Periodic Reporting for period 1 - POLARPOL (A look inside: domestic features and the implementation of human and environmental risk measures in European Antarctic Treaty Parties)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2023-06-09 do 2025-08-08
Antarctica’s governance is exceptional: no country owns it, yet over sixty nations cooperate under the Antarctic Treaty System to ensure peaceful, scientific, and environmentally responsible presence in the continent. While this regime has prevented sovereignty disputes and supported collaboration since 1961, it depends on each Party’s voluntary domestic implementation of agreed recommendations and measures. This has proven to be a persistent weakness. Several European Parties have not yet implemented legally binding instruments such as Measure 4 (2004), on human safety, and Measure 1 (2005), on environmental liability—leaving important gaps in emergency preparedness and environmental protection.
PolarPol was created to understand why some countries have implemented while others delay. It asks which infrastructural, bureaucratic, and political-legal factors enables implementation in the absence of supranational enforcement. By analysing European Union and European Economic Area Treaty Parties—countries with shared governance values but varying capacities—the project investigates how national institutions, funding models, and policymaking processes shape commitment to Antarctic obligations.
Bringing public policy analysis to polar research, PolarPol applies Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Process Tracing to map these domestic conditions systematically for the first time. Its specific research objectives were to (1) identify material and institutional factors affecting implementation; (2) examine policymaking dynamics and actor interactions; and (3) reveal common traits among implementers and non-implementers to inform capacity-building across Europe. Alongside its scientific aims, the project also trained the fellow as a future policy advisor and leading researcher in polar and environmental governance, combining advanced research skills with hands-on experience in science–policy interface.
By clarifying how domestic structures influence global environmental commitments, PolarPol helps European actors strengthen compliance, reduce risks to people and ecosystems in Antarctica, and contribute to a more coherent European vision for polar governance—supporting the broader goals of the European Green Deal and international environmental security.
PolarPol was created to understand why some countries have implemented while others delay. It asks which infrastructural, bureaucratic, and political-legal factors enables implementation in the absence of supranational enforcement. By analysing European Union and European Economic Area Treaty Parties—countries with shared governance values but varying capacities—the project investigates how national institutions, funding models, and policymaking processes shape commitment to Antarctic obligations.
Bringing public policy analysis to polar research, PolarPol applies Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Process Tracing to map these domestic conditions systematically for the first time. Its specific research objectives were to (1) identify material and institutional factors affecting implementation; (2) examine policymaking dynamics and actor interactions; and (3) reveal common traits among implementers and non-implementers to inform capacity-building across Europe. Alongside its scientific aims, the project also trained the fellow as a future policy advisor and leading researcher in polar and environmental governance, combining advanced research skills with hands-on experience in science–policy interface.
By clarifying how domestic structures influence global environmental commitments, PolarPol helps European actors strengthen compliance, reduce risks to people and ecosystems in Antarctica, and contribute to a more coherent European vision for polar governance—supporting the broader goals of the European Green Deal and international environmental security.
PolarPol advanced a comparative analysis of how European Antarctic Treaty Parties implement key binding instruments—Measure 4 (2004) on human safety and Measure 1 (2005) on environmental liability. Over two years, the project combined multiple qualitative methodologies to uncover the domestic factors that triggered implementation processes.
Work Package 1 compiled a comprehensive database of the financial, institutional, and legal frameworks of European National Antarctic Programmes. Information from the European Polar Board, EU PolarNet deliverables, national legislation portals, and COMNAP/SCAR profiles was consolidated into country-level datasets structured for comparative analysis. This provided the empirical basis for subsequent analytical work.
Work Package 2 reconstructed the policymaking processes behind the implementation of the measures in France, Germany, and Spain through Process Tracing and Historical Comparative Analysis. Archival research at the Scott Polar Research Institute provided the background for the Treaty’s initial collective interpretations of environmental and human safety. Consultations with national officials revealed then how administrative structures and ministerial coordination “triggers” influenced each case. The findings showed that implementation often depended on internal institutional awareness and bureaucratic readiness rather than public attention or political pressure.
Work Package 3 integrated these results through Qualitative Comparative Analysis in R Studio, identifying combinations of conditions sufficient for implementation. The analysis demonstrated that dedicated polar funding combined with subordinated institutional structures and prior ratification of similar conventions facilitates implementation, while in competitive funding contexts, autonomous polar institutions can achieve the same outcome.
These results provide the first systematic, evidence-based explanation of domestic pathways to Antarctic policy implementation. They establish a novel analytical framework linking national administrative design and environmental treaty performance, contributing original knowledge to environmental governance and policy implementation research.
Work Package 1 compiled a comprehensive database of the financial, institutional, and legal frameworks of European National Antarctic Programmes. Information from the European Polar Board, EU PolarNet deliverables, national legislation portals, and COMNAP/SCAR profiles was consolidated into country-level datasets structured for comparative analysis. This provided the empirical basis for subsequent analytical work.
Work Package 2 reconstructed the policymaking processes behind the implementation of the measures in France, Germany, and Spain through Process Tracing and Historical Comparative Analysis. Archival research at the Scott Polar Research Institute provided the background for the Treaty’s initial collective interpretations of environmental and human safety. Consultations with national officials revealed then how administrative structures and ministerial coordination “triggers” influenced each case. The findings showed that implementation often depended on internal institutional awareness and bureaucratic readiness rather than public attention or political pressure.
Work Package 3 integrated these results through Qualitative Comparative Analysis in R Studio, identifying combinations of conditions sufficient for implementation. The analysis demonstrated that dedicated polar funding combined with subordinated institutional structures and prior ratification of similar conventions facilitates implementation, while in competitive funding contexts, autonomous polar institutions can achieve the same outcome.
These results provide the first systematic, evidence-based explanation of domestic pathways to Antarctic policy implementation. They establish a novel analytical framework linking national administrative design and environmental treaty performance, contributing original knowledge to environmental governance and policy implementation research.
PPOLARPOL delivered the first comparative, evidence-based analysis of how domestic political and institutional factors shape the implementation of binding Antarctic Treaty measures. The project mapped the material, legal, and bureaucratic configurations of European Antarctic Treaty Parties and demonstrated that policy implementation is driven not by international pressure, but by domestic arrangements—particularly the alignment between funding mechanisms, administrative structures, and prior experience with similar international conventions.
The Qualitative Comparative Analysis identified two main enabling pathways: (1) dedicated polar funding combined with subordinated institutional structures and ratification of similar conventions; or (2) autonomous polar institutions operating within competitive funding systems. The national case reconstructions of France, Germany, and Spain provide practical evidence of how internal administrative design and coordination can accelerate environmental and human safety regulation. These insights offer a replicable framework to forecast and strengthen environmental treaty compliance within Europe.
All research outputs, datasets, and R Studio scripts are deposited in Zenodo under FAIR principles, ensuring future reusability and methodological transparency. Beyond academia, the project’s methods and findings inform future governance assessments within European and international frameworks on how different combinations of internal administrative design are fundamental for the expediency in implementing international environmental agreements. As a creative outreach component, POLARPOL also produced a tabletop policymaking prototype illustrating how different interests’ interactions shape Antarctic decision-making. This tool could be further developed for science communication and educational training, strengthening public understanding of environmental governance and negotiation processes.
The Qualitative Comparative Analysis identified two main enabling pathways: (1) dedicated polar funding combined with subordinated institutional structures and ratification of similar conventions; or (2) autonomous polar institutions operating within competitive funding systems. The national case reconstructions of France, Germany, and Spain provide practical evidence of how internal administrative design and coordination can accelerate environmental and human safety regulation. These insights offer a replicable framework to forecast and strengthen environmental treaty compliance within Europe.
All research outputs, datasets, and R Studio scripts are deposited in Zenodo under FAIR principles, ensuring future reusability and methodological transparency. Beyond academia, the project’s methods and findings inform future governance assessments within European and international frameworks on how different combinations of internal administrative design are fundamental for the expediency in implementing international environmental agreements. As a creative outreach component, POLARPOL also produced a tabletop policymaking prototype illustrating how different interests’ interactions shape Antarctic decision-making. This tool could be further developed for science communication and educational training, strengthening public understanding of environmental governance and negotiation processes.