Narrowing the science/policy gap for environmental management

• Published in: Antarctic Science
• Main Authors: Hughes, Kevin A, Liggett, Daniela, Roldan, Gabriela, Wilmotte, Annick, Xavier, José C
• Other Authors: CIP - Centre d'Ingénierie des Protéines - ULiège
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge University Press 2016
• Subjects: Policy; Scientific advice; Environmental management; Environmental protection; Antarctica; Madrid Protocol; Life sciences; Environmental sciences & ecology; Sciences du vivant; Sciences de l’environnement & écologie; Antarctic; The Antarctic; Antarc*; Antarctic Science
• Online Access: https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/201972; https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/201972/1/narrowing-the-science-policy-gap-for-environmental-management.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000407

Antarctic terrestrial and marine environments are under increasing pressure from national operator activities, tourism and climate change. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty provides overarching legislation concerning the environmental management of the Treaty area, with 2016 marking the Protocol’s 25th anniversary. The Protocol also established the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) to provide advice to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) on environmental matters. Today, the CEP’s Five-Year Work Plan and Climate Change Response Work Programme lists and prioritises issues that need to be addressed to ensure impacts in Antarctica by human activities are both recognized andminimised.Despite all of this, recent evaluations have suggested that a slow pace of environmental policy development presents a significant threat to effective Antarctic conservation. Progress on many environmental issues, including wildlife disturbance, the conservation status of Antarctic species, area protection and pollution management, is glacial or has stalled completely. Whilst in some cases capacity issues concerning those responsible for Antarctic environmental policy work may be a contributing factor, the level of interaction between researchers and those responsible for environmental management and decision-making is also of importance. Without quality science - and effective interpretation of research results - policymakers have little evidence on which to base their decisions. But researchers need to know policymakers’ needs. Two-way communication is essential: policymakers could ask the research community to answer specific environmental questions, and, in turn, researchers could present evidence-based recommendations and highlight emerging threats. But how is this to be funded? Ultimately, effective communication is needed between national government departments responsible for funding Antarctic research and those dealing with Antarctic environmental protection. Hopefully, this ...