Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39162249›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Measuring the performance of Antarctic Treaty decision-making.

Natasha Blaize Gardiner, Neil Gilbert, Daniela Liggett, Michael Bode

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Antarctic Treaty System needs a disaster management authority to guard the continent against disasters.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Measuring the performance of Antarctic Treaty decision-making.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Natasha Blaize GardinerGateway Antarctica, Centre for Antarctic Studies and Research, School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-2743-3039
Neil GilbertGateway Antarctica, Centre for Antarctic Studies and Research, School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Daniela LiggettGateway Antarctica, Centre for Antarctic Studies and Research, School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Michael BodeSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5886-4421

Funding

Antarctic Science Platform ASP-023-4Australian Research Council SR200100005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agreements reached at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) are among the primary means for addressing Antarctic conservation and environmental protection issues. However, according to contemporary scholars, Antarctic Treaty decision-making is becoming increasingly unresponsive to the rising environmental challenges in the region. We assessed the performance of Antarctic Treaty decision-making by measuring the rate and diversity of decision-making over the last 6 decades. To measure the rate, we counted the number of inputs and outputs of ATCMs and calculated the time taken for legally binding outputs to enter into force. To measure diversity, we calculated the range of topics addressed by the inputs and outputs of ATCMs. The average number of agreements reached per ATCM increased from 1961 to 2022. Although the diversity of Antarctic topics discussed at ATCMs remained consistently high, the diversity of topics on which legally binding agreements were adopted declined significantly. Antarctic issues-including those of highest priority-are now almost entirely dealt with through nonbinding, soft-law agreements. It is plausible that this move away from binding decisions reflects a dynamic governance institution evolving to respond to new pressures. However, we suggest that the change reveals a concerning shift in decision-making behavior and performance, unique to the treaty's history. Soft law is beneficial in some cases, but its overuse diminishes accountability and transparency, significantly reducing the parties' abilities to understand and measure their performance, including the outcomes and impacts of decisions. Although the rate and diversity of ATCM inputs and outputs provide only a partial view of decision-making performance, the exploration of these metrics provides a foundation for asking essential questions about the impacts of Antarctic Treaty governance on the region's environmental protection and conservation.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesDecision MakingEnvironmental PolicyAntarctic Regionsamenazas humanasconservaciónconservationderecho indicativoenvironmental governance regimeenvironmental pressureshuman threatsindicadores de desempeñoperformance indicatorspresiones ambientalesrégimen de gestión ambientalsoft law人为威胁保护成效指标环境压力环境管理制度软法律

Identifiers

PMID39162249
PMCPMC11780206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.