“The meeting encapsulated both the promise of science-informed policy and the challenges of translating knowledge into consensus decision-making.”
ASIS team member Smrithi Talwar (from Earth Sciences New Zealand), attended CCAMLR’s 44th annual session (Hobart, Australia, 20-31 October 2025,) as part of the New Zealand delegation. Smrithi is an environmental lawyer and social scientist who works on a range of areas at the interface of environment and development policy, including in our Antarctic Sea-Ice Switch programme. Below is a collection of her reflections from her first experience at a CCAMLR meeting.
***
The 44th CCAMLR meeting took place against a backdrop of increased tension. This was both geopolitical—with ongoing disagreement between Members on long-standing proposals in areas of Antarctic marine governance —but also increased scrutiny, particularly from NGOs. After two weeks of robust negotiation, negotiators were unable to agree on some key issues.
While this could have led to a depressed mood at the end of the meeting, CCAMLR 44 ended on a note of optimism, with a commitment among many Members to find common ground during inter-sessional working groups ahead of CCAMLR 45 in 2026. Read the closing press release here.
For the New Zealand delegation, there was also a lot to celebrate: from Jana Newman’s competent and principled leadership of the delegation, to Adam Berry’s strong role as Chair of CCAMLR’s Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance (SCIC), and Nathan Walker being elected as CCAMLR’s new Executive Secretary.
Engagement between science and policy
As an intergovernmental body, CCAMLR Members can only be governments. However, a number of NGO observers to CCAMLR use existing institutional processes to contribute science-based advice. Three in particular are the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO), the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR).
An example of this genuine engagement with the evidence-based perspectives of NGO observers was ASOC’s submission of a paper on, “CCAMLR and the ‘shifting baseline syndrome: Issues of concern” (CCAMLR-44/BG/28). The paper took a historical perspective on CCAMLR’s work (see infographic below) and argued that CCAMLR Members need to take urgent action to reverse an erosion of the Commission’s founding conservation principles. Members reviewed the paper and actively debated the need to consider rational use of fishing resources within an ecosystem-based approach that respected the precautionary principle.
When is the science ‘enough?’
CCAMLR is not unique in international governance to have an active presence of scientists and science-based NGOs contribute to proceedings. However, CCAMLR (and the Antarctic Treaty System) uniquely relies on the precautionary principle as foundational to its approach, which means that the absence of information can’t be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation measures.
It was interesting to see how much of the formal discussion between Members centred around the explicitly stated need for “sufficient science” (i.e. definitive scientific proof of environmental harm before implementing conservation measures) versus “best available science” (using the most reliable, up-to-date data to make decisions, even when this data may be incomplete).
Similar science-based differences in positions were articulated in relation to proposals for new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). There was robust debate overkeeping fisheries management and conservation objectives separate, versus using a science-based ecosystem management approach that could respond dynamically to objectives of sustainable fisheries and environmental protection.
Other examples of science supporting policy discussions
Below are three additional examples where scientific research was used at CCAMLR 44 to provide greater context to policy discussions, and how science communication can connect the public to Antarctica:
1. Ross Sea Region MPA: 10 year review
CCAMLR’s upcoming 10 year review of the Ross Sea region MPA (RSrMPA) is an example of a close partnerships between science and policy. The delegations of Italy, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Norway and Argentina presented a paper to the Scientific Committee titled, “The Framework and Science to support the 10-year review of the Ross Sea region MPA” (SC-CAMLR-44/BG/35). The paper, written by both policy staff and scientific experts, identified science priorities to support this review.
2. Ross Sea Research Coordination Network
The international Ross Sea Research Coordination Network (established in July 2025) has a strong science to policy workstream, detailed objectives on science integration and community partnership, and ongoing science to policy engagement in support of the 10 year review of the RSrMPA. SCAR submitted a paper reporting back on the inaugural meeting and outlining the network’s goals (SC-CAMLR-44/BG/21). You can also read this journal paper for more information: Building a coordinated framework for research and monitoring in large-scale international marine protected areas: The Ross Sea region as a model system.
3. Hot Spots in the Ice
The NASA-funded research project “Hot Spots in the Ice: Revealing the importance of polynyas for sustaining Antarctic marine ecosystems” uses new data visualization tools to combine multimedia storytelling with AEV data visualizations that help communicate complex ecosystem science to policy and public audiences. AEV (Antarctic Ecosystem Value) is an index that integrates trophic-level data to map ecological value. It focuses on polynyas as key biological ‘hot spots’ with ecosystem values three times higher than surrounding areas.
At CCAMLR a paper was submitted through the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (SC-CAMLR-44/BG/26), to profile this project with the goal of providing a quantitative tool to identify ecologically important areas for potential inclusion in a representative MPA network.
Summary
In many ways CCAMLR-44 offered a window into the future of Antarctic governance. The meeting encapsulated both the promise of science-informed policy and the challenges of translating knowledge into consensus decision-making. For the Antarctic research community and for projects like the Antarctic Sea-Ice Switch programme that seek to understand feedbacks between ice, climate and ecosystems, the lesson is clear - our science has direct policy relevance, but its influence depends on sustained engagement with the institutions that govern the Southern Ocean.
