LAUSR

We understand the concerns of Philippe Borsa and colleagues over the New Caledonia government’s plans to open the Chesterfield reefs to ecotourism cruise ships (Nature 558, 372; 2018). In our view as conservation affecting the Antarctic ecosystem properly engage with the ATS from the outset. Antarctic geoengineering proposals would not “require global consent” as Moore et al. state, but instead would need the approval of the 29 consultative parties to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is an important independent contributor to the ATS. However, it is actually the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), created by the 1991 Madrid Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty, that formally advises the consultative parties about proposals affecting the Antarctic environment. The Madrid Protocol bans mining and declares Antarctica a natural reserve. We think that the CEP is likely to advise that the “major disturbances to local ecosystems” arising from Moore and colleagues’ proposals — particularly quarrying of local rock and dredging — would infringe Madrid Protocol protections. Geoengineering that affects marine ecosystems might also require separate permission under the 1982 ATS Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Any discussion of geoengineering in Antarctica needs to preserve and strengthen Antarctic governance, not weaken it. This is a task for international lawyers and policymakers as well as scientists. Brendan Gogarty* University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. [email protected] *On behalf of 6 correspondents (see go.nature.com/2kjaady for full list). Political pressures on Romania’s research