Focus on Arts and Ecology

Sweeping regulatory proposals risk curbing the media’s ability to scrutinise and inform public discussion on climate and environmental policy. 

By Aurelia Joan, November 20, 2024

In March 2024, Indonesia’s House of Representatives released a draft of the new Broadcasting Bill without prior consultation or notice. The bill proposes stringent controls over digital journalism, including restrictions on investigative reporting and any content related to the political interests of a digital platform’s owner.

This development is at odds with the new Indonesian administration’s stated commitment to press freedom. Following President Prabowo Subianto’s inauguration last month, his director-general of information and public communication, Prabunindya Revta Revolusi, promised to improve the country’s standing on the Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) world press freedom index, where it ranks 111th out of 180 – having steadily declined during the past decade.

Critics warn the draft bill threatens to further erode this ranking, while curtailing public discourse on critical issues, including climate and environment policies.

A rushed and over-reaching bill

The proposed bill was released without any prior consultation with key stakeholders in Indonesia’s press ecosystem, such as the Press Council, the Independent Journalists Alliance or media representatives. It was also not published on the House of Representatives’ official website, violating the Public Information Disclosure Act.

The draft introduces 11 broadcasting standards for digital content, encompassing both user-generated material (YouTube videos, for example) and content distributed via streaming services like Netflix. Among the most concerning provisions are bans on investigative reporting and content addressing sensitive themes such as gender minorities, acts of violence, tobacco, drugs, “negative lifestyles”, or topics tied to the political interests of digital platform owners.

The bill comes at a time when Indonesia’s news consumption habits are shifting away from traditional media in favour of digital platforms. According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024, 60% of Indonesians rely on social media for news, with short-video platforms like TikTok growing particularly fast.

Speaking at a Jakarta forum in March, Abdul Kharis, a member of the 2019-2024 House of Representatives, justified revising Indonesia’s broadcasting laws to address the glowing influence of digital media. He argued that the current legislation, introduced in 2002, is now outdated and inadequate for protecting the public from the associated negative impacts. For example, some members expressed concerns about LGBTQ+ content, claiming it undermines Indonesian values.

The current broadcasting law regulates only traditional media platforms such as television and radio, defining broadcasters as either public (Televisi Republik Indonesia), private (Indosiar, TransTV, Metro TV), paid (cable sevices) or community-based. It does not include provisions for internet or digital broadcasting systems, creating a regulatory gap that proponents of the bill say it aims to address.

During the same Jakarta forum, Firman Subagiyo, another 2019-2024 House of Representatives member, hoped the new bill would put an end to what he perceives to be media monopolisation in Indonesia. “[The bill] needs to be passed in this [2019-2024] session period,” he said. “We don’t want this to be carried over to the new House of Representative members [2024-2029], as it would mean starting again from zero.”

In response to the bill’s publication, a civil society coalition comprising the Press Council, media watchdog Remotivi and the Indonesian Journalist Alliance was quckly formed. The coalition has strongly opposed the bill and called on the government to withdraw it.

Indonesia’s environmental journalism

Private news channel Kompas TV has focused extensively on climate change, producing investigative journalism and in-depth video programmes that demand critical thinking and deep reflection from its audience. Its executive producer, Anneke Frayanty, tells Dialogue Earth that if the bill passes, its climate coverage could be severely restricted.

Environmental journalism in Indonesia is already under threat. In early October, Herry Kabut, the editor-in-chief of independent media outlet Floresa, was attacked by police while covering a demonstration against a geothermal project accused of land grabbing.

In a statement, Herry said he was beaten multiple times and strangled by officers, who also confiscated his phone, read his messages and interrogated him about some of his contacts. “They claimed ‘my photos were part of an effort to provoke residents’,”  wrote Herry in October. Herry added that the police released him after four hours in custody, once they were satisfied he was in fact a journalist, but requested he not disclose the incident.

Based on a report conducted by the Indonesian Journalism Alliance (AJI) and published earlier this year, 15 journalists faced intimidation while reporting on climate issues in 2023. The Safe Journalism Consortium research classifies Indonesia’s journalists as “somewhat protected”, highlighting the inadequate safeguards for reporters covering sensitive topics like climate change.

Last year, the AJI launched the Safety for Environmental Journalists module on IMS Learn, an online media training hub hosted by International Media Support, a non-profit working to educate and strengthen the global media landscape. According to AJI chair Nany Afrida, journalists need to inform and prepare themselves before they do on-the-ground reporting: “We still need to raise awareness that violence against journalists is strictly prohibited – and the only legal instrument that can be implemented for journalists is media law.” Nany also criticised the proposed Broadcasting Bill for discriminating against journalists: “It should be drafted by someone who is an expert in broadcasting, so it’s a regulation that makes sense.”

Press freedom at a crossroads

Ignatius Haryanto, a journalism lecturer at Nusantra Multimedia University (UMN), says the bill undermines the public’s right to information. He stresses that environmental protection and natural resource exploitation are inextricably linked to politics, business and power. In this context, he emphasises that robust media scrutiny is critical for holding vested interests to account.

Wahyu Dhyatmika, head of the Indonesian Cyber Media Association (AMSI) and CEO of Info Media Digital (Tempo.co and Tempo Digital), highlights the importance of media coverage on the climate crisis. He worries that restricting press freedom,  expression and access to information will all negatively impact the public.

“Take the carbon trading programme as an example: it is one of the priorities of the Prabowo presidency,” says Wahyu. “If there is no credible reporting on climate issues that are oriented for the public good, I believe bad things are waiting for all of us.”

Wahyu also questions the suitability of the Broadcasting Bill as a legal instrument for regulating digital ecosystems, such as streaming services and user-generated-content platforms. He cites evolving global discourse around digital media, which advocates for specific laws governing digital platforms rather than updating outdated broadcasting frameworks. Wahyu suggests the European Union’s Digital Media Act could offer ideas, underscoring the need for credible information, data privacy and algorithm regulation.

“It is fundamentally flawed for the government to regulate digital media through the lens of broadcasting,” says Wahyu.

Wahyu further calls for a comprehensive review of Indonesia’s legal framework for digital information. “We need a fundamental solution that accommodates the press’ interests. Balanced partnerships and fair compensation between journalism, the media industry and the publishing ecosystem are essential to achieving a win-win situation.”

Despite what some see as the bill’s potential to limit press freedom, Ignatius remains optimistic. He believes that with consistent and unified action from civil society groups, there is still an opportunity to amend the legislation to better reflect Indonesia’s democratic and media values.

However, with the lack of transparency in the drafting process, uncertainty looms over the future of Indonesia’s new Broadcasting Bill and its broader implications for media freedom.

Aurelia Joan

Dialogue Earth meets the ecotoxicologist Bethanie Carney Almroth, in attendance at international plastic pollution talks in Busan this week. 

By Regina Lam, November 26, 2024

When Bethanie Carney Almroth was a child, she used to stand in the kitchen and cut up the plastic rings that bound together her fizzy drinks cans. As a fish lover, she wanted to disarm the packaging that infamously traps and chokes marine animals. 

Tackling plastic pollution demands much more than a pair of scissors, but Carney Almroth’s childhood habit foreshadowed her career. She is now an ecotoxicologist at the University of Gothenburg, specialising in microplastics in the marine environment. She analyses their impacts upon fish, and the larger-scale planetary problems caused by this insidious form of modern pollution.

This week, Carney Almroth is attending INC-5, the final negotiations of a global treaty to combat plastic pollution, in Busan, South Korea. As a steering committee member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, she will be co-coordinating a group of more than 60 scientists at the talks.

Here, she tells Dialogue Earth about her hopes for an ambitious and effective treaty. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Dialogue Earth: What happens to microplastics in fish and other animals? 

Bethanie Carney Almroth: We showed that if a fish eats plastics, some of the plastic particles can move from the fish’s stomach or gut into the muscle, which humans eat. Chemicals in plastic can also be taken up and distributed throughout an animal’s body. The chemicals might end up in the fish’s liver, the brain or the muscle, depending on the exposure pathways and the kinds of chemicals.

But these chemicals and particles are also in plastic food packaging, causing contamination of food. People often say there’s so much plastic in the oceans, and it’s in fish. But it’s also in all kinds of food that is wrapped in plastic.

Are current regulations on chemicals in plastics sufficient? 

There are piecemeal bits and pieces of legislation, in this country and that country, on this product, on this chemical. But there’s no global regulation right now. Reports say either 1% or 6% of chemicals in plastics are regulated globally. 

The plastic life cycle is very international. The raw materials are extracted in one place, and the monomers are produced in another, and plastics are produced in another. The waste trade sector is also very complicated and messy. A lot of data gaps remain on where these things are going and where they are ending up. 

So, we need international regulation to address these problems. Individual countries can’t act on this sort of international, transboundary problem. 

What are the most important decisions for Busan? 

Chemicals are at the top of my list. There are 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, and 4,200 have hazardous properties. Robust data shows the kinds of chemicals in plastic that cause negative health impacts [in humans]. The fact that we don’t know what chemicals are in products is because no laws demand that.

The other obligation I’d like to see is production reduction. Evidence shows that planetary functions, the climate, and biodiversity are being destabilised by plastics. The fossil fuel industry is seeing a decreased demand for its products as we shift to greener energy. 90% to 99% of plastics are made of fossil fuels. Those industries are planning on ramping up plastic production threefold.

Around 500 million tonnes of plastics were produced in 2022. We can’t triple that. There’s no way our planet and our societies can handle that. No matter what waste management systems you build, we will still have significant plastic pollution unless we reduce production. 

Have scientists provided enough input for these talks? 

We’re trying really hard. The negotiating process itself did not have a specific mechanism for scientific input. This is why we formed our coalition, Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, to fill that void – some member state delegates don’t have access to experts in analytical chemistry, monomer science, pollution, marine biology, human health, etc.

A lot of science and evidence shows how industry scientists, industry actors and PR campaigners have acted to delay or block policy action. We don’t allow industry-funded scientists to contribute to our documents. We are struggling a bit with getting accredited to attend the meeting, as we often need to be invited to join a delegation. We also need to find funding for our plane tickets and hotels. We also have problems with time. These are things that the industry has. They have money, access and time.

But we’ve been getting there. At the first round of negotiations in Uruguay, there were only five of us. We started this journey as a very small group and have grown in numbers, strength and influence.

Are you hopeful for a good outcome in Busan?

The industry is there, lobbying and communicating. They’re doing what they do. But I’m seeing renewed momentum and enthusiasm among member states for production reduction.

More and more countries have signed the Bridge to Busan Declaration, asking for a plastic production reduction; the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty signed on to that yesterday. Countries like the US also shifted their policies and are now open to discussing reduction. The countries that are not open to it are greatly outnumbered.

There are things individuals can do, but these problems are systemic and will require systemic change. So, I’m going to South Korea to do everything in my very small power to support the member states that want to do something ambitious, and to arm them with the science they need to make their arguments.

Delayed talks bring USD 300 billion pledge to support developing countries’ climate action, but critics scorn deal as an ‘optical illusion’ made in ‘bad faith’. 

By Fermín Koop, Niu Yuhan, November 25, 2024

After two weeks of intense negotiations, the United Nations’s COP29 climate change summit concluded in Baku, Azerbaijan, with a commitment from developed countries to increase the funding they provide developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of the climate crisis.

The deal reached on Sunday, two days after the conference’s scheduled closure on Friday, ensures USD 300 billion a year in climate finance by 2035, tripling the previous USD 100 billion target set in 2009 – and only met in 2022. It also calls on countries to work toward unlocking a total of USD 1.3 trillion a year from “all public and private sources” by 2035.

Developed countries will have to “take the lead” in delivering the USD 300 billion but the target, known as the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), will include finance from international institutions such as the World Bank. The agreement also encourages developing nations such as China to make voluntary contributions “through South-South cooperation”.

However, the deal has been met with huge disappointment from developing countries and campaigners, who had been calling for firmer commitments, including as much as USD 1.3 trillion directly from developed nations.

“I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion,” Indian delegation representative Chandni Raina said at the closing plenary after the finance target was approved. “This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document.”

In their final hours, the climate talks in Baku were on the brink of collapsing, with two negotiating blocs – the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) – temporarily walking out of negotiations. Consensus was finally reached after the initial proposal of USD 250 billion was increased.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a statement that he had “hoped for a more ambitious outcome” but that it “provides a base on which to build”. 

German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock echoed Guterres and said the USD 300 billion “won’t meet all the needs” and that they will work to reach the USD 1.3 trillion figure. “Nobody forgot about our historic responsibilities,” she added.

Developed countries are dealing with economic and political constraints, from limited budgets to rising populist movements opposed to climate action, and this was seen as influencing the COP. “We live in times where multilateralism seems impossible,” Baerbock said. During the COP talks, the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the US raised doubts over whether the country would contribute to the finance target, given Trump’s withdrawal of the country from the Paris Agreement during his previous term and continued posturing against climate action.

The promised funding falls short of the USD 5 trillion to USD 6.8 trillion total that developing countries will reportedly need by 2030 to implement their climate plans. Countries have also asked for climate finance to come in the form of grants, as loans contribute to their debt burdens. While the agreement recognises the need for public, grant-based funds, it does not require a commitment.

“This has been the most horrendous climate negotiation in years due to the bad faith of developed countries,” said Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network (CAN), in a concluding statement after the final plenary. “This was meant to be ‘the finance COP’, but the Global North turned up with a plan to betray the Global South.”

Fossil fuels and carbon markets

As well as finance, another major point of contention during the summit was how to boost efforts in the global energy transition. At last year’s COP28, countries agreed to transition away from the use of fossil fuels in their energy systems and to triple renewables. However, in Baku, they could not decide on how to progress the pledge, with discussions pushed to next year.

No mention of fossil fuels or the decision from COP28 was made in the text of the Mitigation Work Programme – a non-binding process to enhance climate action – nor in the text of the NCQG. Previous drafts had included proposals to expand energy storage to 1,500 gigawatts by 2030 and to expand power grids by 25 million kilometres by 2030.

Negotiators from Saudi Arabia told the plenary that they “would not accept any text that targets any specific sectors including fossil fuels”. A Saudi delegate even tried to alter one text without consultation, The Guardian reported. US climate advisor John Podesta described attempts to encourage Saudi ambition in this regard through negotiations as “a challenge”.

Campaigners and prominent voices at the summit were critical of this stalling over commitments to end fossil fuel use. “Oil-rich countries must see that their efforts to delay the inevitable will fail. The green energy transition has gained unstoppable momentum,” said Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and chair of The Elders group. Tracy Carty, Climate Politics Expert at Greenpeace International, said the fossil industry “has been spared any responsibility to pay.”

COP29 also saw countries reach a deal on carbon markets, which may eventually lead to country-to-country carbon trading and the creation of a regulated global market. Proponents describe carbon trading as a necessary tool in attempts to avoid global warming of over 1.5C, while critics argue these schemes do not actually contribute to cutting emissions.

The mechanism had been formally included in the 2015 Paris Agreement, but its implementation has been the subject of a protracted debate at COPs in the years since. Now, countries and companies will be authorised to trade credits that represent one tonne of CO2 saved or removed from the atmosphere, with details still to be finished in 2025.

“The UN has given its stamp of approval to fraudulent and failed carbon markets. We have seen the impacts of these schemes: land grabs, and violations of Indigenous peoples and human rights,” said Kirtana Chandrasekaran, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth International. “The supposed ‘COP of climate finance’ has turned into the ‘COP of false solutions’”.

China’s climate finance

China’s contributions and responsibilities towards the NCQG came under scrutiny at COP29 as delegates navigated fraught discussions on climate finance.

On the second day of the summit, Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang highlighted that since 2016, China has provided and mobilised over CNY 177 billion (approximately USD 24.5 billion) in project funding to support other developing countries in addressing climate change.

However, calls for China to shoulder greater financial responsibility have grown louder. Several delegates argued that classifications dating back to 1992, which label China as a developing nation, are outdated. New analysis by Carbon Brief estimated that China’s historical emissions have caused more warming than the combined emissions of the 27-member European Union, further fuelling arguments that China should contribute more as a global economic powerhouse.

China has resisted these pressures. Zhao Yingmin, head of the Chinese delegation, told the media that it is neither legal nor reasonable for some countries to refuse to recognise that China is a developing country, and that this undermines the mutual trust and cooperation between the contracting parties.

He sought to emphasise that all negotiations must follow the terms of the Paris Agreement, which imposes financial obligations only on developed country parties, but encourages other parties to provide support voluntarily: “China’s South-South cooperation is voluntary, contrasting with the mandatory obligations of developed nations.”

Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, warned that pushing China to contribute to climate finance on the same basis as developed nations could be counterproductive. “That would risk harming trust and reinforcing divisions,” he said, advocating for a focus on unity and pragmatic collaboration instead.

Meanwhile, the apparent absence of US leadership in climate action has left a significant gap, which China’s climate envoy Liu Zhenmin described as “irreplaceable”. He suggested that the European Union could partially step into this role and take the lead in leading developed countries to make financial commitments, but that multilateral mechanisms remain the core of addressing the climate crisis for the next four years. The prospect of joint leadership between China and the EU is “optimistic but challenging to achieve”, he said.  

Latin America at COP29

True to previous form, Latin America did not appear to be unified on its priorities at COP29.

For Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, the role of agriculture was high on the agenda, with delegates dismissing the sector’s carbon footprint and questioning trade measures such as anti-deforestation regulations, particularly from the European Union. “We reduced the emissions of cattle, showing sustainability and productivity are compatible,” claimed Uruguay’s environment minister Robert Bouvier.

Meanwhile, for Colombia, the energy transition and the debt crisis of developing countries were the priority issues. Its environment minister, Susana Muhamad, stayed for the full two weeks of the summit. “Countries agreed to work on how to get to USD 1.3 trillion, including instruments such as global taxes. These could help countries with high levels of debt to raise capital to do an energy transition,” Muhamad said.

The outcome of the NCQG was largely questioned by leaders from the region. Diego Pacheco, Bolivia’s leading delegate, said developed countries “pressure developing countries for more ambition while they expand fossil fuels plans”. Instead of climate finance, he said developed countries give “illusions, smoke and mirrors”, describing the new finance target as “an insult” to the developing world.

Panama’s special representative for climate change, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, struck a similar tone: “I think the 1.5C [global warming target] was at the intensive care unit, and it feels like that bed just broke and it fell on the floor. So, we’re probably not going to be able to reach 1.5C based on this very low level of finance being provided.”

The road to COP30 in Brazil

With a finance target agreed – albeit contentiously – countries will face the task of increasing their climate ambition next year with the presentation of their new climate change plans, or Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These are expected to be ready before the next climate summit, COP30, to be hosted by Brazil in November 2025, in the Amazon city of Belém.

The world is currently on track for 3.1C of global warming by the end of the century based on countries’ current pledges, according to the UN Emissions Gap Report, while scientists are “virtually certain” that this year will be the hottest on record. This happens as countries deal with escalating climate impacts, including floods, droughts and heatwaves.

So far, the United Arab Emirates, Switzerland and Brazil have presented their new NDCs. Other countries have announced emission-reduction targets, such as the United Kingdom, but not yet their NDC.

Ilan Zugman, director for Latin America and the Caribbean at 350.org, said the fact that Brazil will take over the presidency of COP gives the world a chance to change course. “Brazil has to show climate leadership, asking countries to present ambitious climate targets that lead to a just energy transition,” he added.

Closing the plenary, Marina Silva, Brazil’s environment minister and a candidate to be the next COP president, said COP29 was “a difficult experience”, but that it was necessary to keep working to achieve a finance deal to align with 1.5C. Calling for solidarity among countries, Silva said: “At COP30, our objective will be to do what is needed to keep 1.5C in reach.”

Fermín Koop

Fermín Koop is the Latin America managing editor at Dialogue Earth. Based in Buenos Aires, Argentina, he started working with the organisation in 2014 as a freelancer before transitioning to an editorial role. He is also a trainer and mentor for the Earth Journalism Network (EJN) and a teacher at the Argentine University of Enterprise (UADE). He holds an MSc in environment and development from Reading University, a postgraduate degree in law and economy of climate change from Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) and a bachelor’s degree in journalism from University of Salvador (USAL). He has worked for news organisations such as Buenos Aires Herald, Nature and SciDev and has also done consultancy work for the UN and Oxford University. He speaks Spanish and English. Most of his work at Dialogue Earth relates to writing, commissioning and editing articles, editorial planning and special projects.

Niu Yuhan

Niu Yuhan is Dialogue Earth’s assistant editor and joined in 2022, based in London. She holds a BA in journalism from Shih Hsin University and a MA in international relations from King’s College London. She previously worked for The Paper and WWF-UK. Yuhan is interested in energy transition, deforestation and the impact of climate change on the global economy. 

(Sources: Dialogue Earth)

China is taking an assertive role in the Southern Ocean, joining Russia to block marine protection as it chases the krill catch. 

By Regina Lam, November 21, 2024

For emperor penguins, crabeater seals and humpback whales living in the sea off the frozen Antarctic Peninsula, one thing is a staple on their menu: shrimp-like, thumb-length, fast-swimming krill. 

But the chase for krill has become increasingly competitive in recent years, as humans seek more fish feed for aquaculture. Industrial fishing vessels that have long caught these crustaceans in the Southern Ocean have begun casting their nets closer to hotspots where penguins breed and whales hunt.

Shielding marine animals in the Southern Ocean from fishing and other threats such as climate change has been strenuous for conservationists. October’s annual meeting of the Southern Ocean conservation body, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), saw no progress on adding a new marine protected area (MPA).

Worse, say some commentators, the meeting even failed to extend a rule that spreads krill fishing evenly to minimise impact, allowing it to expire instead. 

“A lot of work had gone on before the meeting and in the first week and it was very positive. When the whole thing fell apart in the last two days, it was brutal,” says Lynda Goldsworthy, a research fellow at the University of Tasmania’s Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies.

CCAMLR meetings have now failed to agree on a new marine protection area in the Southern Ocean for eight years in a row.

Russia and China, which have been most opposed to MPAs historically, again rejected protection measures campaigners hoped would be adopted at the meeting in late October. Krill fishing served as a flash point. “[China] went into the meeting with a krill fishery expansion as their priority,” says Goldsworthy. 

With China asserting its fisheries interests and Russia’s continuing, unswerving objections to conservation measures, experts say CCAMLR – a body that once sat at the forefront of ocean protection – has reached an existential crossroads.

Deal breakers

This year, CCAMLR member states went the extra mile to break a long-running deadlock on protected areas by having a pre-meeting in July. Negotiators chewed over a plan that would increase krill catch. Since 2000, a precautionary limit of 620,000 tonnes per year has been in place for so-called “area 48”, which includes the peninsula and is where most krill fishing occurs. National delegations also discussed a proposed protected area around the Western Antarctic Peninsula, where krill fishing, tourism and warming are more intense than in other Antarctic waters.  

Observers say the July meeting ended positively, with an acknowledgement that increased krill catches and plans for a new protected area should proceed together. But at the official meeting in October, this compromise collapsed with no movement on either measure.

Dialogue Earth was told that after the collapse of the deal, China refused to extend an existing conservation measure that controls the distribution of krill catches among area 48’s fishing sub-areas. This means all 620,000 tonnes could in theory be harvested from just one small area.  

According to the preliminary report of the October meeting, China’s delegation said krill fishing rules should follow advice first issued by CCAMLR’s scientific committee in 2022. That advice says raising the catch limit for area 48.1 (part of area 48) to 668,101 tonnes would be permissible.

China’s delegates added that the revision on catch limits “did not need to be tied directly to the adoption of an MPA”, and there is “no scientific basis” to argue that an MPA should be created before adopting a fishery rule. They also pointed to their past contributions to MPA discussions, and expressed hope that member states will eventually reach a consensus.

The expiration of the rule on krill catch distribution “was not a request, but rather was a natural outcome of its text”, they added.

Many researchers also think the total krill catch for Antarctica could safely increase with conservation measures, such as the proposed protected areas, in place. But there are concerns about concentrating fishing in particular areas.

Dialogue Earth spoke to Holly Curry from the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, an international union of marine preservation organisations. “If you are a penguin or a whale, if you live in a specific area that is experiencing concentrated krill fishing, you are going to be disproportionately impacted by that. We are unfortunately worse off now than a year ago, which is very distressing,” she says. 

The big hunt for a tiny catch

Soviet Union boats once dominated the Southern Ocean krill fishery. Since the union’s collapse, Russia’s influence has been much diminished. “They don’t have any real krill fishing interest anymore,” says Liu Nengye, an associate law professor at the Singapore Management University who works on ocean and environmental topics. He says Russia’s constant rejection of conservation proposals is “pretty much trying to justify their presence [at CCAMLR].”

Unlike its northern neighbour, China owns an expanding distant-water fishing fleet. “They may cap the numbers of the fleet, but their capacity is still growing,” Liu says. “That’s why they see CCAMLR waters as a potential available space [for growth].”

In September, a shipbuilder in China’s south-eastern province of Fujian launched its newly developed Antarctic krill fishing and processing vessel – the largest in the country. Named Fuyuanyu 9199, it cost the company over CNY 600 million (USD 80 million), according to Chinese media reports. At least one other privately funded Chinese vessel is in the pipeline. 

China is also increasing its Antarctic scientific research. Its 40th Antarctic expedition, which ended in April, with its Xuelong polar icebreaker investigating krill distribution and other topics.

All these ambitions come from the top and serve China’s aspiration to build “a strong marine nation”. Accordingly, its current five-year plan for national fisheries development specifies the need to “develop polar fisheries orderly and steadily”. 

Another official policy paper on distant-water fishing, released in 2022 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in response to the five-year plan, set out to improve compliance with CCAMLR’s rules. It guides relevant government departments to “actively participate in the affairs of CCAMLR and strictly implement conservation measures.”

China comes second to Norway as the world’s most extractive fisher of Antarctic krill. Chile, South Korea and Ukraine also actively harvest krill. Norway, however, has supported protection proposals despite its krill interests, say CCAMLR watchers. It has not been among those blocking the Antarctic Peninsula MPA.

A more assertive China 

Safeguarding its fishing interests was what chiefly impelled China to join CCAMLR in 2007, Liu says. At that time, four Chinese-flagged fishing vessels were on CCAMLR’s blacklist for illegal fishing and the government wanted them to be delisted, according to his research. 

After joining the commission, China did not exercise its veto right when CCAMLR designated its first marine protected area, the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf, in 2009. China also supported a second MPA in the Southern Ocean’s Ross Sea in 2016. 

Since then, Liu says, China’s delegation has grown more assertive on fishing issues. For instance, it has argued “no-take” protected areas that ban all fishing violate CCAMLR’s rules, which state that “conservation includes rational use”. 

The country’s delegation also argued for more stringent requirements for creating protected areas. “They are essentially saying that you can establish MPAs, but the threshold needs to be very high, meaning that you need to have baseline data and specific conservation goals,” says Liu. “They set the bar very high.”

Domestically, Chinese scientists have voiced scepticism about Antarctic protected areas. They have said proposals at CCAMLR lack scientific evidence and data to prove both necessity and cost-effectiveness.

“Proposed management measures should be based on the ‘best available science’ rather than subjective, incomplete knowledge,” wrote two Shanghai Ocean University scientists in a 2022 paper.

“Creating MPAs without sufficient scientific basis does not help conserve Antarctic living resources effectively and may also increase the risk of Antarctic governance being monopolised.”

Plotting future courses

After another year of CCAMLR stalemate, observers and campaigners are scratching their heads for a way forward. 

Liu says CCAMLR could uphold “business as usual”, meaning it would not adopt new conservation measures and protected areas, but would continue to manage fisheries and enforce the two existing MPAs. 

A worse option, he says, would be a dysfunctional CCAMLR, in which intensified disputes over protected areas exacerbate disagreement on other issues, including fisheries.

In another scenario, members could change the focus of discussions to accommodate China’s positions. For example, says Liu, members could put aside discussion of new protected areas and “do other things with conservation in mind”, such as improving the regulation of research fishing.

Goldsworthy says China is already pushing the commission away from a body mainly focused on conservation to one that focuses mainly on regulating fisheries. But she is not ready to give up on Antarctic protected areas yet. She thinks krill fishing is still a legitimate lever, as member states can refuse any requests to raise the krill catch limit or open new fisheries unless a new MPA deal is clinched. 

“Unless we have an MPA dotted and crossed, then no, we’re not going to expand the krill fishing,” she says.