The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is cutting funding for polar research in the USA. The implementation of President Macron’s research funding announcements at the One Planet Polar Summit are still awaited. Could these disruptions to the Western polar research calendar already be having an impact on international cooperation and governance in Antarctica?
In an interview, Evan Bloom, former diplomat and member of the former think-tank Polar Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, which has been closed due to budget cuts, explains the implications of this decline in American involvement in Antarctica.
We can read on the National Science Foundation website that the Office of Polar Programs will not open the annual postdoctoral research fellowship for 2025. This is only an example, but is funding for polar science decreasing significantly in the US?
Funding for Antarctic science is going to be decreased by the Trump Administration. Part of this relates to the National Science Foundation, and a number of people have left the NSF’s Office of Polar Programs. There have been proposals for general cutbacks to all science funded by the NSF, as well as by national agencies like NOAA, cutting back on Antarctic science.
Some of this remains unclear because it is related to budget proposals that must go through Congress. As for what is outside the government and what is within, the picture is still somewhat unclear, but it is fair to say that the U.S. is likely to significantly decrease its Antarctic science efforts in the near future.
The Director of the NSF had to leave his position, stating, “I have always believed that innovation and opportunities must be unleashed everywhere at speed and scale, thereby nurturing talent in every corner of our great nation.” Is the cut to polar science intentional, or, as it is said for France, is it a collateral damage of a broader neglect of science that is less visible or less well-known?
I’m sure you’re aware of the broader efforts by the Administration to cut back on government activities. The DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency, ed. note] efforts are all designed to reduce funding and decrease the number of people working in government. I haven’t heard that any of these efforts specifically target Antarctica, per se.
I think, as you suggested, that Antarctic science is more of a collateral damage resulting from broader cuts affecting all areas of science. They are cutting back on the National Institutes of Health, on cancer research, and similar programs.
With next month’s annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting set to take place in Milan, could this already have an impact on the upcoming discussions?
I think there are a couple of different issues here. Overall and in general, the influence of parties in the Antarctic Treaty System is related to the scientific work they do in Antarctica. This is because of the way the treaties have been set up and how Antarctica is supposed to be devoted to peace and science. It’s not just science that is being cut back but also the logistics that support science. This isn’t something that happens instantly or over one year, but rather over time.
The U.S. has the most scientists, the largest station – McMurdo – and the only station at the South Pole. Now, if they cut back on funding to upgrade McMurdo, which needs upgrading, over time, if the U.S. reduces its facilities or the number of scientists, this could impact the U.S. influence in Antarctica. But I don’t think this will influence any particular meeting, like the one in Milan.
Another aspect is whether the U.S. delegation comes to the meeting with different attitudes about policy. Certainly, the U.S. would be less interested in any proposals related to climate change or emphasizing the importance of climate change, apart from the scientific work related to climate change. The U.S. would be less interested in environmental protection, marine conservation, and those sorts of issues. But at the meeting, the question is: will the U.S. go along with what other countries want to do on these issues, or will it take a stronger position and try to block some progress?
I don’t think we have the answer to that, we will have to see at the meeting. We know that the Trump administration appears to be not very favorable to environmental protection, but how the U.S. translates that into words and actions at Milan or later in the year at CCAMLR remains to be seen.
Some say there is a risk that governments will disengage from polar science. For example, France has announced a decrease in activities for the next season. Is there any possibility that other parties could fund research and logistics, such as private companies? And could they, by doing so, strengthen their influence in Antarctica?
There are a number of philanthropies and other sources of funding that are interested in Antarctica and polar science in general. Some of that exists, but the scale of the science done in Antarctica is very large and expensive. So, if it’s related to satellites, aircraft operations, or the need to establish science stations in these places, traditionally that has been done by governments, and currently only governments have facilities in Antarctica.
Years ago, there was a Greenpeace encampment, but you don’t have that these days. I think the basic logistics and costs have been owned by governments. I believe that’s currently the situation; I don’t see it shifting to the private sector. I mean, there is some private involvement, but I am not sure how large it is.
The U.S. is beginning to scale down its polar science and logistics efforts, and France is planning similar reductions for the upcoming year. However, countries like Chile and Norway are increasing their efforts, as are Russia and China. Do you have an overview of the countries’ activities?
As I mentioned, there is a connection between the amount and quality of science, the expenditure in science, and the influence on the continent, but it’s a longer-term proposition. Poland has only one station, they could increase investment to a certain degree, but their investment is smaller than that of the U.S., the U.K., Australia, etc.
Russia has always had a number of stations that have not been well-resourced. China has been increasing their footprint over the past 20 years. It’s clear that China’s activities on the continent and in the marine space are increasing.
So, if countries like the U.S. and France decrease their efforts while China is increasing, that means China will, over time, gain more influence in Antarctic policies overall. But again, this is not something that happens immediately, but over time. We will see.
Chile and Argentina make significant investments, but all their investment tends to be in the Antarctic Peninsula, in the area where they maintain a claim. It’s countries like China and the U.S. that have capabilities more broadly across the continent.
How concretely can the investment, logistics, and science of a country influence the Antarctic Treaty System?
There is no real militarization in Antarctica in terms of armament. Countries show their level of activity through science. If their level of activity rises, it is through science and the logistics that support science. It’s not just the number of stations, you could have many stations but not a lot of people there.
At McMurdo, there are more than 1,200 people in the summer. It’s more like a small town. The level of impact of activities is very high. But if the U.S. starts to downgrade that, it will have some impact on American influence in political terms.
How does science influence the decision-making process?
The consultative parties are all equal, and decisions are made by consensus. So even countries that have no facilities can speak up. But I think that countries with a lot going on – like science and logistics – such as the U.S., China, France, Chile, or Australia, will be listened to more when it comes to the future direction of Antarctic policies. I think that’s the way politics works.
You said that China took 20 years to increase their presence. Is that the typical timescale for a country to significantly increase or decrease its activities? Are we talking about a matter of decades?
We haven’t seen that before. I am not aware of any countries that have significantly decreased their activities over time. Turkey has slowly increased its capacities in Antarctic science over the last 10-15 years, but if they have the possibility of increasing, there is also a possibility of decreasing.
If Bulgaria were to start decreasing, I’m not sure I would even know. It’s very hard to judge the amount of expenditure by countries, as there is no available data on that. There are inspections of facilities, which could give a sense of the level of investment and activity, but there is a limited source of information.
If the overall question is: who is currently ruling Antarctica, what would be your opinion on that?
Governance in Antarctica occurs through the Antarctic Treaty System, which has two main parts: the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting and the CCAMLR. There is no country that dominates or rules Antarctica because that’s not how the system is set up. Even though the U.S. has the largest presence, that doesn’t allow the U.S. to have any impact on what Australia does at its stations or what China does at theirs. And the penguins do what they want.
When it comes to the future of Antarctica, peace and security are also important aspects, as is how countries balance their political interests. Because the Antarctic Treaty is a Cold War treaty, it froze territorial claims in order to foster cooperation. So, there are possible tensions underneath, including global tensions between China, the U.S., and Russia, but that doesn’t translate into any country ruling anything.
Evan Bloom is a polar lawyer. For nearly thirty years at the State Department, he worked on fisheries and polar affairs. He was a diplomat and U.S. representative at international negotiations on Antarctica from 2006 to 2020, on issues such as the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area in Antarctica.
He also led four official infrastructure inspections in Antarctica. Evan Bloom joined the Wilson Center as a Senior Fellow in January 2021, within the Polar Institute think tank. Evan Bloom is an adjunct a professor at the University of Tasmania and an advisor to Antarctic conservation groups such as ASOC.