Would you like to add this to your personal library?
| 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 195
13.
The Antarctic Treaty System as an
Environmental Mechanism-
An Approach to Environmental Issues
John A. Heap and Martin W. HoZ4gate
INTRODUCTION
The Antarctic Treaty System is a management tool. It
regulates human activities, by international consensus,
over the whole area of land and ice shelf south of 60°S
latitude. It does so with certain defined objectives in
view, laid down in the treaty and interpreted in consulta-
tive meetings. Additional conventions have extended the
regulation of certain human activities to a wider area of
the Southern Ocean. From an environmental standpoint,
the primary element in the treaty system is the
requirement that the unique features of the Antarctic
environment be safeguarded and made available to people
of all nations for scientific research and their peaceful
enjoyment. The ultimate objective of the treaty as an
environmental mechanism is the harmonization of
utilitarian, conservation, and aesthetic values. In this
chapter we examine how far the treaty system has achieved
this objective.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
Publications about the Antarctic stress its distinctive
and extreme features. Superlatives jostle one another.
It is the coldest, highest, iciest, and most remote
continent on Earth. It is surrounded by a continuous belt
of the world's stormiest seas. It is fringed by the
world's greatest expanse of floating ice and the world's
largest icebergs. The two percent of land that is not
covered in perennial ice supports the most impoverished
plant and animal life of any continent, although the
surrounding seas support comparatively productive marine
195
OCR for page 196
196
ecosystems and immense populations of seabirds and marine
mammals.1~2~3
These generalizations point to the unique character-
istics of Antarctica, but they are of little point for
our present analysis. We need to start by recognizing
the contrast in the Antarctic environment between two
broad types of subsystem:
(1) Small, but numerous, terrestrial areas where
human activity can have a considerable impact, even
if it is itself on a relatively modest scale;
(2) Large, broadly uniform marine and terrestrial
areas capable of absorbing substantial human activity
with little or no impact.
These subsystems require somewhat fuller description.
The two percent of ice-free land exists as a series of
mountainous rock outcrops, coastal strips, and islands.
In these areas, and especially around the coasts of the
Antarctic Peninsula and its off-lying island groups,
there are areas of primitive soil that support a sur-
prising complexity of moss, hepatic and lichen vegetation,
and associated soil animals. In these regions there are
a few patches of the two kinds of higher plant native to
Antarctica (the grass Deschampsia antarctica and the
cushion plant Colobanthus crassifolius), and in a few
areas, higher insects (small wingless midges) are also to
be found. In some places the slow growth of the mosses
has built up frozen peat to a depth of 2 m. These ice-
free coastal areas are also the breeding ground for very
large populations of seabirds, and they contain many
small lakes, ice-free in summer and themselves supporting
communities of plants and invertebrate animal life. In
addition, this is a region where seals haul out both to
breed and to molt, fertilizing the soil and lakes with
their exoreta but damaging vegetation and soil by their
wallowing. These areas thus exhibit a substantial degree
of ecological interaction, which gives them high scien-
tific interest. They stand out in any objective classifi-
cation of Antarctic habitats.
fragile.
But they are also extremely
The soils and moss mats have developed since ice
retreat many centuries ago. They are still evolving
under the influence of percolating moisture and the
deposition of nutrients by birds and seals, by spray from
the sea, and by the action of plants and the soil fauna
and microflora. Although they are naturally disturbed
OCR for page 197
197
through the regular physical alternation of freezing and
thawing, they do not quickly regain their natural patterns
if they are disturbed by people or vehicles. The moss
mats are very slow growing (rates of approximately 1 mm a
year) and bear the scars of human pressure (for example,
footprints) for years or even decades. The bird popula-
tions, although apparently tolerant of human intrusion,
are actually affected in a subtle but nonetheless sig-
nificant way. The metabolic rates of incubating penguins;
for example, can be raised by the mere presence of an
observer to such an extent that the birds' food reserves
are insufficient to sustain them for their proper spell
of incubation before being relieved by the other partner:
eggs are therefore abandoned and breeding success reduced.
Disturbance of these vulnerable coastal areas, which
contain much of the attractiveness of the Antarctic to
the tourist and much of its value to the scientist, there-
fore tends to have a cumulative impact, which is far from
obvious to the casual observer. The same probably applies
to the shallow seas, which support a rich marine fauna
below the limits of ice scour, although less is known
about both the diversity and the resilience of these
ecosystems in the face of disturbance from small boats
and ships and from incidental pollution from vessels and
shore stations.
In contrast, the great expanses of the Antarctic ice
cap support virtually no life except snow algae and are
resilient in the face of human traverse and pressure.
Snow obliterates the marks of man and vehicles, or wind
scours them away. Likewise, the immense expanses of
ocean and floating pack ice around the Antarctic, driven
and mixed before wind and current, have a great capacity
to disperse pollution and are most unlikely to bear any
detectable impact from localized human activities, even
up to the scale of a substantial oil spillage. The main
extensive human activity in these areas--fishing for
~ (Eunhausia sunerba), now running at approximately
~uu,uuu tons per annum~--is still tiny compared with
the estimated productivity of this species e Nonetheless,
it is worth recalling that the major human impacts on
Antarctica in the past have come through the disastrous
over exploitation of two kinds of animal that depend on
those extensive seas for their food--fur seals and whales.
Too relaxed an attitude to the resilience of these oceans
and their life forms is accordingly unwise. Krill occupy
a central place in the Antarctic marine food web, account
for about half of the total biomass of animal plankton,
OCR for page 198
198
and sustain many species of whale, seal, and bird. All
exploitative activities have small beginnings, and for
this reason alone, biologists are right to be concerned
that the present small catches of krill may be the
harbinger of much more to come.
HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF ANTARCTICA
Antarctica is a classic example of a frontier environ-
ment. It lies, and almost certainly always will lie,
beyond the bounds of permanent human settlement. People
have made incursions into it, usually for short periods,
in pursuit of resources or information that they can
carry away. This was the approach of the initial sealing
incursions between 1780 and 1830, which rapidly brought
the fur seals of South Georgia, the other sub-Antarctic
islands, and the South Shetland and South Orkney island
groups to near extinction.5 The pressures were
intensely competitive, and because the resource was open
to all comers, with no sovereign interest in regulating
its exploitation, it was quickly depleted and its habitat
abandoned.6 A very similar approach was adopted by the
twentieth century whaling industry, although here regula-
tion was attempted once it was clear that unchecked open
access and competitive exploitation threatened to destroy
the interests of all the exploiters. The regulatory
efforts have nonetheless brought only partial success,
and many resource biologists would say that this is
because there is no unquestioned authority able to impose
a solution. In contrast, the incursions of scientists
into Antarctica have been better organized and regulated,
with international discussion of programs, exchange of
data and observers, and the formulation of agreed coopera-
tive programs through the Scientific Committee on Antarc-
tic Research (SCAR).7 But the commercial element has
been absent from these activities.
Interest in Antarctica over past centuries, and
especially since 1900, has arisen largely because of the
continent's distinctive environmental features. Explora-
tion of geographical, geological, glaciological, and
biological attributes has gained ground and involved an
increasing number of scientists. The research has pro-
vided insights into the working of species and ecosystems
in an extreme habitat and has contributed to understanding
of how the Earth as a whole functions as a geophysical
and biogeochemical system. We know that the Antarctic
OCR for page 199
199
has a substantial impact on the climate of a wide zone of
the Earth, and its marine circulation patterns interlink
with those over the world ocean northward to the equator,
and in some cases beyond.5
Today scientists go to the Antarctic because its
environment offers insights and opportunities for study
not to be found anywhere else on Earth. A primary objec-
tive for the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is to keep
this environment free from damage and open to research.
Increasingly, however, the Antarctic oceans are also being
seen as the source of important food resources for human-
ity, with a potential crop of krill estimated by some in
the tens of millions of tons per annum, with a further
potential yield if conservation measures eventually allow
the resumption of whaling, and a possible additional
resource of seabed hydrocarbons. Land mineral resources
have also been the subject of increasing speculation.
The ATS now needs to prove its effectiveness as a frame-
work for the management of these commercial activities,
which could easily hamper both the scientific uses of the
region and the enjoyment of its unique wilderness
qualities by an increasing number of visitors.
One way of viewing the present challenge to the ATS is
to ask whether it can ensure the implementation in
Antarctica of the broad objectives of the World Conserva-
tion Strategy (WCS).8 This analysis recognizes the
importance of development of the world environment for
human welfare but stresses that it is in the interest of
all people for this development to be managed so that it
provides for the sustainable use of the renewable resource
base. Conservation of ecological systems and their
genetic diversity is important from the human standpoint
because these systems form a crucial part of the human
life-support system.
In the remainder of this chapter we analyze how far
the ATS is implementing the objectives of the WCS in the
region and ask whether the mechanism needs to be developed
or adapted to ensure achievement of this objective in the
future.
THE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
The WCS and other analyses have led to the formulation of
certain broad goals of environmental policy, which are
applicable to all regions. These can be summarized in
nine points:
OCR for page 200
200
(1) There shall be a conscious plan for managing and
developing the environment of a region;
(2) The long-term productivity of ecological systems
and other renewable resources shall be sustained
under that plan, and the use of these resources
shall be controlled by competent authorities;
(3) Damage from chemical contamination and energy
releases, which could threaten sustainable use,
shall be held, by effective regulatory action,
within limits formally established by the proper
authorities;
(4) Representative samples of the range of ecological
diversity of the region shall be set aside as
reserves, with conservation as the priority for
their use;
(5) Outstanding aesthetic qualities of the environment
shall be safeguarded, with the establishment of
"national parks" in key areas;
(6) The likely impact of any activity liable to change
the environment shall be evaluated in advance, and
a regulatory system established to prevent activi-
ties deemed likely to cause unacceptable damage;
(7) There shall be proper scientific study as a basis
for environmental assessment and management;
(8) The state of the environment, the productivity of
its systems, the degree of pollution, and the
operation of activities permitted within
conservation and management plans shall be
monitored and periodic reports prepared and
published; and
(9) There shall be a consultative process, in which
interested parties may participate, to adjust
activities that threaten established environmental
goals or appear liable to create unforeseen
hazards, and this process shall include effective
procedures for the resolution of disputes
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WITHIN THE
ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM
-
Two quite distinct approaches to environmental questions,
in a broad sense, are evident in the ATS. The first
attempts to define principles that should govern the
protection of the Antarctic environment from the damaging
impact of present or future activities. The second
identifies and guards against particular activities that
OCR for page 201
201
could have a deleterious effect on the Antarctic environ-
ment. The first approach is general and essentially
nonspecific; the second is activity specific. Both are
precautionary in their approach.
The overall approach is defined in several general
statements, especially those set out in Recommendations
VIII-13 and IX-5 adopted at Antarctic Treaty consultative
meetings. The key elements in these recommendations are
the following:
Extract from Recommendation VIII-13
The Representatives [of the consultative parties]
RECOMMEND to their Governments:
1. In exercising their responsibility for the wise
use and protection of the Antarctic environment they
shall have regard to the following:
(a) that in considering measures for the wise
use and protection of the Antarctic environment
they shall act in accordance with their respon-
sibility for ensuring that such measures are
consistent with the interests of all mankind;
(b) that no actor activity having an inherent
tendency to modify the environment over wide
areas within the Antarctic Treaty Area should be
undertaken unless appropriate steps have been
taken to foresee the probable modifications and
to exercise appropriate controls with respect to
the harmful environmental effects such uses of
the Antarctic Treaty Area may have;
(c) that in cooperation with SCAR and other
relevant agencies they continue, within the
capabilities of their Antarctic scientific
programme, to monitor changes in the environment,
irrespective of their cause, and to exercise
their responsibility for informing the world
community of any significant changes caused by
man's activities outside the Antarctic Treaty
Area....
Extract from Recommendation IX-5
[The consultative parties] DEq~RMI~wn to protect the
Antarctic environment from harmful interference;
OCR for page 202
202
RAVING PARTICULAR REGARD to the conservation
principles developed by the Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research (SCAR) of the International
Council of Scientific Unions;
RB GALLING their obligation to exert appropriate
efforts, consistent.with the Charter of the U.N., to
the end that no one engages in any activity in
Antarctica contrary to the principles or purposes of
the Antarctic Treaty;
DECLARE as follows:
1. The consultative parties recognize their prime
responsibility for the protection of the Antarctic
environment from all forms of harmful human
interference;
2. They will ensure in planning future activities
that the question of environmental effects and of the
possible impact of such activities on the relevant
ecosystems are duly considered;
3. They will refrain from activities having an
inherent tendency to modify the Antarctic environment
unless appropriate steps have been taken to foresee
the probable modifications and to exercise
appropriate controls with respect to harmful
environmental effects;
4. m ey will continue to monitor the Antarctic
environment and to exercise their responsibility for
informing the world community of any significant
changes in the Antarctic Treaty Area caused by man's
activities.
The general principles in Recommendations VIII-13 and
IX-5 are in full accord with the WCS and give a general
direction to actions under the treaty to protect the
environment. In particular, they emphasize the need to
act in the Antarctic in the interests of all humankind
[Recommendation VIII-13, l(a)]; to plan activities to
avoid significant and avoidable environmental damage
[Recommendations VIII-13, l(b) and IX-5, 1, 2, and 3];
and to maintain continuing scientific and administrative
surveillance and monitoring [Recommendations VIII-13,
l(c) and IX-5, 4]. They define a broad strategy for
sound conservation of environmental resources, as
required under the first of the nine objectives listed
above. .
The specific approach has led to actions under the
treaty in the following eight areas, with a further theme
under active discussion.
OCR for page 203
203
(1) The Agreed Measures for Conservation of Antarctic
.
Fauna and Flora. These measures, concluded in 1964 at
the Third Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting, were an
exercise in forethought aimed at preventing any repetition
of the near extermination of species that took place in
the nineteenth century. These Agreed Measures, which
have been characterized as a ~minitreaty, n or a treaty
within a treaty, prohibit the citizens of any party to
the treaty from killing, capturing, or molesting without
a permit any mammal or bird native to Antarctica. They
also establish the basis on which Specially Protected
Areas shall be established and the rules that shall
operate regarding access to them and define the concept
of Specially Protected Species. Subsequently two
Specially Protected Species and seventeen Specially
Protected Areas have been designated, and it has been
agreed that the statistics of animals killed or captured
under permit will be published.
(2)
Seals. This convention was also an exercise in fore-
. . .
thought. It had its beginnings in 1964 when an explora-
tory sealing voyage examined the potential harvest of
crabeater seals in the South Atlantic pack ice. It was
concluded in 1972, after a number of drafts had been
examined by both SCAR and the consultative parties. The
convention provides for closed areas, closed seasons, and
for what would now, in the light of the Law of the Sea
Convention and customary international law, be termed
total allowable catches (TACs) of seals. These TACS were
based on a ten percent take of what have turned out to be
very conservative estimates of the total populations
of pelagic seals. Since the convention was concluded
there has been no commercial sealing in the Antarctic,
but it is not clear how far this is an effect of the
convention rather than of logistics difficulties, costs,
and consumer resistance to seal products.
(3) The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources.
concluded in 1980 and entered into force in 1982. This
is an ambitious instrument that sets out to conserve the
marine living resources of the Antarctic and Southern
Ocean area south of the Antarctic convergence, including
birds, in accordance with principles of ecosystem con-
servation. Following the steady decline of Antarctic
whaling through the 1950s and 1960s, fishing for finfish
and experiments to see if krill could be located, caught,
processed, and marketed began in 1969-1970. Initial
The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
The convention (CCAMLR) was
OCR for page 204
204
catches of finfish were good, but because of the slow
rate of growth of these species in the cold Antarctic
waters, catches on the four main grounds tailed off
rapidly. Catches of krill rose fairly rapidly to 300,000
tons in 1983-1984, but the economics of this fishery
remain doubtful because of processing and marketing
problems. At present the forecasts of being able to
double the world's marine resource catch from krill, made
in the late 1960s, seem wildly far off the mark. There
are major ecological doubts about how far it is prudent
to harvest krill in view of its central role in the
Antarctic marine ecosystem and the possibility that krill
depletion will impair the recovery of whale populations.
The questions facing CCAMLR in fulfillment of its own
objectives are whether it can so regulate fishing of the
depleted finfish stocks that there will be a return to
higher catches on a sustainable basis and whether it can
so regulate krill exploitation that the health of the
Antarctic marine ecosystem as a whole is sustained.
(4) Recommendations to foresee and guard against the
impacts of tourism. From a study carried out in Britain
and the Antarctic, it seems that the interests of tourists
are in Antarctic stations, wildlife, and scenery in that
order. The impact tends therefore to concentrate on the
stations. But many of these stations are located in areas
of particularly diverse and vulnerable coastal environ-
ment, and long-term scientific studies are often in
progress in their neighborhood. The recommendations
provide for a government to say that it will not accept
visits to its stations from tour ships and to regulate
the activity of tourists when visiting stations. A
reporting system has been established to monitor where
tourists land elsewhere than at stations, and a statement
of principles and practices of the Antarctic Treaty has
been compiled for the information of all visitors
including tourists (Recommendation X-8). It must be
admitted that this statement is not very compelling
reading, but some governmental expeditions have produced
more interesting pamphlets about Antarctic wildlife with
some simpler dos and don'ts for tourists.10
(5) Recommendations on the protection of historic
sites. Some expeditions, notably from New Zealand, have
restored and provided wardens for the huts of the "heroic
age" explorers, which are most frequently visited.
(6) Recommendations on the preparation by SCAR of a
code of conduct for waste disposal in Antarctica. The
code, which it is hoped will be applied to all expedi-
OCR for page 205
205
tions, is now being revised in view of improvements in
waste disposal techniques.
(7) Recommendations on the establishment of Sites of
_~ _L ~
likelihood of inadvertent interference with scientific
studies. Proposals are first evaluated by SCAR and are
then made applicable to all expeditions for a limited
term of years by a recommendation. It is a failure of
the treaty consultative partners that they have so far
not found a way of resolving a perceived conflict of
interest between designating marine SSSIs and freedom of
navigation.
(8) Environmental impact assessment. It was the
recommendation of the last consultative meeting that all
research activities and supporting logistics activities
that are likely to have a significant impact on the
Antarctic environment should be subject to such
assessment.
The same specific approach has also been evident in
the discussions, at successive consultative meetings, on
how to regulate possible minerals exploration and
exploitation. These discussions continue and are des-
cribed in other chapters of these proceedings. While
they are centered on the administrative machinery that
would regulate the development of economically useful
minerals, including hydrocarbons, should these be dis-
covered (and they have not been so far), the strongest
underlying theme has been how to ensure that such
activities do not damage the environment.
The general principles in Recommendations VIII-13 and
IX-5 have been put into practice by these various specific
measures, which address a number of the environmental
policy objectives set out above.
The CCAMLR and the Convention for the Conservation of
Antarctic Seals (Seals Convention)--and especially the
former--seek to maintain the productivity of renewable
living resources [objective (2)], and the first of these
conventions is unusual in the stress it lays on the need
to adjust harvesting so as not to impair the balance of
the supporting components of the ecosystem. The recom-
mendations on waste disposal fit within objective (3),
while the Agreed Measures, recommendations on SSSIs, and
recommendations on tourism together cover much of aims
(4) and (5), which are concerned with the conservation of
wildlife, scientific interest, and natural beauty. But
there are no areas meeting the internationally accepted
OCR for page 206
206
definition of national parks in Antarctica. The protected
areas are small, and their selection was not originally
based on a deliberate plan to safeguard a series of
representative habitats and ecosystems. Objective (6) is
directly covered by the proposals for environmental
assessment, which would certainly be applied to any
minerals-related activity. Finally, scientific study and
monitoring are built into all parts of the ATS and into
the program of SCAR. Open publication and broad
international discussion of scientific findings are
implemented through a well-established and effective
consultative process.
THE ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM AS A MECHANISM FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
The Antarctic has commonly been looked on as one of a
progression of "last frontiersn--the American "West,
Antarctica, space. Except for the slaughter of the seals
in the 1820s and of the whales in the first half of this
century--comparable to the slaughter of the North American
bison--human presence in Antarctica has been organized in
a way that the pushing back of other "frontiers" was
not. Most of the activity in the Antarctic since World
War II has been carried out by governments. Under the
Antarctic Treaty, they set out to regulate their own
activity, bringing to bear on it an awareness of the
earlier and darker history of Antarctic exploitation and
of the newer concepts of conservation, ecosystems, and
the environment. So often, elsewhere in the world. these
concepts have been brought into play for purposes of
regulation only after damage has been done. In the
Antarctic, by contrast, the treaty powers have set out
both general and specific rules before the activities
that they have sought to regulate are far advanced. That
is an encouraging start. The same environmental con-
sciousness continues. As one of us put it at one stage
in the negotiation of the minerals regime: "Here are the
claimants and nonclaimants going at each other about
minerals, and what they are working out is not a minerals
exploitation regime but an environmental protection
regime.
. .
The main virtue of the activity-specific measures for
environmental protection is their precautionary approach.
m ey have addressed possible impacts of specific
activities before the activity itself develops. In this
OCR for page 207
207
respect, they observe what is becoming an increasingly
prevalent feature of environmental policy. It could be
said that the measures on sealing and tourism have not
been tested, but the fact that regulations were in place
before activities began or had reached any considerable
scale must have had an influence on anyone wondering
whether to invest money in such activities. The treaty
system flashes an amber light signifying a clear intent
to regulate. This warning light appears to have failed
only with respect to finfish exploitation, but this came
about because of the sudden arrival in the region of
distant-water fishing fleets evicted by the rapid exten-
sion of 200-mile fishing zones elsewhere in the world.
Using examples like this, some critics have argued
that the success of the ATS is more illusory than
real.6~9 It is contended that the various measures
have been agreed on without undue difficulty because
nobody has a strong interest in breaching their pro-
visions. Many of these provisions have not been tested
by real pressure. It can also be argued that none of the
conventions and recommendations gets to the root of the
most proven difficulty in protecting such resources: the
restriction of open, competitive access. Although regu-
latory mechanisms that could include TACs are provided
for under the CCAMER and the Seals Convention, their
observance depends on voluntary restraint. This has
notoriously had only partial success in conserving open
access stocks elsewhere, notably those of oceanic whales.
Virtually all regional fisheries conventions have encoun-
tered comparable difficulties. Is it any more reasonable
to expect a system founded on voluntary self-restraint,
by a whole series of governments with differing attitudes
to the ownership of the resources, to work effectively in
Antarctica if strong economic incentives to exploit
limited resources arise and if that exploitation is
assigned to industries to whom a competitive approach is
second nature?
What is needed is an approach that, where there is
doubt about the effects of exploitation, consistently
gives the benefit of the doubt to the resource rather
than to the exploiter. This approach has not yet been
adopted anywhere on an international basis despite
widespread recognition of its validity. For fisheries,
the alternative process of extending coastal state
jurisdiction has been followed in most areas. The ATS
has certain features that should, in contrast, allow a
conservationist approach to be followed at the inter-
OCR for page 208
208
national level. The first is the proven ability of the
system to lay down regulatory ground rules before large-
scale investment has been committed. The second is the
common wish of the parties not to have to fall back on
the use of territorial jurisdiction, although this remains
a possible alternative regulatory basis if all else fails.
It is clear that there are gaps in the series of mea-
sures adopted under the treaty. The coverage of Specially
Protected Areas is not fully representative of the diver-
sity of habitats and ecosystems in Antarctica--although
these areas do cover many samples of particularly vulner-
able, small coastal localities. The absence of large
designated areas with the equivalent of national park
status is seen by some as a serious gap--although we
would argue that the Antarctic as a whole enjoys a degree
of protection and an absence of threat unique in the
world, so that this gap is more apparent than real. But
we do accept that further action to extend the series of
designated sites in relation to an objective scientific
classification of the range of variation in Antarctic
habitats is desirable. Such action was initiated by
treaty Recommendation VII-2 in 1972, and SCAR is now
preparing proposals. It is also important that such
areas, once designated, be respected, something that has
not happened in all respects so far.
Another gap relates to pollution prevention. Recom-
mendation VIII-MM on waste disposal deals with only one
possible source of chemical contamination of the region.
So far, there are no specific agreements to reduce the
risk of oil pollution from ships (other than the various
International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions) or
to control the use of substances such as pesticides that
could cause persistent low-level contamination of living
organisms and so reduce their value as monitors of pollu-
tion dispersed from outside. Radioactive contamination
has been contained by agreements--including the voluntary
decommissioning by the United States in 1972 of the small
nuclear reactor erected at McMurdo in 1962, and the
removal of its wastes and other material from the area.
But this whole subject of contamination and pollution is
another topic for continuing discussion.
There is also the problem of competing use. The
treaty system currently provides no guidance on how the
values of, for example, scientific research, shore-based
minerals development, fishery potential, and the conser-
vation of wildlife and aesthetic qualities are to be
weighed against one another in circumstances where there
OCR for page 209
209
is perceived competition between them. These conflicts
need to be resolved individually and locally: it is no
answer to give one use of Antarctica absolute and univer-
sal priority over others. There needs, therefore, to be
machinery for reasoned judgment among alternative uses of
the environment.
To catalog these and other gaps is not, however, to
establish failure on the part of the treaty system.
Rather, it is to demonstrate that the present measures of
environmental protection require both extension and
consolidation--and that the mechanism tested over the
past 20 years provides a good basis for both. SCAR
provides an authoritative source of scientific judgment
about Antarctic ecosystems and their likely response to
impact. The consultative process has proved its ability
to create agreed recommendations and conventions. Exten-
sion of the various provisions to cover some of the pos-
sible gaps mentioned above, and to deal with the impacts
of possible minerals exploitation, should therefore be
possible. Greater challenges lie in the need to demon-
strate that these agreements can be implemented effec-
tively in the face of conflicts of interest and economic
pressures. This will require the wholehearted commitment
of all the consultative parties and of any other govern-
ments undertaking Antarctic activities.
The WCS called on individual states to prepare national
conservation strategies applying the broad concepts of
the strategy to their own national circumstances. Such
an approach is not appropriate in Antarctica--where some-
thing much more significant lies within our grasp. we
suggest that the general and specific actions set out
above are the ingredients of a continental conservation
-
strategy embracing the philosophy of RecommendatiOnS
VIII-13 and IX-5 of the treaty and the nine aims noted
above. It would not be difficult to present the specific
actions taken to date, together with the broad framework
of an agreed policy to prevent environmental damage from
minerals-related activities, in such a form. Such a
consolidation would demonstrate in a unique way how a
group of nations has been able to work together to care
for the environment of an entire continent and would
demonstrate the achievements of the treaty system.
We believe that this would do much to explain a con-
sistent program that has lasted for many Years. We sun-
yesc Gnat wnat nas been achieved under the ATS is remark-
able and gives grounds for optimism.
system has been ahead of its time in pioneering the
In many ways that
OCR for page 210
210
preventative approach to environmental impact that is now
widely accepted, for example, in the United Nations
Environment Program. The central need now is for the
various elements of the treaty system as an environmental
mechanism to be bound together as a coherent whole and
endorsed and applied by all national groups that pursue
activities within the southernmost zones of the Earth.
NOTES
Holdgate, M. W. ed. 1970. Antarctic Ecology,
Academic Press (London), 998 pp.
Laws, R. M. ed. 1984. Antarctic Ecology, Academic
Press (London).
Holdgate, M. W. 1977. Terrestrial ecosystem in the
Antarctic. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B
279:525.
4. Knox, G. A. 1983. The living resources of the
Southern Ocean: A scientific overview. In F. Orrego
Vicuna, ed. Antarctic Resources Policy, Cambridge
University Press (Cambridge).
Holdgate, M. W. 1984. The use and abuse of polar
environmental resources. Polar Rec. 22(136):25-48.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources. 1984. Conservation and
development of Antarctic Ecosystems, paper submitted
to the U.N. Political Affairs Division. Inter-
national Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (Gland, Switzerland), p. 36.
7. See, for example, SCAR Manual (Cambridge). 1972.
Scott Polar Research Institute, p. 128; SCAR
Bulletins, published regularly as annexes to Polar
Record.
8. International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, U.N. Environment Program,
World Wildlife Fund International. 1980. World
Conservation Strategy. International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Gland,
Switzerland), p. 46.
9. Mitchell, B., J. Tinker. 1980. Antarctica and Its
Resources, Ear thscan International Institute for
Environment and Development (London), p. 98.
10. British Antarctic Survey. 1984. A Visitor 'S
Introduction to the Antarctic and Its Environment,
British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment
Research Council (Cambridge).
Representative terms from entire chapter:
antarctic environment
Items in cart [0]
