Keywords

1 Introduction

In 2009, the Commission for the Conservation of Marine Antarctic Resources (CCAMLR) established a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf. Seven years later, the Commission designated a second MPA, in the Ross Sea. Since then, they have not designated new ones. CCAMLR members are discussing proposals to have further MPAs in waters surrounding Antarctica. One into the Weddell Sea, other into East Antarctica and another into the Antarctica Peninsula and Scotia Arc region. This chapter focuses on the latter. Argentina and Chile worked together and submitted a preliminary proposal at the CCAMLR Annual Meeting in 2017 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship 2017a). This work addresses the following question: Which are the reasons that explain the joint submission of Argentina and Chile?

We found useful insights for addressing the overarching question of this research. Österblom and Olsson (2017) note that CCAMLR members perceive MPAs as lacking incentives to promote an active collection. According to Brooks and Ainley (2017), the concept of “rational use” of MPAs has different interpretations within CCAMLR parties. This point expresses the complexity of the negotiations. Brooks and Ainley (2017) let us know the confrontation within CCAMLR members’ perceptions about the desired intensity of fishery activities in Antarctic waters, as well as the level of conservation and preservation of its ecosystems. Recent research also suggests that a strong relationship between territorial claims and the spatial distribution of Antarctica′s Protected Areas (Hughes and Grant 2017). And finally, we found that scholars have observed an overlapping of competencies between CCAMLR and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (popularly known as the Madrid Protocol), particularly in the creation of MPAs, which was called “imbroglio” (Cordonnery et al. 2015).

The present work used a qualitative methodology. It includes data sources from official documents published by Argentina and Chile’s governments, CCAMLR official publications and specialised literature on MPAs and the CCAMLR Convention. The information collected was analysed employing an inductive approach. It recognises the importance of descriptions in political science (Friedrich 1968) to organise the findings and fit them with explanations. Systematic historical observations let us developing new propositions in the study of international relations (Duroselle 1998).

This chapter presents the reasons to understand the joint submission of Argentina and Chile at CCAMLR to designate a new MPA in the western Antarctic Peninsula and Southern Scotia. First, the countries’ participation within the framework of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) as claimant countries and original signatories. Both countries have long-term policies and a strong scientific and logistics presence in Antarctica. Second, the framework of bilateral cooperation between Argentina and Chile since the 1980s, and the renewal interest on further Antarctic cooperation. Lastly, we suggest that the international prestige and position of leadership that both countries regain with the development of new environmental management instruments, such as an MPA.

2 Antarctic Claimant Countries and Scientific Presence in Antarctica

In this section, we address this statement: Argentina and Chile are Antarctic claimant countries, with a scientific presence in Antarctica. In 1959, amidst the political tensions of the Cold War, twelve countries signed the Antarctic Treaty: Argentina, Chile, Australia, Belgium, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA). Seven of these countries (Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, France and UK) have placed territorial claims over sectors of Antarctica, while the USA and the former USSR reserved the rights to make territorial claims in the future. It is important to note that article IV of the Antarctic Treaty does not resolve the legitimacy of Antarctic sovereignty. Instead, it manages the political implications by neither accepting nor denying these assertions of Antarctic sovereignty, and reassuring claimants and non-claimants that no action in Antarctica will merit further claims or change of pre-existing claims. Moreover, the Antarctic Treaty is the keystone for the ATS, which is composed by (1) the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS), (2) the CCAMLR and (3) the Madrid Protocol. Together, these international agreements contribute to the management and environmental protection of Antarctica and the surrounding oceans.

Argentina and Chile are Antarctic claimant countries and original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty. Both countries have a long-standing association with Antarctica and have developed infrastructure to support their Antarctic scientific programmes. The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) published the Antarctic Station Catalogue (2017), which compiles the Antarctic infrastructure and capabilities to support the science of all existing National Antarctic Programmes (NAPs). Specifically, Argentina and Chile have a strong presence in Antarctica. They manage thirteen and nine research stations, respectively, some of which are year-round facilities and others are open seasonally (see Tables 1, 2 for details).

Table 1 Research stations of Argentina in Antarctica
Full size table
Table 2 Research stations of Chile in Antarctica. Risopatron (Latitude: 62° 22′17″S. Longtitude: 59° 42′53″W); and Yelcho (Latitude: 64° 52′55″S. Longtitude: 63° 35′03″W)
Full size table

Tables 1 and 2 provide a comprehensive list of Argentina and Chile’s infrastructure in Antarctica. They show that both countries have long-term interests in the polar region and have heavily invested in maintaining a substantial science programme and permanence in Antarctica. Also, both countries have their research stations strategically within their territorial claims. The development of Antarctic infrastructure should not distract countries from the focus on maintaining a robust scientific programme since this is the goal of the ATS and the reason for maintaining a Consultative status at the negotiating tables of Antarctic management. Science should continue to be at the forefront of national Antarctic activities and must be the driver of every decision-making process within the framework of the ATS. Argentina and Chile should aim at strengthening too their mutual scientific collaboration in Antarctica and enact on the signed accords, given the existence of many Antarctic bilateral agreements between them. To go a step further, the question that arises is which are the main political agreements that frame the relationships between Argentina and Chile?

3 The Predominance of Bilateral Cooperation

The bilateral cooperation is the predominant pattern of the relationships between Argentina and Chile. We observed four aspects of this bilateral cooperation in Antarctic matters: the idea of the South American Antarctica, the role that the UK played in recent times concerning Argentina and Chile, the current Antarctic agenda between the governments of Argentina and Chile and finally, the underpinnings of the current Antarctic cooperation between both countries. Regarding the geopolitical idea of a South American Antarctica, Argentina and Chile signed a Joint Declaration on the South American Antarctica in 1947 (Declaración Conjunta relativa a la Antártida Sudamericana 1947). This accord was signed at the time of tensions rising over the overlapping of Antarctic territorial claims that involved Argentina, Chile and the UK. The South American Antarctic Declaration recognises the South American countries’ Antarctic territorial claims, but rejects those laid by the UK. Despite their political agendas, Argentina and Chile identified at the time that there were similarities to their Antarctic ambitions and agreed (i) to have a deeper scientific understanding about Antarctica conducting joint explorations and research; and (ii) to take advantage of the richness in the region. They also agreed on working together to reach a solution related to the territorial delimitations of the South American Antarctica (Declaración Conjunta relativa a la Antártida Sudamericana 1947).

The idea of South American Antarctica seems to have perpetuated through time. We can take an example from the late 1990s to support this statement. In 1999, the presidents of Argentina and Chile, Carlos Menem and Eduardo Frei Tagle Ruiz, respectively, met in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty and, coincidently, the centenary of the presidential meeting of the Strait of Magellan (Chile) by the then heads of both states. The 1999 meeting was followed by a visit to the Antarctic Peninsula, and the signing of a Joint Declaration in Ushuaia (Argentina) (Declaración Presidencial Antártica 1999). Both countries reaffirmed the importance of CCAMLR within the ATS and confirmed the support of Chile in the nomination of Buenos Aires (Argentina) for the establishment of a permanent Secretariat to the Antarctic Treaty, a motion that had been discussed for many years and frequently rejected by the UK. In further meetings, both presidents discussed including the provision of legal frameworks to have closer collaboration between the two countries’ Antarctic agencies. Furthermore, Argentina and Chile explicitly included considerations of operating joint scientific stations in Antarctica (Declaración Conjunta de los Presidentes de la República Argentina y de la República de Chile 1999). The examples provided before offer a historical background to the bilateral cooperation between Argentina and Chile in the Antarctic context that consolidated a successful international relationship between neighbouring countries.

With regards, the second aspect of the predominance of bilateral cooperation, the UK signed a Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) with both countries. On 12th and 13th September 2016, Sir Alan Duncan, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the UK, visited Argentina, during the administration of President Mauricio Macri. In Buenos Aires, Duncan agreed in a Joint Declaration with the Argentine Vice Chancellor Carlos Foradori to let Argentina and the UK, having regular high-level meetings. They also agreed about different issues in their bilateral relations. We note that in Antarctic matters, they agreed to promote the scientific cooperation, involving both scientific agencies devoted to the Antarctic region (the IAA and the BAS).

This Joint Declaration is highly controversial at the national level in Argentina because it is related to the Malvinas Islands. See Merke (2018) to illustrate the existence of different perspectives in national politics in Argentina around the Malvinas. Recently, the Government of the Province of Tierra del Fuego appointed Jorge Arguello—an Argentinean diplomat—to be the representative of the province at international forums. At the same time, the government of this Southern province in Argentina insisted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to have a representative to attend the Argentine/UK South West Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Sub Committee meetings (MERCOPRESS 2018b). Special consideration was included on the intention to promote joint activities at CCAMLR (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto de la República Argentina 2017).

Some months later, Argentina and Chile signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Antarctic Scientific Cooperation. It shows the intention of both states to increase cooperation between their respective Antarctic departments: IAA and the INACH (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto de la República Argentina 2017). On 17 January 2017, Chile and the UK signed a Statement of Antarctic Cooperation. Chile and the UK decided to open a channel of negotiation of issues of mutual interests in three contexts: the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM), sessions of CCAMLR and meetings of the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR). More specifically, both countries decided to promote different levels of scientific cooperation between each other for the next five years (2017–2022), involving the Antarctic agencies in both countries, the INACH and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) (Chile and the UK Statement on Antarctic Cooperation 2017).

Despite the mentioned role played by the UK, the cooperation between Argentina and Chile was a predominant pattern. With regards to the third aspect of the bilateral cooperation between Argentina and Chile in 2017, Argentina released a document listing vital facts to take into consideration to understand bilateral cooperation in Antarctic matters. It was in the context of the bicentenary of the crossing of the Andes by Generals San Martín and O´Higgins (considered the fathers of the nations respectively). It includes:

  • Joint declarations signed during the 1940s between Argentina and Chile related to Antarctica (Ruiz Moreno-Escudero Guzmán (1941; Bramuglia-Juliet Gómez in 1947; and La Rosa-Vergara Donoso in 1948);

  • Continuous cooperation carried out by the Joint Antarctic Naval Patrol (PANC) in Antarctic waters, since 1990;

  • Joint Antarctic inspections conducted at scientific stations in Antarctica during 2016 and 2017;

  • Scientific cooperation at CCAMLR to designate a MPA in the area of the Antarctic Peninsula (2018);

  • The existence of a mechanism of biannual political coordination between the Antarctic departments of the respective Foreign Affairs Ministries, since 2012;

  • The Memorandum of Understanding on Antarctic Scientific Cooperation (2016).

We also found that in 2017, Argentina and Chile governments coordinated the bilateral agenda around the following topics: the joint proposal for the establishment of a new MPA in Western Antarctic Peninsula and Southern Scotia Arc at CCAMLR; the joint inspections in Antarctic bases and the assessment of the implementation of the MoU (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship 2017b).

Moreover, the last topic: the underpinnings of the current Antarctic cooperation between both countries. In 1984, Argentina and Chile signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (Tratado de Paz y Amistad 1984). This Treaty stopped military confrontation over the international borders of these countries, a conflict that was escalating since the 1970s fuelled by their military governments. In 2009, Argentina and Chile signed the Treaty of Maipú to strengthen bilateral relationships (Tratado de Maipú de Integración y Cooperación entre la República de Chile y la República de Argentina 2009). Both international agreements are the cornerstone of modern Argentina and Chile’s bilateral relationships. Within this framework, it is possible to recognise many instances of discord between the two nations. Lorenzini (2017) observed some cases in this regard during the 2000s, such as the provision of natural gas to the southern regions’ crisis, the Apablaza case, and problems with Chile’s commercial air carrier operating from Argentina’s central airport, and commercial restrictions in exports of Chilean products into Argentina. Those cases show the existence of disputes between the two neighbouring countries within a framework of bilateral cooperation.

In summary, we found that Argentina and Chile cooperate in Antarctic matters in a framework in which the cooperation is the dominant pattern. Besides, both states cooperate with the UK separately, a state with an overlapping Antarctic claims to the South American pretensions. It is then remarkable that the Antarctic, being a place for peace and international cooperation, it also enables rival states to work together achieving a dynamic political equilibrium.

4 MPAs as a Source of International Prestige

In this section, we suggest that the closeness between the governments of Argentina and Chile with NGOs favoured the establishment of new MPAs that represented a source of international prestige to both countries. We found two ways that let us know their interactions. The first one was through the organisation of international events specialised in MPAs. In September 2017, the Ministry of Environment of Chile and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) organised the International Marine Protected Area Congress (IMPAC 4). This dual organisation of meetings like this highlights the close relationships that governments, like Argentina and Chile, maintain with environmental NGOs. It also indicates the complexity of public and private interests involved around the designation of new MPAs off the Antarctic Treaty. The event above-mentioned was supported by several organisations, many of them with international interests, such as The Pew Charitable Trusts, Waitt Foundation, Packard Foundations, Wildlife World Fund (WWF), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and l’Agence Française pour la Biodiversité (Ministerio del Medio Ambiente del Gobierno de Chile 2017). During the Congress, the Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister, Heraldo Muñoz highlighted the importance of new MPAs for his government: “(…) we are going to reach 1,600,000 mts of MPAs, one of the biggest in the world (…) We are going to have more MPAs that the extension of territory in our country” (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Gobierno de Chile 2017). In the same event, the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, also highlighted the recent creation of MPAs at the “Archipiélago Juan Fernández” and the “Parque Marino Nazca-Desventuras” (Bachelet Jeria 2017). Chile highlighted its international profile, showing the abundant nature that belongs to this country, a state that is too present in the ocean, and the existence of international interests that supported the conservation efforts done by the government.

The second way was through the publications of articles in national newspapers, written by international specialists in MPAs and biodiversity conservation. Here is an example that consolidates this statement. In December 2017, Clarin—a prominent Argentine national newspaper—indicated in an article written by a national Antarctic conservationist expert (Wegner 2017) that in the last two years, Argentina seemed actively engaged and increased its Antarctic leadership by submitting a joint proposal along with Chile to create a MPA in the Western Antarctic Peninsula. The article recognised the crucial role of Antarctic agencies in Argentina, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship and the IAA, who participated in the discussions on new MPAs at CCAMLR. This public recognition on Antarctic affairs by an Argentinean national newspaper is not very common; in fact, it reflects on the interests for forging a strategic partnership. This publication reveals the interest of international NGOs around MPAs in Antarctic waters that currently coincides with Argentina and Chile foreign policy towards oceans around the Peninsula Antarctica. The ideas expressed into the mentioned article are connected with an environment discourse of NGOs for long-term marine conservation (The Pew Charitable Trust 2017). What does it mean?

The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) submitted a document in September 2016 to CCAMLR. It argued that CCAMLR should adopt a representative system of MPAs (ASOC 2016). From the ASOC perspective, MPAs are conservation and biodiversity protection tool and not a fishery management tool that may apply within the Convention Area. Regarding that CCAMLR did not achieve the objective of having a representative system of MPAs by 2012, ASOC noted some critical points in MPAs discussions at CCAMLR that may affect future talks, such as the decreasement of MPAs size, MPA durations and the review process entailed (ASOC 2016). It is important to note that ASOC is promoting a vision of conservation of marine ecosystems in Antarctic waters that—partially—coincides with the interests of Argentina and Chile of having a new MPA near the Antarctic Peninsula. This case of MPAs shows us the importance of the international and national dimensions of politics.

Both examples may sound different, but they coincide in influencing the opinion and ideas of the citizenship of Argentina and Chile about the international role of each country concerning MPAs and biodiversity conservation. It also suggests a clear message to the international community about their international role as a country, in a world concerned about the effects of global change. Finding another similarity is possible. The idea of prestige and leadership is built on the underlying idea of sustainable development. Since the Brundtland Report (United Nations 1987), the concept of sustainable development refers to the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 1987). This idea still influences the agenda of the international community. In September 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, agreed by world leaders at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, concluded creating seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for sustainable development. One of these objectives refers to the conservation and the sustainable use of ocean, seas and marine resources. United Nations (UN) countries are expected to have developed science-based management plans for the oceans by 2020 (United Nations 2015). The framework of the sustainable development concept suggests the existence of an international opportunity for Argentina and Chile to achieve more influence in the international level through the establishment of new MPA within the Antarctic Treaty System, but not exclusively.

5 Concluding Remarks

Over the last decade, discussions around the establishment of new MPAs in the waters around the Antarctic continent have become politically relevant. The goal of this paper is to understand the meaning of the submission of a preliminary proposal by Argentina and Chile delegations at CCAMLR, promoting the designation of a new MPA in the western Antarctic Peninsula and the Southern Scotia. This chapter provided three reasons to understand the situation mentioned.

We found it is essential to consider the position of Argentina and Chile as claimant countries within the Antarctic Treaty System and their long-term scientific presence in Antarctica through the development infrastructure to support their Antarctic scientific programme. Furthermore, we found the existence of the predominance of bilateral cooperation between Argentina and Chile, and in particular, a framework of Antarctic cooperation between both countries. In this regard, we presented our pieces of evidences related to four aspects: the idea of the South American Antarctica, the role played by the UK in recent times, the current Antarctic agenda between the governments of Argentina and Chile and the underpinnings of the current Antarctic cooperation between both countries. And we also presented our pieces of evidence that suggest that the closeness between the governments of Argentina and Chile with NGOs favoured the establishment of new MPAs, which represented a source of international prestige to both countries.

Given the growing global importance of the designation of new MPAs, worldwide and particularly in Antarctica, it seems it will be calling for still closer cooperation between Argentina and Chile at the CCAMLR forum. Besides the ecological benefit of an MPA in the waters around Antarctica, it is worth remarking that the establishment of new MPAs is undoubtedly a matter of international politics. Despite the importance of developing actions that attempt for the better conservation of marine biodiversity, geopolitics will continue to rule the relationships between Antarctic countries.