The strategies used to protect the Antarctic ecosystem have been effective in important ways. The Antarctic Treaty (1959) and Madrid Protocol (1991) have kept the continent demilitarised and mining-free for over 60 years, removing two major threats entirely. CCAMLR's precautionary krill and toothfish quotas have prevented the fishery collapse seen in other oceans, and the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area — agreed by CCAMLR's 25 members in 2016 — is the world's largest MPA, banning commercial fishing across roughly 1.12 million km² and protecting Adélie penguins, Weddell seals and Antarctic toothfish. IAATO's voluntary tourism rules (a 100-visitor cap, 5 m wildlife distance, biosecurity) achieve very high compliance, and there has been no major tourism disaster.
However, the strategies have clear weaknesses. Compliance is largely VOLUNTARY with no enforcement body, so illegal (IUU) toothfish fishing still happens. CCAMLR works by consensus, so a single member can block progress — China and Russia have repeatedly vetoed the proposed East Antarctic MPA. Tourist numbers keep rising, exceeding 100,000 visitors in 2022-23. Critically, the Ross Sea MPA itself has only a 35-year time limit rather than being permanent. Above all, none of these strategies can tackle the greatest threat to the ecosystem — climate change, which is driven by emissions OUTSIDE Antarctica and is melting sea ice that krill depend on.
Overall, the strategies are highly effective at managing the LOCAL, direct threats they were designed for — mining, fishing and tourism — but they cannot address the GLOBAL threat of climate change. I therefore judge them effective in part rather than fully effective: the framework is strong, but its reliance on consensus and its inability to influence global emissions limit how much it can ultimately protect the Antarctic ecosystem.