Neil Gilbert, Director of Constantia ConsultingAs part of ASOC’s ATCM week, ASOC Executive Director Claire Christian has conducted a series of in-depth interviews with experts from different backgrounds who have had over twenty years of experience with the ATCM and the meetings of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP). The CEP is an important advisory body that plays a key role in implementing environmental protections for Antarctica. See our overview of the ATCM and CEP here.

Since the ATCM and CEP are cancelled for this year, we’re asking these experts to reflect on the creation and evolution of the ATCM and CEP and what challenges – and opportunities – they see in the future.

The interview below is with Neil Gilbert, Director of Constantia Consulting, an independent Antarctic consultancy, who has attended over 20 CEP meetings as part of the UK and then NZ delegations, and has also served as CEP chair when he was the Environmental Manager with Antarctica New Zealand. Opinions expressed in interviews are those of the interviewee. Interviews have been edited and condensed, and some explanatory notes to clarify the text are provided by the editor in brackets [ ].

ASOC: The Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) was created by the Environment Protocol, which itself was negotiated relatively quickly between 1989 and 1991 (compared to a proposed agreement to allow and regulate mining, known as CRAMRA, which was negotiated over a much longer period, 1981-1988). Was there uncertainty among governments about the role of the CEP and how it should function? 

NG: There was a fairly quick coming together about the role and functions of the Committee. The Protocol itself was negotiated quickly. And the CEP's role within all of that happened quite quickly. The fact that it was an advisory body, and not a decision-making body helped in that regard so that there was less danger about what this committee might get up to. And a number of countries wanted to see the CEP up and running and functioning as quickly as possible.

Also, there was the Transitional Environmental Working Group, the TEWG, that was set up in the 1990s to transition into the functioning of the CEP. It was almost like a little bit of a testbed for the CEP during those few years of the TEWG. And that really did help smooth away for when the CEP got up and running in the late 90s.

ASOC: You attended the CEP originally as a member of the United Kingdom’s delegation and subsequently as a member of the New Zealand delegation. Did either country have any objectives or expectations concerning the role of the CEP in implementing the Protocol, or was there an attitude of “let’s see what happens”?

NG: There was a lot of similarity in the way that the two countries were approaching the Committee. In both countries there was a desire to make sure that the CEP was seen as and acted as a technical and environmental advisory body to the fullest extent that it possibly could. So certainly there were some objectives around making sure that it was populated with environmental experts or technical experts to ensure that discussions were based on the best available scientific advice as well. Thus having some good connections with SCAR [the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research] was seen as important from the outset for both the UK and for New Zealand.

There was also a sense of making sure that there was some longevity and institutional memory embedded within the CEP. From a UK perspective, there was a need to make sure that there's some consistency in representatives going to this committee. The turnover of staff was never helpful, particularly if the CEP was going to be able to fulfill its technical and advisory function. And also important was to make sure that the committee could fulfill its advisory role without any sort of political interference. In terms of technical issues, I don't recall from a UK perspective going in with any particular high priorities since the roles and functions of the committees are reasonably well established in the Protocol. It was probably a question of prioritizing those.

ASOC: Did the signing of the Protocol bring about a significant shift in attitudes of Antarctic Treaty Parties? What role did the CEP play in this? 

NG: There is a bit of a no and a yes answer to this question. “No” because in some ways the Parties already had a long track record of environmental and conservation effort being to the fore. Even going back to 1964, the Parties agreed the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. And the Protocol itself was an amalgamation of quite a number of existing recommendations and agreements that they'd already made. They really had a lot of foundational stuff already in place that was able to be amalgamated into one comprehensive agreement relatively easily. The Protocol was largely this exercise in consolidating their approach towards environmental protection. 

Furthermore, there was a lot of environmental protection built into CRAMRA, whether or not you liked the principle of mineral exploitation of Antarctica. There were quite a lot of environmental controls that were built into that agreement, which also were used in some respects for the basis of elements of the Protocol. So a major shift in attitude? Probably not.

But then I think “Yes”, because the adoption of the Protocol, and certainly the establishment of the committee in the late 90s has marked a significant point in time for the Antarctic Treaty system. For several decades prior, the parties had been involved in negotiating various international agreements. From the 1990s onwards, it's all been about implementing those agreements.

When I was reflecting on this question, I recalled having a discussion with a very senior person in a non-governmental environmental agency (it wasn't ASOC) who felt that after the Protocol had been agreed and entered into force, that “Antarctica was sorted.” And I think that attitude is reflected in governmental institutes as well. After CRAMRA fell over, they found a solution through the Protocol – this comprehensive environmental regime for a whole continent with reasonably tough requirements embedded in it. And therefore, we can relax, we've sorted Antarctica, it can just run itself now.

I think Antarctica is actually ironically receiving perhaps less attention within governments as a result of all of that than perhaps it does deserve. I don't think the CEP itself has necessarily been influential in that. But I think the committee does have a really key role to play in making sure that the focus and the impetus on the conservation challenges that we've got continues on into the future.

ASOC: What changes have you seen in how the CEP operates over the years?

NG: The most obvious example is the growth in the committee membership over the years. In 1998 we had about 28 members of the CEP at the time. And now we've got 41 countries that are entitled to send representatives to attend those meetings. That's a significant increase over time. And that has added to the complexity of the discussions in a number of ways - you've got parties with different priorities and objectives coming along, and that's challenging, not least in a consensus decision-making body [the CEP requires consensus to provide advice on environmental issues].

We have also seen one or two countries who have started to become more influential over time, who have perhaps grown in comfort in the influence that they can have in the system. That has become more noticeable, with perhaps an increase in more fractious meetings as a result of that more recently. And on top of that, we have a range of issues that need attention. The agenda has become more challenging in and of itself. There's been some attempt by the CEP to address that by prioritizing its work.

ASOC: When the Protocol was signed, were there concerns that it would impact national Antarctic research programmes? Was there any sense that the Protocol was a good thing in that it would protect some of the qualities that make Antarctica so important for research? 

NG: I was working for a national Antarctic program at the time that the Protocol was agreed and witnessed firsthand some of the impacts that the Protocol had. The area that I remember fundamentally changing the way that we operated on station in Antarctica was the waste management provisions. I'm ashamed when I think back to how we behaved with our waste at the station that I was most involved with in Antarctica. We used to just dump it locally. 

But the waste management provisions of the Protocol changed all of that and national programs had to invest in ways of managing, storing, and sorting waste, and obviously transporting it away from Antarctica, which is just one of the best changes I think that came about as a result of the Protocol. And I also recall concerns being expressed at the time that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) provisions would potentially restrict the ability for scientists to do their research. I don't think that has eventuated. Having gone through that period with a national program, I think the overriding sense was that this was a good thing. And these changes actually were for the betterment of human activity in Antarctica.

ASOC: What do you think some of the CEP’s biggest accomplishments have been over the years? 

NG:  Over the years [the Committee has] made some really good progress on a number of issues -non native species environmental impact assessments, area protection and management spatial management provisions. There’s been a good, steady progress on a range of issues over time. And I think the fact that a dedicated body meets once a year and is dedicated to making progress on protecting the Antarctic environment, is possibly the biggest accomplishment in and of itself. That’s a very positive thing. And we've now got 41 countries that are signed up to those commitments and objectives.

ASOC: As a CEP representative, you have addressed a huge variety of environmental issues, from invasive species to protected areas to climate change. Which issues are your favorite ones to work on, and why?

NG: I've got a biological background in coastal marine biology in Antarctica. So I do naturally favor the more biologically oriented issues that we work on, particularly related to Antarctic wildlife. We did some work in the early 2000s on procedures for designation of specially protected species, which is a subject that I find particularly interesting. And there's an awful lot more work to do on that particular issue. Those sorts of issues - wildlife, ecosystems, biological related – are the ones that I find most interesting to work on.

But what really lights my fire is working in smaller groups. We've had a number over the years on issues like non-native species, state of the environment reporting, and area protection. And people tend to be relaxed, they talk more freely, and from a personal perspective, rather than from a country or a positional perspective. And they tend to be more productive as a result. I've often found those as a method of working to be really enjoyable.

ASOC: Do you think that the existence of the CEP has changed the operation of the Antarctic Treaty System as a whole? In what ways? 

NG: Certainly there have been changes in the approaches that countries have taken over the years – whether that's come about because of the Protocol and the CEP, I'm not sure. Harking back to my earlier comment, moving from that phase of establishment of the system into the implementation of the system, is a biggest change that we've seen over the last couple of decades. And the CEP is now the biggest body in the Antarctic Treaty System, so inevitably it does have influence. It has changed the dynamics – the CEP now manages the bulk of the work at any Antarctic Treaty meeting.

I'd actually like to see the ATCM more heavily invested and involved in the environmental work program than it currently is. There is still too much of a division of time and effort between the CEP and the ATCM. Now the CEP is doing all of the work. For an hour and a half a year, the CEP talks to its parent body. And I just don't think that's acceptable – the workload has got to be much better integrated.

Thinking about the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) as a whole [the ATS includes other bodies such as the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources or CCAMLR, which has a Scientific Committee that performs an advisory function similar to that of the CEP], there's more to do to better integrate the ATS as a whole. And those two technical advisory bodies [the CEP and CCAMLR Scientific Committee] working together better than they do at the moment is a way to achieve that.

ASOC: What do you think will be the biggest challenges for the CEP in the years ahead? What are the biggest opportunities?

NG: There are a number of challenges. Maintaining momentum is key, which is why the interruption this year worries me. There's more work that the CEP needs to do in terms of prioritizing its work and making sure that it is attentive to those issues of biggest concern. And making sure that it remains in the technical and scientific advisory space as much as it can and avoid becoming too politicized. In recent meetings, heads of delegation have been coming in and sitting at the desk in the CEP, there are lawyers sitting behind the flags, next to their CEP representatives at recent meetings. We should not be allowing that to happen.

The other challenge is around resourcing. There isn't a very heavy investment in these bodies and the work that these bodies are doing, and that can't be allowed to go on for too much longer. There's a heavy reliance on actually just a few countries. And even within those countries, just a few individuals carrying the bulk of the workload. That's not tenable for the long term and not least because of the very significant issues that the CEP is going to have to deal with.

In terms of opportunities, there are opportunities for greater investment to support the work of the CEP. The committee's recognized this, certainly the previous chair did and was quite instrumental in at least raising the issue of resourcing and trying to get the ATCM to allocate some funding. That was useful. These things always tend to go a bit slower than you want them to. But there are certainly some indications that the CEP is at least aware of these challenges and trying to address them.

ASOC: What issues do you think are most important for the CEP and the ATCM to address now and in the years ahead?

NG: The impact of climate change in Antarctica is the overriding issue. Because it has far-reaching management and governance implications. And many of the issues that the committee is dealing with – whether it's environmental impact assessments or non-native species incursions, spatial management, environmental monitoring, and human impacts – all of these things are further exacerbated by this overlaying climate influence. The pace of progress can be frustrating. It was 2010 when the Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on climate change [a special meeting of countries and organizations that attend the ATCM to discuss a particular issue] was held and made a recommendation that the CEP should develop its climate change response work program. 10 years later, we're just getting this work program up and running. Sometimes we might just have to make some bold calls. And that's really challenging amongst 41 countries.

There are other issues that the committee may need to pay more attention to, such as species management. We know that there are threats to individual species as a result of climate change. The other issue is that the CEP needs to attend to is advising on the state of the Antarctic environment. It's written in Article 12 of the Protocol and is one of the key advisory functions of the committee. Putting in place processes and mechanisms for doing that in a more rigorous science-based reporting process will help the ATCM to see where attention needs to be paid, and will help the CEP to better prioritize some of its work.

ASOC: Negotiations are currently underway at the UN for a new global high seas treaty that would address a wide range of issues, including environmental impact assessment and the creation of protected areas on the high seas. Because this treaty concerns international governance of a territory beyond national jurisdiction, the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol are often referred to in negotiations and could possibly set precedents for provisions in the new treaty. Based on your experience in the CEP, including as Chair, what advice would you give those writing this treaty? How can they maximize their chances of achieving their environmental protection objectives? 

NG: Keep your eyes on the prize. What I would imagine is the case in the UN is that there are competing priorities. What has helped the CEP and bringing into force to the Protocol is that it's been relatively easy in an Antarctic context to maintain environmental protection as the key goal or the primary aim. And the more that that can be done, that the central purpose of what you're trying to do remains the same and it's commonly agreed, the better the outcome is going to be. Otherwise, you end up with an agreement that's trying to be all things to all people and fails to achieve any one thing particularly well.

I still think the objectives of the Protocol article three, which is on the principles of environmental protection in Antarctica, are just superb and the fact that they apply to a whole continent has allowed a coming together of minds. Unless you've got that central aim, that common purpose, you're trying to achieve too many different objectives.  That's where I think these bigger negotiations must be much more challenging.

It's always struck me that the Protocol is reasonably broad. The annexes provide a little bit more detail about how you want to run an EIA system, for example. That’s why it was able to be negotiated reasonably quickly. It's not trying to answer and address every single issue. It’s allowed the CEP the opportunity to evolve the system over time. You don't have to necessarily solve everything in the legal text. If you've got an advisory body, you can allow it to develop things over time.

ASOC: Finally, is there any moment or event from the CEP meetings, or any one CEP meeting, that you remember particularly, and why?

NG: The first meeting of the committee back in 1998 was memorable, not least because it was the first meeting of the committee. There was a sense of sort of figuring out what this thing was going to be. The chair of that meeting opened up the floor to an open discussion around the way that the CEP was going to perform. That was actually quite challenging. Because I don't know that many parties actually were prepared for that discussion. We also had a big spat at that very first meeting about the way that comprehensive environmental evaluations should be handled and managed. That was a real test in implementing the Protocol, but we found a way through that over the next couple of meetings.

Not surprisingly, my four meetings as chair of the CEP stick in my mind particularly well. During the first meeting in New Delhi, I remember just being so nervous throughout the whole week because it was my first meeting as chair. And at the very end, we lost the report after spending all day negotiating it. There were hours of sheer panic over what we were going to do, and then it turned up on another data stick!

There have been meetings when we've had significant disagreements and we've had to break [stop formal proceedings] the meeting and try and find a way forward. The most satisfying part of any of these meetings is when you reach an agreement, when you see things moving forward. That sense of achievement is always enjoyable, even if it's incremental. I like those meetings when you come away and three or four things were resolved.

ASOC: Any other things you’d like to add?

NG: It's not often that we are able to just step back and take a look at the system. During the [2006 ATCM] Edinburgh meeting we had a workshop on the Sunday before the CEP to take a slightly more strategic look at the CEP. And we haven't done that since. That would be a really healthy thing to do, to have some form of review. It's been almost 25 years and it’s time for the committee to take a more holistic review of its performance.