|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 153
10.
The Antarctic Treaty as a Scientific
Mechanism The Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research and the
Antarctic Treaty System
lames H. Zumberge
INTRODUCTION
Both the Antarctic Treaty and the Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research (SCAR) were legacies of the Inter-
national Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-1958. Although
the two organizations are independent of each other, they
have enjoyed a close working relationship since their
creation in the late 1950s. The treaty operates in the
world of international diplomacy, while SCAR operates in
the world of international science. The treaty functions
through the workings of governmental representatives,
while SCAR functions through the workings of scientists
who act independently of their governments. The treaty
is expressed in terms of a precise document signed and
ratified by the member nations, while SCAR is expressed
in terms of a constitution agreed to by its member dele-
gates. In spite of these differences, the treaty and
SCAR have had a mutually beneficial relationship over the
years, and it is difficult to conceive of a sound policy
for Antarctica without both organizations acting indepen-
dently, on the one hand, but with interacting roles, on
the other.
This chapter deals with the role of SCAR in the Antarc-
tic Treaty System. First, the origin of SCAR is reviewed
briefly; second, the structure and procedures of SCAR are
examined; third, examples of SCAR's interaction with the
treaty system are given; and fourth, an evaluation of the
future of SCAR is attempted.
153
OCR for page 154
154
THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF SCAR
The Beginnings of SCAR
The IGY began on January 1, 1957, and ended officially on
December 31, lg58. Even before the IGY began, however,
the U.S. National Committee for the IGY recognized that
this 18-month period was too short in terms of the invest-
ment in stations and equipment that had been made by the
nations planning extensive activities in Antarctica. The
U.S. National Committee, therefore, proposed to the Comite
Special de l'Annee Geophysique (CSAGI) in 1956 that the
IGY should be extended for an additional year in order to
justify the huge expenditures that had been made for
antarctic research.
CSAGI approved this proposal at its fourth meeting in
June 1957, and recommended to the executive board of the
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) that an
ad hoc committee be established under ICSU to examine the
merits of further general scientific investigations in
Antarctica. That committee met in September 1957 in
Stockholm, with representatives from Argentina, Chile,
France, Norway, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the
United States, and an observer from Japan and a
representative from ICSU. The ad hoc committee
identified the need for an organization that could
provide coordination for further scientific activities in
Antarctica on a more or less continuing basis. The
organization that resulted from this deliberation became
known as the Special Committee on Antarctic Research
(SCAR). SCAR was to be composed of one delegate from
each country actively engaged in antarctic research and a
representative from each of the following ICSU bodies:
International Union of Geography (IUG), International
Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), International
Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), and Union Radio
Scientifique Internationale (URSI).
SCAR was thus born of the desire of scientists to
continue the international coordination of research in
Antarctica following the IGY.
The Early Years of SCAR
The first meeting of SCAR was held in The Hague in
February 1958. Of the 12 nations then engaged in
antarctic research, Chile, New Zealand, and South Africa
OCR for page 155
155
had no representatives at that meeting, even though they
were eligible under the terms outlined by the ad hoc
committee in 1957.
The main order of business at The Hague was the
drafting of a constitution, the election of officers, and
the preparation of a budget and making provisions for
funding it. The SCAR constitution was ratified by ICSU
at its eighth general assembly in October 1958. The
first officers of SCAR were also elected at The Hague:
president, G. R. Laclavere (France); vice president, K.
E. Bullen (United Kingdom); and secretary, V. Schytt
(IUG). The SCAR budget was set at $6,000 per year, with
each of the 12 members contributing 3500 toward this
amount. To cover larger budgets in future years, it was
decided that members would contribute additional amounts
in proportion to the level of antarctic activity as
measured by the number of wintering-over personnel.
At the fourth meeting of SCAR, in Cambridge in 1960,
delegates from all 12 nations were present for the first
time. At the fifth SCAR meeting, it was reported that
ICSU wished SCAR to be renamed. The word "special" was
replaced by "scientific" so that from then on, SCAR was
the acronym for the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research.
The Growth in SCAR Membership
The initial membership of SCAR consisted of delegates
from the 12 nations that participated in antarctic
research during the IGY (Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa,
the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States) plus
representatives from JUG, IUBS, IUGG, and URSI.
The membership of SCAR remained constant for 20 years
until Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany were
admitted in 1978, bringing the total representation to 14
countries. Before then, however, representation from
other organizations under the ICSU umbrella had increased
somewhat.
The fifteenth country to gain representation in SCAR
was the German Democratic Republic, whose delegate was
seated in 1982. And finally, the sixteenth and
seventeenth representatives, from Brazil and India, were
voted into SCAR in 1984.
Other applications are pending. The Peoples Republic
of China hopes to gain admission by the time XIX SCAR
OCR for page 156
156
U]
a)
a,
._1
·rl
So P:
¢
C)
a;
o
o
lo
~Q
s
.,,
3
a)
so
In ~
o s
~ a,
Hi
1
Go
Q
En
H
oo ~ en oo oo GO ~ ~ co al ~ ~ ~ oo
a, ~ ~ ~ ~ ao Lo ~ ~ ~ Un LO ,
51 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a' ~ Is, ~ ~ ~ an ~
- , - ~ _1 -
· -
O ~ ~ N
U] —~ GS-— ~
a) ~ s At
it, ~ mm'
V
· -
~ Q
a) ~
V At
a;
o
V . - V
· - ~
~ ,0
Q k4
O
a,
_ ~
a, e.
aJ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o
EC, (' H 1= Z 2 ~
o U]
.,~
· - ~
~n
~S
) L
~ ~ .~- -
O U]
~q ~ OO
CO
S~
o
U]
OCR for page 157
157
meets in 1986, and Uruguay has reported on its plans for
an antarctic research program that could lead to member-
ship in SCAR.
A list of all SCAR member nations with national
antarctic committees and the years in which they were
admitted to SCAR is g iven in Table 10-1.
SCAR STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES
The SCAR Constitution
The SCAR constitution was a rather short and simple
document when first formulated at The Hague in 1958. It
consisted of a preamble, criteria for membership, and the
basic principles to guide SCAR's functioning.
The preamble stated that "SCAR is a Special Committee
of ICSU charged with furthering the coordination of
scientific activity in Antarctica, with a view to framing
a scientific programme of circumpolar scope and signifi-
cance. In establishing its programme, SCAR will take
care to acknowledge the autonomy of other existing
international bodies."
The constitution defined the membership as one delegate
from "each country actively engaged in antarctic research"
plus one delegate from each of the international scien-
tific unions federated in ICSU. Other special committees
of ICSU could send observers to SCAR meetings.
The balance of the constitution dealt with the estab-
lishment of the SCAR executive (president, vice president,
and secretary), authority to establish ad hoc committees,
and a procedure for preparing the budget and fixing con-
tributions by members as recommended by the budget
committee.
All this information was published in 1966 in the SCAR
Manual. That publication has been revised from time to
time as necessitated by new developments, new members, and
other changes in the structure, organization, and
function of SCAR. The various changes are incorporated
in a recent SCAR publication entitled "Constitution,
Procedures and Structure, 1981." This document contains
a revised SCAR constitution in which the relationship
between SCAR and the consultative parties of the Antarctic
Treaty is spelled out in considerable detail. The follow-
ing statement, under the section entitled "Guidelines for
the Conduct of SCAR Affairs" is particularly pertinent:
"SCAR will abstain from involvement in political and
OCR for page 158
158
juridical matters, including the formulation of manage-
ment measures for exploitable resources, except where
SCAR accepts an invitation to advise on a problem."
The revised constitution also provides for an alter-
nate delegate in addition to the permanent delegate from
each national committee adhering to SCAR, but each
country is entitled to only one vote.
Other matters of interest in the revised constitution
include an expanded SCAR executive consisting of a
president, immediate past-president, two vice presidents,
and a secretary. It should be noted that a member of the
SCAR executive need not be a delegate from one of the
countries adhering to SCAR but could be a member repre-
senting one of the international unions federated under
ICSU.
Another feature of the revised constitution deals with
the conditions for national membership in SCAR. The
general condition for membership remains the same; that
is, only countries actively engaged in antarctic research
are eligible. The changes are in the manner in which
membership applications are submitted and handled and the
addition of a provision for withdrawing the voting rights
of any member country that has not been active in the
Antarctic or SCAR for a period of four years. Another
change has to do with the granting of observer status to
countries that are planning to establish scientific
research activities in the Antarctic.
The way in which SCAR conducts its business has become
more sophisticated since the laces, but, basically, SCAR
has remained true to the principles and philosophy that
have guided its activities since inception.
Procedures of SCAR
SCAR Executive
Continuity of leadership in SCAR is lodged in the five-
member executive committee, commonly referred to as the
SCAR executive. The executive consists of the president,
the immediate past-president, two vice presidents, and
the secretary, each of whom holds office for four years.
The terms are staggered, however, to allow for continuity
of leadership. The executive meets in odd-numbered
years, usually at the SCAR headquarters in the Scott
Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, the United Kingdom.
These meetings are designed to maintain continuity between
OCR for page 159
159
the biennial meetings of SCAR and normally
reviewing matters that were referred to it
consist of
during the
previous SCAR meeting or considering other items that
need to be acted upon before the next SCAR meeting. The
SCAR executive cannot, however, act on a membership
application, since that decision rests only with the SCAR
delegates at a regular meeting. The executive does review
applications for membership to see that all requirements
have been met, after which a recommendation will be
forwarded to the delegates for action at the next meeting.
Working Groups
The core of SCAR lies in its nine permanent working
groups: Biology, Geodesy and Cartography, Geology,
Glaciology, Human Biology and Medicine, Logistics,
Meteorology, Solid Earth Geophysics, and Upper Atmosphere
Physics. Until recently, a tenth working group, Ocean-
ography, was in existence, but the activities of that
group were more or less merged with another ICSU Com-
mittee, the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research.
Members of the working groups are selected from the
SCAR member countries through their national committees,
but some working groups have scientists from countries
that are not members of SCAR if it is believed that their
knowledge is useful to the deliberations of the working
group.
Working groups meet during SCAR meetings or at times
when it is convenient for a group to assemble in connec-
tion with some other international meeting. Normally,
two to four working groups meet at the time of regular
SCAR meetings, and much of the work is done by correspon-
dence among the members. Each working group elects a
secretary or chairman from its members, and this indi-
vidual has the responsibility for calling and conducting
meetings and submitting reports to SCAR. A working group
may elect to create subcommittees, as is the case with
the biology group, which has a subcommittee on
conservation.
Groups of Specialists
When matters arise in SCAR that do not fit neatly within
the purview of a single working group, groups of special-
ists are formed. These bodies usually are formed when
OCR for page 160
160
multidisciplinary problems are involved or when SCAR is
requested to provide advice to the Antarctic Treaty gov-
ernments. All members in groups of specialists need not
necessarily be representatives of national committees.
When their assignments are completed, groups of special-
ists are discontinued.
Currently SCAR has five groups of specialists:
Antarctic Climate Research, Antarctic Environmental
Implications of Possible Mineral Exploration and Exploit-
ation, Antarctic Sea Ice, Seals, and Southern Ocean
Ecosystems and Their Living Resources.
It is worth citing an example of how a group of
specialists can influence the course of antarctic
research. The Group of Specialists on the Living
Resources of the Southern Ocean (later merged with SCAR
as Working Group 54) designed an extensive program of
biological research in the Southern Ocean entitled
Biological Investigations of Marine Antarctic Systems and
Stocks (BIOMASS). The main objective of BIOMASS was to
study the ecosystem of the ocean surrounding the antarctic
continent, with special attention to the life history,
special distribution, and abundance of krill tEuphausia
superba). This small shrimp-like crustacean is one of
the main elements of the food web in the Southern Ocean
and is a possible candidate for human exploitation.
In its early days, BIOMASS was a child of SCAR, which
encouraged the planning and development efforts that
later materialized into two major collaborative, multi-
ship investigations of the Southern Ocean. The first of
these, the First International BIOMASS Experiment (FIBEX),
executed in 1981, involved 13 ships from 10 nations work-
ing on synoptic data collection in the Scotia Sea and
Drake Passage. The second effort of the BIOMASS plan has
the apt acronym SIBEX (Second International BIOMASS
Experiment). It is similar in scope to FIBEX but with
additional emphasis on the nutritional dynamics of birds,
fish, and mammals in parts of the Southern Ocean not
covered by FIBEX.
The value of these investigations will be increased
once the data collected are analyzed and evaluated in the
BIOMASS data center. The results therefrom could repre-
sent valuable information for use in managing the living
resources of the Southern Ocean under the Convention on
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living ResourceS.
The establishment of BIOMASS under the sponsorship of
SCAR is an example of how an initiative involving multi-
national participation can be launched successfully.
OCR for page 161
161
While it may not have been impossible for a single nation
to put together a program similar to BIOMASS, it seems
highly improbable that such an initiative from a single
country could have generated the high interest and strong
enthusiasm that was encountered by the founders of
BIOMASS under SCAR sponsorship.
Publications of SCAR
In addition to the SCAR Bulletin, which is published in
January, May, and September of each year, in English in
the Polar Record and in Spanish by the Instituto
Antarctica Argentina in Buenos Aires, SCAR publishes
various reports of a special nature. These reports are
ad hoc in nature and do not constitute a series in any
sense of the word. An example of one of these is the
Report on Possible Environmental Effects of Mineral
Exploration and Exploitation in Antarctica published by
SCAR in 1979. Because of the importance of this subject,
and because the report constituted the response of SCAR
to a request from the Antarctic Treaty governments, SCAR
decided that it was worth publishing. Other occasional
publications by SCAR are issued from time to time.
The main vehicle for communications within the SCAR
organization is the SCAR Circular.
l
to request information from national committees on various
matters that SCAR wishes to address or to convey to
national committees information from the SCAR executive
or the SCAR secretariat. While the SCAR Circulars are
not archival publications in the strict sense of the
word, they are serially numbered and contain much infor-
mation of value and importance to the national committees.
SCAR requires each member nation, through its national
committee, to submit an annual report on its ongoing
programs of research and other activities in Antarctica.
National committees are required to submit to SCAR on
June 30 of each year information on research programs of
the preceding year, including the current winter season.
Additionally, the national report must contain a list of
the occupied stations with their latitudes and longitudes,
plans for the following year for both summer and winter,
and a bibliography on publications related to antarctic
research that have been published since the previous
report. These national reports are distributed widely by
SCAR to all national committees so that there is a
continual flow of information circulated to all who are
active in antarctic research.
.
It provides a means
OCR for page 162
162
SCAR takes these national reports very seriously and
goes so far as to specify the format of the report and
the size of the paper on which they are printed. This is
the only instance in which SCAR has shown any sign of
adopting bureaucratic measures, but given the use to which
these reports are put, the uniformity of style and format
is entirely justified. To my knowledge, no national
committee has ever deviated from the form prescribed.
SCAR Symposia
From time to time since its inception, SCAR has sponsored
symposia on a variety of subjects related to Antarctica.
Most symposia are sponsored by SCAR in association with
some other international organization, and a publication
usually results. While SCAR provides some funning tor
these symposia, additional subventions are required to
fund travel of participants and publication of the papers
presented. Some of the volumes generated as an outgrowth
of SCAR-sponsored symposia represent major additions to
the scientific knowledge of the antarctic continent and
the Southern Ocean. More than two dozen symposia have
been sponsored or cosponsored by SCAR since the first one
on Antarctic Meteorology was held in Melbourne in 1959.
SCAR Meetings
In the early years, SCAR met every year, but later the
routine of biennial meetings became the norm. Meetings
are held in one of the member countries, as invitations
are extended from national committees. The host country
provides all meeting sites and other amenities to the
delegates at no cost to the SCAR treasury. All delegates
provide their own travel and other expenses, but SCAR
does fund travel expenses for the executive.
It has been the custom of SCAR to alternate its meeting
sites between member countries in the Northern and South-
ern Hemispheres. This informal arrangement may be
difficult to follow in the future, given the fact that 11
of the 17 member countries lie north of the equator and
six lie south, if Brazil is considered a Southern
Hemisphere country. The dates, sites, and designated
numbers of all meetings of SCAR through 1984 are given in
Table 10-2.
OCR for page 163
163
Table 10-2 Dates, Sites, and Designated Numbers
of SCAR Meetings, 1958-1984
Meeting
Number City Country Dates
I The Hague The Netherlands February 3-5, 1958
II Moscow U.S.S.R. August 4-11, 1958
I II Canberra Australia March 2-6, 1959
IV Cambr idge United Kingdom August 29-
September 2, 1960
V Wellington New Zealand October 9-15, 1961
VI Boulder United States August 20-24, 1962
VII Capetown South Africa September 23-27,
1963
VII I Par is France August 24-28, 196 4
IX Santiago Chile September 20-24,
1966
X Tokyo Japan June 10-15, 19 6 8
XI Oslo Norway August 17-22, 1970
XII Canberra - Australia August 7-19, 1972
XIII Jackson Hole United States September 2-7, 1974
XIV Mendoza Argentina October 11-23, 197 6
XV Chamonix France May 16-27, 1978
XVI Queenstown New Zealand October 14-25, 198 0
XVII Leningrad U.S.S.R. July 5-9, 1982
XVII I Bremerhaven Federal Republic
of Germany October 1-5, 1984
aSCAR refers to its meetings by Roman numerals. For example, the 1968
meeting in Tokyo is designated as X SCAR.
OCR for page 164
164
Normally, meetings last for two weeks. The first week
is devoted to meetings of working groups and groups of
specialists, and the second week is reserved for the
plenary sessions and meetings of delegates. This format
has worked well and is likely to be followed in the
future, even with an expanded membership.
The SCAR Secretariat
Until XI SCAR, in Oslo in 1970, SCAR functioned with a
secretary elected from the membership and with no
permanent secretariat. At XII SCAR, in Canberra, however,
the services of an executive secretary were in place, and
a permanent SCAR secretariat had been established at the
Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge.
George E. Hemmen was the first executive secretary and
serves admirably in that capacity to this day. His
regular duties are with the Royal Society in London, but
he manages about one day a week in Cambridge. He is ably
assisted by a secretary, Jane Whiting, who spends full
time in Cambridge dealing with correspondence and a
variety of tasks connected with the secretariat. SCAR is
indeed fortunate to have these two dedicated people
looking after the day-to-day affairs of its members.
THE INTERACTION OF SCAR WITH THE
ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM
The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 and entered into
force on June 23, 1961, after ratification by the
governments of the original 12 contracting parties, the
same 12 that constituted the initial membership of SCAR.
SCAR is not explicitly mentioned in the treaty, but in
the minutes of the first Antarctic Treaty consultative
meeting, in Canberra in July 1961, SCAR was referred to
several times in various recommendations. These included,
among others, the following wording in Recommendation
I-IV: n (1) that the free exchange of information and
views among scientists participating in SCAR, and the
Recommendations concerning scientific programmed and
cooperation formulated by this body constitute a most
valuable contribution to international scientific cooper-
ation in Antarctica; (2) that since these activities of
SCAR constitute the kind of activity contemplated in
Article III of the treaty, SCAR should be encouraged to
OCR for page 165
165
continue this advisory work which has so effectively
facilitated international cooperation in scientific
investigation."
These words leave little doubt about the high regard
of the treaty parties for SCAR and its programs. This
first indication of the treaty consultative parties'
respect for SCAR has continued ever since. Whenever the
treaty parties are in need of scientific advice concerning
Antarctica, they have come to SCAR.
_
Requests to SCAR for advice and information are made
~ ~ ~ These recommends
in a formal way by the treaty parties.
. · .
-
tions are designated by a numbering system. For example,
for Recommendation VIII-14, the Roman numeral refers to
the eighth Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting and the
number 14 identifies a specific recommendation.
Recommendations to SCAR have emanated from many of the
consultative meetings and are too many in number to
review in these pages. Generally, these recommendations
have ranged over a variety of topics, including a
resolution at the first consultative meeting urging the
contracting parties to be guided in their conservation
policies by the recommendations of SCAR. At the third
consultative meeting, in 1964, the treaty consultative
parties adopted a series of agreed measures on antarctic
conservation based on SCAR recommendations. In the same
context, the treaty nations set aside certain parts of
the Antarctic as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and
other areas designated as Specially Protected Areas on
the advice of SCAR.
Other matters on which the treaty nations have called
on SCAR for advice and guidance cover such subjects as
logistics, telecommunications, living resources of the
Southern Ocean, and the exploration and exploitation of
mineral resources in Antarctica. The last matter deserves
some additional comment because of its general interest
not only to the consultative parties, but to other nations
around the world.
The question of antarctic mineral resources had never
been raised formally in SCAR until 1916. Meeting in
Mendoza, Argentina, that year, XIV SCAR addressed a
recommendation from the eighth Antarctic Treaty
consultative meeting held the previous year in Oslo.
Emanating from that meeting was Recommendation VIII-14,
which invited SCAR to "make an assessment on the basis of
available information of the possible impact on the
environment of the treaty Area and other ecosystems
dependent on the antarctic environment if mineral
exploration and/or exploitation were to occur there."
OCR for page 166
166
SCAR was apprehensive about its response, lest it be
inferred that by taking on the assignment SCAR was
tacitly endorsing a move toward exploitation of mineral
resources in Antarctica. Both SCAR and the treaty nations
had avoided the minerals issue until it was forced on
their agenda by international events beyond their control.
The main reason why the minerals question came to the fore
at this particular time was the quadrupling of the price
of crude oil in 1973-1974 by the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries.
To formulate its response to the treaty nations, SCAR
organized a group of specialists, which wrote a report in
time for the ninth Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting,
in London in October 1977. This report was also published
by SCAR in 1979. This was the beginning of an ongoing
relationship between SCAR and the treaty nations on the
minerals issue. SCAR's role has diminished, however,
since the consultative parties have met on several
occasions to forge a separate accord as part of the
Antarctic Treaty System to deal with the question of the
extractive industries, should they ever gain a foothold
on the continent or in the continental shelves surrounding
it. It should be emphasized again that SCAR's role in
this matter was confined to factual information and the
scientific interpretation of those facts. It must be
noted, however, that many individuals connected with SCAR
also serve as advisers to their respective governments on
Antarctic Treaty matters. In so doing, these individuals
are careful to keep their roles in SCAR separate and
distinct from their roles in treaty matters.
In summary, it can be said that the consultative
parties and SCAR play separate but mutually beneficial
roles in the international affairs of Antarctica. The
success of this relationship is based on two observations:
First, the consultative parties derive their authority
from the Antarctic Treaty. Second, the success of SCAR
is based not on the authority of the SCAR constitution
but rather on the experience and scientific reputations
of its members and working groups. Included in these are
most of the world's leading experts in antarctic affairs,
both scientific and logistic. Collectively, these experts
constitute the greatest concentration of talent related
to antarctic science and attendant technology ever
assembled. For this reason, the consultative parties in
the Antarctic Treaty System are likely to continue their
dependence on SCAR for scientific and technical informa-
tion for as long as the treaty and associated agreements
and conventions are in force.
OCR for page 167
167
A LOOK AT SCAR'S FUTURE
During the first 20 years of its existence, SCAR changed
very little. The membership was stable during this
period, most of the delegates and working group members
were experienced veterans of countless IGY and post-IGY
antarctic scientific expeditions, and most of the matters
addressed were scientific or logistic. Since the middle
to late 1970s, however, SCAR has undergone considerable
change in its membership, in its constitution, and in its
agenda.
The number of nations with SCAR delegates has increased
from 12 to 17, with more to come. The number of dele-
gates representing other ICSU bodies has increased also,
although many of these delegates are also delegates from
national committees. In addition, the cadre of alternate
delegates has swelled the number of individuals in
attendance at SCAR meetings to more than twice what could
be expected in the early days. Also, women are now active
in antarctic science, a d~v~l~nm~nt Chad w== ..^h~_A
during the IGY.
~ .. ~ _ ~ ~ ~ a, &l~ =~ ~ ~ v ~
Many or tne IGY veterans who were active in leadership
roles in SCAR during its first two decades either have
retired or are about to retire.
~ It is therefore inevit-
able that SCAR will have to replace the old generation of
SCAR scientists with a new generation. This may be
traumatic for some who resist change wherever it occurs,
but the new generation is ready and waiting to assume
important roles in the affairs of SCAR.
To accommodate nations that aspire to membership in
SCAR but have not yet satisfied SCAR's requirements, SCAR
is studying the possibility of creating a new class of
members. These "associate members n would consist of
nations that are gearing up for ongoing antarctic programs
but may be several years away from their implementation.
If such countries were accorded the status of associate
membership and allowed to participate in SCAR in a limited
capacity, their plans for antarctic operations could be
enhanced by what they might learn by participating in
SCAR. A recommendation is expected on this matter at XIX
SCAR in 1986. If such a proposal is adopted, it will
require yet another change in the SCAR constitution.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to SCAR lies in its
ability to deal with other international bodies and
address nonscientific issues without compromising the
distinction between science and politics. SCAR has
adhered rigidly to this distinction in the past and has
OCR for page 168
168
been well served by so doing. But the line between
science and politics has become more finely drawn, and
SCAR must exercise constant vigilance to avoid becoming
tangled in policy matters that, while they may relate to
scientific activities, are the business of the consulta-
tive parties that administer the affairs of the Antarctic
Treaty and related agreements.
SCAR must recognize that the scope of its activities
will be broadened in future years. It has already
responded to a request from the U.N. for information in
connection with the U.N. discussion on the question of
Antarctica. Along with this broadening of its agenda,
SCAR will have to become more responsive to groups and
organizations that have developed an interest in antarc-
tic affairs. SCAR can no longer function exclusively as
a closed group whose members speak antarctic jargon to
one another at SCAR meetings and within the confines of
the working groups.
A first step in this direction will be taken when SCAR
joins the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources in April 1985 in the sponsor
ship of a symposium on scientific requirements for
antarctic conservation. Other opportunities for joint
sponsorship will undoubtedly be forthcoming from other
organizations in the future, and SCAR must measure each
such request against its basic mission. Moreover, SCAR
must avoid being drawn into a position of advocacy, no
matter how tempting some of these positions might appear
to be.
As an organization, SCAR is an advocate only of the
continuation of high-quality scientific research programs
in Antarctica in accordance with the words in the preamble
of its constitution. So long as SCAR can keep this mis-
sion in the forefront of its activities, and so long as
its scientists can maintain strong programs of high
scientific merit, SCAR will continue to flourish as the
only international body dedicated solely to the advance-
ment of knowledge on this unique area of the planet
Earth. There is nothing in SCAR's past or present
behavior to indicate that it will deviate from the
mission that it established for itself at The Hague more
than a quarter century ago.
-
Representative terms from entire chapter:
antarctic research
