Coastal and marine areas are sensible spaces that offer various benefits to living organisms including humans. It is a fact, that marine ecosystem provide us with services such as sources of food and the regulation of climate. They are however increasingly affected by
anthropogenically induced change such as pollution, fishing, and climate change associated effects such as the distortion of ocean chemistry. The global community has made several commitments to establish protected areas especially in the marine environment due to the various benefits that they promise to all lifeforms. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have the potential to secure the status quo of marine ecosystems impeding further ecological
deterioration by interference. Ideally MPAs reduce present adverse effects on marine ecosystems and their users. In the best case, MPAs improve natural habitats and alleviate resource-use conflicts. If they are well planned and managed they provide benefits for conservation while managing fisheries increasing local added value and enhancing food security. Hence, MPAs are tools to manage marine resources for conservation purpose while often aiming to attend fishing interest also. However, MPAs are attributed a certain status of protection which restricts certain human activities. Such restrictions can potentially lead to conflicts among actors such as planners and users. The planning and decision-making of MPAs thus often has to balance conflicting views.
The Southern Ocean is an exceptional example of governance on international level. It is based on an international commitment to cooperatively manage a vast area devoted to peace and science1. The Antarctic community represented by the ATS (Antarctic Treaty System) committed to designate MPAs in Antarctic waters driven by international agenda. CCAMLR (Commission or optionally Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) operates within the ATS as a framework convention on fisheries management2. Though being primarily responsible for fisheries management, CCAMLR has wider
responsibility for the protection of marine Antarctic ecosystems and has been commissioned to plan, establish and manage MPAs in the Southern Ocean. The lead for planning MPAs in the Convention Area was taken by individual CCAMLR member states. So far, only one MPA has been decided upon by consensus (South Orkney Southern Shelf MPA in 2009), one has
1 Article 2, Environmental Protocol
2 https://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/convention-area (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
been fully laid aside (Antarctic Peninsula Ice Shelves MPA, which has become a Special Area for Scientific Research), and two have been repeatedly negotiated in at least four meetings of the CAMLR Commission or the Scientific Committee (SC). MPAs have been proposed by the US and New Zealand in the Ross Sea (RS MPA) and in the form of a Representative System of MPAs in the East Antarctic (EARS MPA) by Australia, France and the EU. 2012, Germany has declared its willingness to take the lead in the development of an MPA in the Weddell Sea (WS MPA). Chile and Argentina are currently planning an MPA in planning domain 13 on the Western part of the Antarctic Peninsula adjacent to the WS MPA planning area (see Figure 5 for CCAMLR planning domains).
The CAMLR Commission is recognized for scientific based decision making and as a pioneer organization in conservation due to a well implemented ecosystem-based management
approach. Designating MPAs in the Antarctic that exceed the size of many of its member states would also acknowledge CCAMLR’s position as exemplary international regime. The media and member states have voiced concerns on serious consequences of failure for CCAMLR’s reputation. The situation appears to be a hurting stalemate and a test to international cooperation. Fulfilling commitments made seems to progress slowly if not stagnating. Current and future conservation efforts in the form of MPAs in the Antarctic and other areas beyond national jurisdiction may be affected by negotiation outcomes. Ultimately, all parties involved are troubled by a loss of time and vigor by this timely negotiation conflict.
It appears that interests are conflicting and positions hardened, which has caused repeated failure of finding consensus on pending CCAMLR MPA proposals.
1.2. Research aims and research question
This thesis aims to explore the general challenges and causing factors for conflict by looking at differing positions, interest and charged relationships. Against the given background this research would serve several aims. This study may contribute to a general discussion before plans of any MPA are finalized. It may provide substance on the involvement of disregarded but relevant stakeholder interest whether, which may ultimately enhance communication between stakeholders. It can increase the degree to which stakeholders´ expectations are satisfied, and thus increase democratic and legitimized decision-making. Results from this analysis could potentially be further used in a profound conflict assessment, conflict
3 SC-CAMLR-XXXIII/BG/20, http://www.ccamlr.org/en/sc-camlr-xxxiii (retrieved on October 17, 2015)
management or for strategy building. Both, advisors, potential mediators, scientists and policy-makers benefit from an analysis of interests, positions and the assessment of the conflict potential.
In light of the described background and research aims a major research question arises: Why has the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs repeatedly failed, despite international commitments and concessions made? What are challenges to the planning, negotiation, decision-making process under CCAMLR that are caused by conflicting stakeholder interests?
Subsequently the research answers the following questions in the following order:
o Who are the stakeholders involved in the MPA designation process? Who are key
stakeholders? How do they differ in terms of sector, action-level and option to participate in the planning and decision-making processes?
o What are interests and positions of the different stakeholder on MPAs in general and on the pending proposals?
o How are stakeholder positions, challenges to the establishment of MPAs and solutions to these challenges depicted in the media?
o How can stakeholders be categorized in term of interests, position, and relationships?
o What are options to manage key stakeholders based on the potential for conflict and threat to the establishment of MPAs? How can conflict potential in future negotiations be
reduced? Have lessons been learned from other pending CCAMLR MPA proposals in the planning of the WS MPA? What are the chances to find agreement in the coming
negotiations?
o Is SHA a useful instrument for analyzing the conflict situation in international
negotiations on MPAs and for finding solutions to challenges that MPA establishment faces?
Special focus in this thesis is placed on the WS MPA due to the fact that the author has spent substantial time in actively participating in the technical and political planning process of the WS MPA in a period of almost two years observing and participating in several meetings.
1.3. Structure of the thesis
o Chapter two displays the background on MPAs as a policy tool, the management regime and the different CCAMLR MPA proposals, with special emphasis on the WS MPA. The chapter increases understanding of the stakeholder community and to better differentiate between positions taken on individual proposals.
o Chapter three provides a detailed account of the conceptual background providing theory taken largely from social sciences on stakeholder analysis. It discusses strengths and weaknesses and serves the criteria to answer the overarching research question und subsidiary research questions in the discussion.
o In chapter four, the chosen research design and applied methods most appropriate to answer the research question are delineated. Specific limitations to the research are discussed.
o Chapter five, six and seven display the results from the SHA partitioned in the processes
‘identification’, ‘categorization’ and ‘investigation of stakeholder relationships’.
o In Chapter eight results from the SHA are being discussed, the conflict is described in more detail, options to overcome challenges are assessed, and the potential for conflict to the WS MPA proposal is discussed.
o In Chapter nine the research is critically examined, results from other studies are compared and the chosen methods are discussed in terms of their appropriateness.
o In Chapter ten conclusions are drawn from the research.
2. Research object background4