Russia Prevents Designation of Large Marine Protected Areas in the Antarctic

Photo: Adelie penguin, Ross Sea, Antarctica
An Adelie penguin in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Photo by John B. Weller.

Yesterday, plans to create some of the world’s largest marine protected areas (MPAs) in Antarctica came to a screeching halt after Russia blocked progress. Although 24 nations and the EU had come to a special meeting in Germany specifically to consider proposals for MPAs in the Ross Sea and East Antarctica because they failed to make progress at their annual meeting in 2012, Russia made it clear that they did not intend to negotiate in good faith.

Even as other nations who had delayed progress on MPAs in the past showed their willingness to make a deal, Russia raised additional issues on legality and definition of terms that prevented consensus (required for all marine management decisions in Antarctica) from being reached.

At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, nations around the world pledged to establish representative networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) in their territorial waters. Very little progress has been made since – only one percent of the oceans is protected. In 2009, the member countries of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) took up this call and committed to establish a network of MPAs in the waters they manage, the Southern Ocean.

While it may not sound like a revolutionary step to support something many CCAMLR members had already supported at the WSSD, their pledge, if fulfilled, would be a major victory for high seas (i.e., areas outside individual national jurisdiction) conservation. WWF even gave CCAMLR a “Gift to the Earth” award in 2010 in recognition of this incredibly progressive decision, which had already resulted in the designation of the world’s first high seas MPA in the South Orkney Islands.

But promises aren’t always kept, and when it came time to make actual decisions some CCAMLR member countries refused to adopt the MPAs that were put on the table despite extensive discussions and the agreement of CCAMLR’s scientists that the proposals were based on the best available science for those areas. Hence the unusual step of holding the meeting in Germany to try to get something done and convince the remaining holdouts.

In many ways, the meeting was an extraordinary opportunity for global ocean conservation. After all, by investing so much time and effort in this issue, the countries of CCAMLR who support MPAs are sending a strong signal to the rest of the world that ocean protection is important. If the meeting had had a more positive result, it would have made history by establishing huge protected areas in the high seas. CCAMLR has a reputation for leadership on conservation and fisheries management, particularly when compared to organizations like the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). It was clear that many of these countries were frustrated that after so much time and effort, they have been unable to achieve what they set out to do.

Russia’s official objections centered on CCAMLR’s legal authority to designate MPAs, as well as a desire for CCAMLR to develop a definition for MPAs. Russia had previously never raised these questions despite years of discussions about MPAs, and did not object to the decision for CCAMLR to begin work on a network of MPAs or the establishment of the South Orkneys MPA. MPA supporters at the meeting presented clear evidence that the CCAMLR treaty gives them the ability to designate MPAs, but Russia was not convinced.

Presumably, the real objections are to any measure that might interfere with fishing, regardless of whether any current fishing will be significantly limited by the MPA. The East Antarctica and Ross Sea MPA proposals, by the way, would not significantly reduce overall fishing in their regions. At the close of the meeting, there was no clear indication of whether these issues could be resolved in time for CCAMLR’s regular annual meeting in October of this year.

Ultimately, the real loser is the Southern Ocean and the millions of animals that call it home. If countries cannot look beyond short-term gain and see the value of leaving a legacy of permanent ocean protection for key Antarctic ecosystems, CCAMLR’s promise will have been an empty one. But there is still hope that CCAMLR nations can agree on these two MPAs in October. CCAMLR and Russia could be  shining examples of leadership for the rest of the world, proving that it is possible to take bold steps to preserve the 70% of our planet that is ocean. One percent of the oceans protected is not enough to safeguard the oceans for current and future generations.

With so much at stake, what happened in Germany is simply not acceptable.


  1. Md. Abu Sayeed
    Dhaka, Bangladesh
    November 4, 2013, 4:53 am

    We, third world country people are suffering for Global Worming most .
    The country which low lying are in great danger. But we are very little responsible for this. So it is high time we should talk about the issue.

  2. Alexandre B Silva
    September 11, 2013, 12:47 am

    When I think in the future, I include my daughters, grandchildren,children and grandchildren of my friends and so on. But some of the riches we know and what we leave for them are not supposed to last, even throughout their lives. The oil and precious minerals are depleted, selected seeds may at some point be defeated by pests, livestock can be wiped out by a virus, etc..

    Human activity has transformed the absolute value of resources such as biodiversity, clean water and clean air in resources of assigned value, such as money. In this world of make-believe, everything works well as society and institutions are organized. But when there is a major crisis, the first to disappear is this convention. There is no use having only money, gold and jewels, because no longer have the same value. Resources are needed for real, those of absolute value. (Alcides Dutra)

  3. Alexander
    Russia, Moscow city
    August 18, 2013, 9:06 am

    Good day everyone!
    Accidantely saw this article while enjoing the photos. I am from Russia, Moscow. This is quite a surprise for me to read this. Have not met this information in any news or tv programs or newspares or internet news, or somewhere else locally. There is a greenpeace organisation located in Russia and if there is any noticable danger regarding a nature Greenpeace Russia distributes letters through out internet / social nets / subscribers’ e-mails asking to sign a petition for Russian government if there is an appropriate case (I personnaly signed similar ones electronically). No such information have come till the moment. There is also a law in Russia that is a petition collects 100k votes electronically it is considered by government (there are 150mln people living in Russia).

    National Geographic has also a local site for Russia but I have not found any information there. If this case is really important and also accurately reported in the article why this information was put only for english speakers?

  4. Bob A
    Spokane, Wa.
    August 16, 2013, 3:18 pm

    It does not surprise me that Russia would put the brakes on anything that would have to do with conservation. They’re so behind the times I really can’t see them catching up any time soon. It would not matter how

  5. Deepak Menon
    New Delhi/Dehradun,India
    July 30, 2013, 12:51 pm

    With Global warming going the way it is – the long term goal of Russia (and other such nations who either block or delay a settlement) is very clear. Antartica is a land area while the Artic is just floating on ice – which to my mind will have probably vanished in another 8 to 10 years. Every one will have to shift northwards in the Northern Hemisphere and to the south in the southern hemisphere some day – maybe in the next 20-25 years to survive. And where there is land there will be profits to be made. What better proposition to hold on to a clump of Antartica – the more the better … just some idle speculation one may say .. but just a thought that strayed into my mind ….

  6. mary zeiser
    Winnetka, CA
    July 28, 2013, 9:05 pm

    Dear Claire,
    Your article was nicely written. What actions can your readers take to help?


  7. Chada
    July 28, 2013, 9:02 pm

    Russia needs to look beyond their comfort zone, and wake up to the fact that they must play fair to be respected.

  8. kimba dull
    July 24, 2013, 2:58 am

    what?! Russia can and surely will support this endeavor, their community of other humans, (US! all of us) are supporting them. We all are waking up to the reality that we need each other. Thank you, Mother Russia and Mother Gaia! Blessings,

  9. Skeptic
    July 19, 2013, 7:52 am

    Yes, because it is 100% about saving the planet and not about limiting Russia’s and other nations’ which border arctic economic potential, by countries that have no use in it, since its not in their border.