeosciences 5313–5342.
M. Deininger et al, “Towards mapping and assessing Antarctic marine ecosystem services – The Weddell Sea case study” (2016) 22 Ecosystem Services 174–192.
Teschke et al (n 16).
K. Teschke et al, “An integrated compilation of data sources for the development of a marine protected area in the Weddell Sea” (2020) 12 Earth System Science Data 1003–1023.
Teschke et al (n 16).
A. Purser et al, “A vast icefish breeding colony discovered in the Antarctic” (2022) 32 Current Biology 842–850.
SEAICE Portal, “Das Meereisportal – Log-Buch Einer Schwindenden Welt”, available at <https://www.meereisportal.de> accessed 12 July 2024.
H. J. Lynch et al, “Spatially integrated assessment reveals widespread changes in penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula” (2012) 93 Ecology 1367–1377.
A. Atkinson et al, “Krill (Euphausia superba) distribution contracts southward during rapid regional warming” (2019) 9 Nature Climate Change 142–147; D. Veytia et al, “Circumpolar projections of Antarctic krill growth potential” (2020) 12 Nature Climate Change 568–575.
K. Teschke et al, “Scientific background document in support of the development of a CCAMLR MPA in the Weddell Sea (Antarctica) – Version 2016 – Part A: General context of the establishment of MPAs and background information on the Weddell Sea MPA planning area”, Meeting of CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management, Bologna, Italy, 04 Jul 2016 to 15 Jul 2016, WG-EMM-16/01, 2016.
M. A Hindell et al, “Tracking of marine predators to protect Southern Ocean ecosystems” (2020) 580 Nature 87–92; J. Handley et al, “Marine Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas for Penguins in Antarctica, Targets for Conservation Action” (2021) 7 Frontiers in Marine Science 602972.
Purser et al (n 23).
D. Barthel and J. Gutt, “Sponge associations in the eastern Weddell Sea” (1992) 4 Antarctic Science 137–150.
Vaughan et al (n 8); Meredith and King (n 8).
Stammerjohn et al (n 7); Parkinson and DiGirolamo (n 7).
A. J. Constable et al, “Climate change and Southern Ocean ecosystems I: how changes in physical habitats directly affect marine biota” (2014) 20 Global Change Biology 3004–3025; J. Gutt et al, “The Southern Ocean ecosystem under multiple climate change stresses-an integrated circumpolar assessment” (2015) 21 Global Change Biology 1434–1453; A. D. Rogers et al, “Antarctic Futures: An Assessment of Climate-Driven Changes in Ecosystem Structure, Function, and Service Provisioning in the Southern Ocean” (2020) 12 Annual Review of Marine Science 87–120.
E. J. Murphy et al, “Spatial and temporal operation of the Scotia Sea ecosystem: a review of large-scale links in a krill centred food web” (2007) 362 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 113–148.
L. S. Peck et al, “Acclimation and thermal tolerance in Antarctic marine ectotherms” (2014) 217 Journal of Experimental Biology 16–22.
CCAMLR Secretariat, “Fishery Report 2023: Dissostichus mawsoni in Subarea 48.6.” (2024).
CM 91–05 (n 15); Brooks et al (n 15).
C. M. Brooks et al, “Antarctic fisheries: factor climate change into their management” (2018) 558 Nature 177–180.
CCAMLR, “Conservation Measure 41–04 (2022) Limits on the exploratory fishery for Dissostichus mawsoni in Statistical Subarea 48.6 in the 2022/23 season” (2022) CM 41–04.
CCAMLR Secretariat (n 36).
CCAMLR, “Conservation Measure 21–02 (2019) Exploratory fisheries” (2019) CM 21–02; CCAMLR, “Conservation Measure 22–08 (2009) Prohibition on fishing for Dissostichus spp. in depths shallower than 550 m in exploratory fisheries” (2009) CM 22–08; CM 41–04 (n 39).
Fisheries Research Zone (FRZ) and Scientific Reference Area (SRA) are similar to Impact References Zone (IRZ) and Preservation Reference Zone (PRZ) used in deep-seabed mining, see ISA, “Workshop: Design of Impact Reference Zones and Preservation Reference Zones in the Area” (2017), available at <https://www.isa.org.jm/events/workshop-design-of-impact-reference-zones-and-preservation-reference-zones-in-the-area/> accessed 16 September 2024.
CCAMLR, “Conservation Measure 24–01 (2019) The application of conservation measures to scientific research” (2019) CM 24–01.
K. N. Scott, “MPAs in the Southern Ocean under CCAMLR” (2021) 9 The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law 84–107.
C. M. Brooks et al, “Science-based management in decline in the Southern Ocean” (2016) 354(6309) Science 185–187; Teschke et al (n 16).
United Kingdom, “Global Ocean Alliance”, available at <https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/global-ocean-alliance-30by30-initiative/about> accessed 12 July 2024.
Brooks et al (n 38).
L. Goldsworthy, “Consensus decision-making in CCAMLR: Achilles’ heel or fundamental to its success?” (2022) 22 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 411–437.
European Parliament, “Resolution of 8 July 2021 on the establishment of Antarctic Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the conservation of Southern Ocean biodiversity” (2022) 2021/2757(RSP) OJ C 99, 214, available at <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0361_EN.html> accessed 12 July 2024.