HUMBOLDT-UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN Lebenswissenschaftliche Fakultät Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwissenschaften “Challenges to the establishment of CCAMLR Marine Protected Areas (MPA): A stakeholder analysis of interests and positions” Master-Arbeit im Studiengang: Integrated Natural Resource Management vorgelegt von: Lahl, Rebecca Erstbetreuer: Prof. Dr. Müller, Klaus Institution: Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwissenschaften, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Fachgebiet: Ökonomie und Politik ländlicher Räume Zweitbetreuer: Prof. Dr. Brey, Thomas Institution: Alfred Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven Fachgebiet: Biosciences and Functional Ecology Berlin, 22.10.2015 I Summary Marine protected areas (MPAs) are used in spatial management for fisheries and conservation purpose. Since the alarming reports on the status of the world’s oceans, MPAs have been on the international agenda for over a decade as they promise various ecological and socioeconomic benefits. The CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) is the fisheries management regime in the Southern Ocean that is committed to establishing MPAs. Member states have however repeatedly failed to reach consensus on the proposals for MPA establishment in the Southern Ocean. Two MPA proposals have recurrently been tabled and at least two other proposals are being planned and will be subject of the debate in the coming negotiations. The argument of MPAs in the Southern Ocean consumes a lot of time and vigor while defining the political agenda of CCAMLR’s everyday business. This thesis explores the causes of the absence of consensus on MPA establishment in the Southern Ocean by looking at the diverging interests and positions of the CCAMLR member states on MPAs in general and on the tabled MPA proposals. This research realizes a critical three step stakeholder analysis (henceforth SHA) approach. The three steps are the identification of stakeholders by predefined criteria, identification and categorization of stakeholder positions and interests, and investigation of relationships by means of an actor- linkage matrix. The data for the SHA are acquired by analysis of socio-economic interest data and a literature based content analysis of annual Commission reports and media reports using the MAXQDA software. Based on SHA results the author is able to identify challenges to the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs. The conflict situation between members can be assessed. By examination of arguments made in the MPA discourse the author estimates the severity of the identified barriers to MPA establishment. This research ultimately discusses ideas to overcome the identified challenges to find consensus and to manage potential and manifested conflicts effectively. In the first step of the SHA, member states are identified as key stakeholder based on the criteria of legitimacy for decision-making. Categorization shows that generally all stakeholders have a high interest in marine Antarctic research, all proponents have a high interest in conservation, and almost all unsupportive stakeholders have a high interest in fisheries. Yet, there are several member states that strive for both conservation/MPAs and fishing. According to the results, Russia, China, and Ukraine are clearly positioned against MPAs in general. Japan does not generally refuse the establishment but has repeatedly I criticized the tabled proposals. Korea appears very supportive of the idea of MPAs, yet Korea, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay have not clearly stated support of both or one of the tabled proposals. The content analysis showed that positions of several Member States altered, and that the number of actors in favor of MPAs increased in the last five years. Investigation of relationships by means of the actor-linkage matrix shows conflict potential among members. A manifested conflict is recorded among MPA proponents and the above identified unsupportive stakeholders. A conflict is only potential among future proponents and unsupportive stakeholders. Challenges to MPA establishment are summarized in the following clusters: (1) Concerns on MPAs necessity, effectiveness and enforceability, (2) different interpretations of CCAMLR’s legal mandate and the convention text, (3) the need to balance different interests, (4) the fear of injustice in access rights, (5) and strained relationships by lacking trust and collaboration ultimately resulting in a momentum that does not allow the MPA establishment. It is concluded that compromises of the negotiating parties to find common ground is necessary as it has to be an unanimous decision. Compromise most likely includes concession by at least one group of proponents and unsupportive stakeholders. Assessment encourages the assumption that involvement of unsupportive stakeholders in the planning of MPAs is indispensable. A transparent and proactive planning can prevent the manifestation of conflicts. Results also suggest that finding consensus on any CCAMLR MPA is currently impeded by a weak momentum that would require a shift of both the patterns of interaction and overcoming the dichotomy of interests by long-term policy-oriented learning. This study reveals both weaknesses and advantages of the chosen approach to research. It is suitable to structure the mélange of conflicting interests and positions in a highly dynamic and complex system. However, the use for formulating exact recommendations for specific actions is limited. II Content Tables......................................................................................................................................... V Figures ....................................................................................................................................... V List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... VII 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Research aims and research question ......................................................................... 2 1.3. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................. 4 2. Research object background ............................................................................................. 4 2.1. Marine Protected Areas .............................................................................................. 4 2.2. The Antarctic Treaty ................................................................................................... 8 2.3. CCAMLR ................................................................................................................... 8 2.4. Exploitation of marine living resources in the Antarctic .......................................... 13 2.5. Established and proposed CCAMLR MPAs ............................................................ 15 2.5.1. South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf (SOISS) MPA....................................... 20 2.5.2. East Antarctic Representative System (EARS) of MPAs ................................. 22 2.5.3. Ross Sea (RS) MPA.......................................................................................... 23 2.5.4. Weddell Sea (WS) MPA ................................................................................... 26 2.5.5. Other MPA planning domains .......................................................................... 31 3. Theory of stakeholder analysis ....................................................................................... 32 3.1. Defining the term stakeholders................................................................................. 32 3.2. Stakeholder theory and rationale .............................................................................. 33 3.3. Stakeholder analysis: typology of methods .............................................................. 36 3.3.1. Stakeholder identification ................................................................................ 37 3.3.2. Stakeholder categorization ............................................................................... 38 3.3.3. Investigating stakeholder relationships ............................................................ 39 3.4. SHA strengths and weaknesses ................................................................................ 40 4. Methods ........................................................................................................................... 43 4.1. Summary of definitions ............................................................................................ 43 4.2. Participatory observation .......................................................................................... 44 4.3. Stakeholder analysis ................................................................................................. 46 4.4. Identification ............................................................................................................ 46 4.5. Categorization .......................................................................................................... 46 4.5.1. Content analysis by means of MAXQDA ........................................................ 47 4.5.2. Data analysis of