‘Antarctica – A Wilderness Continent for Science

The ‘Public’s Dream’ as a Mission Impossible?’

Kees Bastmeijer, Tina Tin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

The Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty have frequently declared their collective ambition to manage Antarctica “in the interest of all mankind”. However, the concrete implications of these declarations are not clear. As part of an international research project, the authors asked people from different parts of the world to respond to a questionnaire about Antarctica, its values, and the way it should be managed. Notwithstanding differences in respondents’ nationalities, ages and the time of data collection, our results indicate that a significant proportion of the public values Antarctica both as a scientific laboratory and as one of the world’s last wildernesses.
Is this ‘public’s dream’ of co-existence of science and wilderness a Mission Impossible? In this article, we contend that: 1) in theory, it is a Possible Mission that would connect well with the recognition of science and wilderness in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) instruments; 2) in practice, science in Antarctica has gradual and cumulative impacts on all three main wilderness qualities of Antarctica (absence of permanent infrastructure, naturalness and large size); 3) currently, the co-existence of science and wilderness is not an important consideration in the management of human activities in Antarctica; and 4) in the future, unless a proactive and concerted effort is taken by the Consultative Parties, it appears to be a Mission Impossible, as the expansion of scientific activities and associated logistics remains uncontrolled, inexorably eroding the Antarctic wilderness. Recent ATS resolutions and high-level interventions may signify that Treaty Parties are becoming more aware of the need to increase their cooperation on the ground in Antarctica and hence, open up a space to allow the coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica to become possible. We propose the adoption of principles providing clear and concrete guidance on scientific facilities and international cooperation as a constructive step forward in realising the ‘public’s dream’ of coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)559-597
Number of pages39
JournalThe Yearbook of Polar Law
Volume6 - special edition
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Antarctica
science
coexistence
treaty
scientific activity
international cooperation
nationality
Values
research project
logistics
infrastructure
questionnaire

Keywords

  • Antarctic values
  • wilderness
  • accumulative impacts
  • Antarctic research
  • interest of all mankind
  • public perception
  • public survey research
  • Antarctic Treaty System
  • Madrid Protocol

Cite this

@article{28ef4aacce9f4b5db9996044ce1e32d6,
title = "‘Antarctica – A Wilderness Continent for Science: The ‘Public’s Dream’ as a Mission Impossible?’",
abstract = "The Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty have frequently declared their collective ambition to manage Antarctica “in the interest of all mankind”. However, the concrete implications of these declarations are not clear. As part of an international research project, the authors asked people from different parts of the world to respond to a questionnaire about Antarctica, its values, and the way it should be managed. Notwithstanding differences in respondents’ nationalities, ages and the time of data collection, our results indicate that a significant proportion of the public values Antarctica both as a scientific laboratory and as one of the world’s last wildernesses.Is this ‘public’s dream’ of co-existence of science and wilderness a Mission Impossible? In this article, we contend that: 1) in theory, it is a Possible Mission that would connect well with the recognition of science and wilderness in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) instruments; 2) in practice, science in Antarctica has gradual and cumulative impacts on all three main wilderness qualities of Antarctica (absence of permanent infrastructure, naturalness and large size); 3) currently, the co-existence of science and wilderness is not an important consideration in the management of human activities in Antarctica; and 4) in the future, unless a proactive and concerted effort is taken by the Consultative Parties, it appears to be a Mission Impossible, as the expansion of scientific activities and associated logistics remains uncontrolled, inexorably eroding the Antarctic wilderness. Recent ATS resolutions and high-level interventions may signify that Treaty Parties are becoming more aware of the need to increase their cooperation on the ground in Antarctica and hence, open up a space to allow the coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica to become possible. We propose the adoption of principles providing clear and concrete guidance on scientific facilities and international cooperation as a constructive step forward in realising the ‘public’s dream’ of coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica.",
keywords = "Antarctic values, wilderness, accumulative impacts, Antarctic research, interest of all mankind, public perception, public survey research, Antarctic Treaty System, Madrid Protocol",
author = "Kees Bastmeijer and Tina Tin",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "6 - special edition",
pages = "559--597",
journal = "The Yearbook of Polar Law",
issn = "1876-8814",
publisher = "Brill/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers",

}

‘Antarctica – A Wilderness Continent for Science : The ‘Public’s Dream’ as a Mission Impossible?’. / Bastmeijer, Kees; Tin, Tina.

In: The Yearbook of Polar Law, Vol. 6 - special edition, 2014, p. 559-597.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - ‘Antarctica – A Wilderness Continent for Science

T2 - The ‘Public’s Dream’ as a Mission Impossible?’

AU - Bastmeijer, Kees

AU - Tin, Tina

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty have frequently declared their collective ambition to manage Antarctica “in the interest of all mankind”. However, the concrete implications of these declarations are not clear. As part of an international research project, the authors asked people from different parts of the world to respond to a questionnaire about Antarctica, its values, and the way it should be managed. Notwithstanding differences in respondents’ nationalities, ages and the time of data collection, our results indicate that a significant proportion of the public values Antarctica both as a scientific laboratory and as one of the world’s last wildernesses.Is this ‘public’s dream’ of co-existence of science and wilderness a Mission Impossible? In this article, we contend that: 1) in theory, it is a Possible Mission that would connect well with the recognition of science and wilderness in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) instruments; 2) in practice, science in Antarctica has gradual and cumulative impacts on all three main wilderness qualities of Antarctica (absence of permanent infrastructure, naturalness and large size); 3) currently, the co-existence of science and wilderness is not an important consideration in the management of human activities in Antarctica; and 4) in the future, unless a proactive and concerted effort is taken by the Consultative Parties, it appears to be a Mission Impossible, as the expansion of scientific activities and associated logistics remains uncontrolled, inexorably eroding the Antarctic wilderness. Recent ATS resolutions and high-level interventions may signify that Treaty Parties are becoming more aware of the need to increase their cooperation on the ground in Antarctica and hence, open up a space to allow the coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica to become possible. We propose the adoption of principles providing clear and concrete guidance on scientific facilities and international cooperation as a constructive step forward in realising the ‘public’s dream’ of coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica.

AB - The Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty have frequently declared their collective ambition to manage Antarctica “in the interest of all mankind”. However, the concrete implications of these declarations are not clear. As part of an international research project, the authors asked people from different parts of the world to respond to a questionnaire about Antarctica, its values, and the way it should be managed. Notwithstanding differences in respondents’ nationalities, ages and the time of data collection, our results indicate that a significant proportion of the public values Antarctica both as a scientific laboratory and as one of the world’s last wildernesses.Is this ‘public’s dream’ of co-existence of science and wilderness a Mission Impossible? In this article, we contend that: 1) in theory, it is a Possible Mission that would connect well with the recognition of science and wilderness in the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) instruments; 2) in practice, science in Antarctica has gradual and cumulative impacts on all three main wilderness qualities of Antarctica (absence of permanent infrastructure, naturalness and large size); 3) currently, the co-existence of science and wilderness is not an important consideration in the management of human activities in Antarctica; and 4) in the future, unless a proactive and concerted effort is taken by the Consultative Parties, it appears to be a Mission Impossible, as the expansion of scientific activities and associated logistics remains uncontrolled, inexorably eroding the Antarctic wilderness. Recent ATS resolutions and high-level interventions may signify that Treaty Parties are becoming more aware of the need to increase their cooperation on the ground in Antarctica and hence, open up a space to allow the coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica to become possible. We propose the adoption of principles providing clear and concrete guidance on scientific facilities and international cooperation as a constructive step forward in realising the ‘public’s dream’ of coexistence of science and wilderness in Antarctica.

KW - Antarctic values

KW - wilderness

KW - accumulative impacts

KW - Antarctic research

KW - interest of all mankind

KW - public perception

KW - public survey research

KW - Antarctic Treaty System

KW - Madrid Protocol

M3 - Article

VL - 6 - special edition

SP - 559

EP - 597

JO - The Yearbook of Polar Law

JF - The Yearbook of Polar Law

SN - 1876-8814

ER -