Communicating the best available science to inform Antarctic policy and management: a practical introduction for researchers

Abstract

Communication at the science-policy interface can be bewildering not only for early-career researchers, but also for many within the research community. In the context of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, decision-makers operating within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) aspire to use the best available science as a basis for their decision-making. Therefore, to maximize the impact of Antarctic Treaty Parties' substantial investment in southern polar research, researchers wishing to contribute to policy and management must understand 1) how their work relates to and can potentially inform Antarctic and/or global policy and 2) the available mechanisms by which their research can be communicated to decision-makers. Recognizing these needs, we describe the main legal instruments relevant to Antarctic governance (primarily the ATS) and the associated meetings and stakeholders that contribute to policy development for the region. We highlight effective mechanisms by which Antarctic researchers may communicate their science into the policy realm, including through National Delegations or the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), and we detail the key contemporary topics of interest to decision-makers, including those issues where further research is needed. Finally, we describe challenges at the Antarctic science-policy interface that may potentially slow or halt policy development.

Conservation features of the terrestrial Antarctic Peninsula

“…By furthering dialogue with members of the CEP, broad stakeholder participation can develop approaches which might then be refined for presentation to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties for consideration. Consensus decisions are not required by the CEP (Hughes et al 2023 ), enabling a diversity of views to be considered.…”

“…Stakeholders/experts were identified to represent those groups based on their primary interests. First, biodiversity was represented by Antarctic policymakers (the conservation of which is a primary aim of the Treaty Parties through the Environmental Protocol and its Annexes; Antarctic Treaty Secretariat 1991 ; Hughes et al 2023 ), the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC; a coalition of non-governmental organisations working to conserve Antarctica and representing civil society), and life scientists (who work to understand and conserve biodiversity). Second, science was represented by Antarctic policymakers (where scientific research is accorded priority in the Antarctic Treaty Area through the Environmental Protocol; Antarctic Treaty Secretariat 1991 ) and Antarctic scientists (who contribute to organising research logistics and undertake the research in-situ).…”