|
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 211
14.
Panel Discussion on Conservation
and Environment
The panel consisted of Martin Holdgate (moderator),
Sachiko Kuwabara, Kenton Miller, and W. Timothy Hushen.
REMARKS BY SACHIKO KUWABARA
Kuwabara stated that the protection and preservation of
the unique environmental value of Antarctica from harmful
impacts of human activities merit the broadest kind of
international cooperation. The significance of Antarctica
in understanding and maintaining the ecological balance
of planet Earth makes it a matter of interest to all
nations, both within and outside the Antarctic Treaty
System (ATS). Moreover, as with scientific research,
international cooperation to safeguard the Antarctic
environment could, and should, in her view, be promoted
without having to resolve the legal status of Antarctica.
Kuwabara outlined three steps to accomplish this objec-
tive. The first step is to utilize existing systems of
cooperation in environmental protection, first and fore-
most the ATS, which has demonstrated its ability to cope
successfully with emerging environmental concerns in
Antarctica and has provided a viable framework for further
collaboration in this field. Kuwabara believes, however,
that states party to the Antarctic Treaty should provide
more opportunities to interested nonparty states and to
competent international organizations to contribute to
environmental management policies for Antarctica. She
suggested that the ATS should increase the flow of infor-
mation on measures relevant to the protection of the
Antarctic environment to these entities and that their
participation as observers in Antarctic meetings should
be promoted.
Second, coordination among existing international
organization programs and forums relevant to environ-
mental protection in Antarctica should be increased. On
the one hand, exchange of information on a continuing
211
OCR for page 212
212
basis would facilitate wider appreciation on the part of
the international community at large of the work carried
out under the ATS. On the other hand, the ATS could
benefit from drawing on internationally agreed guidelines,
principles, and standards developed by these programs.
For example, the results of the monitoring programs
carried out under the ATS would be a valuable input into
the Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS) of the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Conversely,
UNEP environmental management guidelines and programs
could offer useful contributions to the work of the ATS
in such areas as environmental impact assessment, control
of marine pollution from offshore mining and drilling,
hazardous waste management, and the protection and
environmentally sound development of regional seas and
their coastal areas.
Third, at some time in the future it might be neces-
sary to improve or~develop mechanisms to fill in the gaps
in international cooperation for the protection of the
Antarctic environment. Kuwabara believes that some of
these gaps have already been recognized, such as the
limited scope of measures relating to pollution preven-
tion and the lack of guidance regarding environmentally
sound development of Antarctica and its resources. In
addition, it might be necessary to strengthen existing
mechanisms for consultation and conflict resolution with
respect to environmental concerns. Equally important,
collective procedures should be developed to review poten-
tial environmental impacts of proposed activities in
Antarctica and to ensure that damaging activities do not
take place or continue. In this context, Kuwabara noted
that the discussions among the consultative parties
concerning the application under the ATS of environmental
impact assessment procedures are of great interest to the
international environmental community.
R1~IARKS BY KENTON R. MILLER
Miller noted that the twelfth consultative meeting had
considered the question of inviting relevant inter-
national organizations to participate in future treaty
meetings with the status of observer. As the director
general of the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), he expressed
IUCN's interest in supporting the efforts of the ATS and
noted his organization's qualifications for observer
OCR for page 213
213
status at consultative meetings and with the Scientific
Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR).
In summary, he believes that IUCN has interests and
expertise in Antarctica and can make serious scientific
contributions; represents a wide range of interests
embracing scientific, technical, aesthetic, and moral
considerations; has experience in theoretical and prac-
tical questions of natural resources planning and manage-
ment as well as in promoting public awareness; and main-
tains linkages with a broad world community. He noted in
particular IUCN's expertise in protected areas.
In assessing the ATS, Miller commended its operation
as a preventive mechanism with respect to environmental
damage but questioned the lack of an environmental manage-
ment review mechanism under the ATS comparable with peer
review within the scientific community. In this context,
he stressed the need for the ATS to create a sense of
confidence in the effective implementation of its objec-
tives and responsibilities. He supported the proposal
for a continental conservation strategy for Antarctica as
a positive step, believing that this would offer a major
opportunity to deal with mechanisms to evaluate and
manage Antarctica as well as to build confidence in that
process.
_ _ ~ ,= _ _ _
More specifically with respect to the role of IUCN,
Miller noted that the General Assembly of IUCN has given
mandates and directives to the organization on Antarctica,
indicating IUCN's interest in the area, and that IUCN has
already made contributions that demonstrate its expertise
in the subject.
He cited the following examples of IUCN's activities
in this regard:
(1) Provision of guidance to IUCN on its policy and
program by IUCN Antarctic Experts Advisory Committee,
consisting of recognized scientists and lawyers;
(2) IUCN representation at the meetings of the
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources (CCAMLR) and contributions to the
work of CCAMLR committees;
(3) Drafting, promotion, and monitoring of major
international treaties and conventions dealing with
natural resources management and conservation by
IUCN's Environmental Law Center in Bonn;
(4) Development of a data base on the status of
species and genetic resources, protected areas, and
trade in endangered species by IUCN Conservation
Monitoring Center in the United Kingdom;
OCR for page 214
214
(5) Joint sponsorship with SCAR in April 1985 workshop
held in Bonn on the scientific requirements for
Antarctic conservation, in which IUCN scientific and
technical commissions, made up of networks of experts
in law, ecology, protected areas management, education,
and species and environmental planning, collaborated;
(6) Development and promotion of the World Conserva-
tion Strategy (WCS), in close collaboration with UNEP
and the World Wildlife Fund International, and the
forthcoming peer review of the application of the WCS
at a major conference in Ottawa in 1986; and
(7) Benefit to IUCN's council from the close and
regular participation by the International Council of
Scientific Unions, the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), the U.N. Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization, and other organizations
with major interests and mandates on the conservation
of living natural resources.
Finally, Miller noted that a unique and relevant
feature of IUCN is its global membership of 57 states,
125 government agencies, and 339 nongovernment organiza-
tions, including important universities, research
facilities, and citizens conservation groups.
REMARKS BY W. TIMOTHY HUSHEN
Hushen discussed the role of SCAR in Antarctic conserva-
tion. He noted that SCAR, as requested by the Antarctic
Treaty's twelfth consultative meeting, is completing a
document containing advice on (1) the categories of
research and logistics activity in Antarctica that might
reasonably be expected to have significant impacts on the
environment in Antarctica, and (2) procedures for
assessing and monitoring these impacts.
SCAR has prepared a publication on conservation areas
in the Antarctic. At the XVIII SCAR meeting, in Bremer-
haven, Federal Republic of Germany, in September/October
1984, SCAR developed proposals for additional Sites of
Special Scientific Interest, including marine sites.
These documents and recommendations will be considered by
the thirteenth Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting, in
October 1985.
Hushen indicated that SCAR has also been discussing
the possible development of a new type of protected area
in Antarctica. Such areas will be larger and will include
OCR for page 215
215
plans for multiple uses such as tourism and scientific
research.
DISCUSSION
There was unanimous agreement on the importance of the
Antarctic environment as a component of planetary systems.
Study of the Antarctic environment provides broader
insight into global climate, atmospheric geophysics, and
the structure and history of the southern continents. It
is also valuable as a baseline for monitoring climatic
change (from the long record in ice cores) and changes
caused by humans (for example, the accumulation of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, the possible reduction in
stratospheric ozone, and variations in aerosol and par-
ticulate deposits). It provides opportunities for
research on unique ecological systems, including those
within translucent rocks, those of primitive soil and
vegetation, and those attached to floating sea ice. It
also allows for examination of the adaptation of organisms
to extreme conditions. Finally, the Antarctic environment
is a legitimate object of concern because of its great
natural beauty and relative immunity from human distur-
bance. There was no dissent from the conclusion that the
ATS has provided an invaluable framework for the develop-
ment of scientific research on these and other
environmental features.
It was agreed that the conservation of the Antarctic
environment is of high priority. Moreover, although much
of this environment appears robust in the face of human
interference, this apparent resilience should not be
taken for granted. The approximately two percent of land
not covered by permanent ice and snow includes many
habitats vulnerable to human pressure, and it is these
areas that are the most likely to attract such pressures.
Ice-free coastal lowlands, for example, support the most
advanced Antarctic vegetation and the largest seabird and
seal colonies; but they are also the most attractive
sites for scientific stations and their logistics support
facilities. Suggestions to reduce potential environmental
impacts by sharing program facilities received some
attention.
It was agreed further that the ATS has proved itself
as an evolving series of agreements and institutions
within which measures to protect the environment have
been developed. The preventive nature of these measures,
OCR for page 216
216
which have almost all been drawn up in advance of the
threats that they set out to regulate, is an important
characteristic and one that fully accords with the modern
philosophy of environmental protection. In this sense
the ATS has been a true pioneer, and the conservation
agreements achieved under it are more comprehensive than
can be found in any other area of similar size. It was
noted that these measures in Antarctica go a long way
toward meeting the objectives of the WCS.
There is now a good case for consolidating what has
been achieved and defining what else needs to be done.
At the twelfth Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting it
was recognized that there is a need to consider whether
further coordination is necessary of the various elements
of environmental protection contained in the ATS. At its
16th General Assembly (Madrid, 1984) IUCN recommended
"that a comprehensive review be carried out under the
Antarctic Treaty system of the existing environmental and
conservation Conventions and measures, with a view to
determining whether any new Conventions or measures are
needed for the environmental protection of the Antarctic
environment and the Southern Ocean," and it was noted
that the director general of IUCN has a mandate to con-
tribute to this work. It was felt that IUCN, in coopera-
tion with SCAR and especially following the SCAR/IUCN
Symposium (Bonn, April 1985), is well placed to cooperate
with the ATS in what was seen as the need to prepare a
conservation strategy for the Antarctic and the Southern
Ocean. It was believed to be important that in the
preparation of such a strategy the participants in the
ATS should broaden the base of their work and should make
use of the expertise and experience available to them in
other international organizations, such as IUCN and UNEP.
The panel participants recognized that additional
action might be needed in a number of areas, including
(1) Monitoring and assessment. It was noted that
SCAR, in answer to a request from Antarctic Treaty
governments, is developing advice on procedures for
evaluating and monitoring impacts of science and
logistics activities on the Antarctic environment and
that the resulting document is to be submitted to the
thirteenth Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting.
It was noted, however, that there is a shortage of
published data on, and assessments of, the state of
the Antarctic environment, although research in these
areas is ongoing. One of the problems is that the
OCR for page 217
217
scale of Antarctica makes overall monitoring difficult.
One participant suggested that a secretariat could be
established to help determine what studies should be
undertaken.
(2) Information. It was also suggested that insuffi-
cient information about the state of the Antarctic
environment was being published or otherwise made
available.
(3) Coverage of protected areas.
ensure that effective, long-term protection is afforded
to a truly representative, and adequately extensive,
series of Antarctic habitats. Recent experience in
the Nordic countries was cited as a precedent for
managing a series of selected areas in a coordinated
way to meet the needs of science and tourism. It was
noted that SCAR is currently publishing Conservation
Areas in the Antarctic (March, 1985) and is also
considering the case for a new category of conserva-
tion area.
There is a need to
(4) Inspection and enforcement. It was suggested that
the existing arrangements for inspection under the
treaty might be used to check that protected areas are
being respected and that other environmental measures--
for example, on waste disposal and impact assessment--
are being implemented properly. As the number of
activities in Antarctica increases, the inspection
system should be expanded and perfected, since it
represents a unique adaptation to enforcement in the
situation of jurisdictional ambiguity existing in
Antarctica. Joint inspections by one or more countries
might increase the frequency of inspection and allow
more countries to conduct them by reducing costs to
any single country.
The consultative parties should not assume that
the measures that they have adopted are operating
effectively without such checks. Moreover, there is a
need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Antarctic
-
management system.
In response to a question about whether the
inspection provisions currently apply to environmental
issues, it was pointed out that they apply to all
measures adopted pursuant to the Antarctic Treaty,
including those having to do with the environment. It
was also noted that there should be a link between
such inspections and monitoring and assessment arrange-
ments and that the CCAMLR has an inspection and
enforcement system of its own.
OCR for page 218
218
Thought might also need to be given to the nature
of enforcement with respect to individual offenders--a
wider issue within the treaty system. One participant
questioned whether an international approach to
enforcement might be pursued, while another doubted
whether enforcement could be effectively carried out
in the absence of a permanent structure under the
Antarctic Treaty.
(5) Development of a capacity to handle economic
pressures. It was noted that some conservation
measures under the treaty system, such as the
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals or
CCAMLR, have not been truly tested; the effectiveness
of the latter will be judged by its capacity to set
and enforce catch limits (for finfish as well as krill)
and other regulations with sufficient flexibility to
permit progressive adjustment as scientific knowledge
grows. (ah is subject is considered further in
Chapters 15 and 16.)
(6) Development of an effective regime to prevent
environmental damage from minerals exploration or
exploitation. It was clear that many doubted the
likelihood or the desirability of minerals development
in the Antarctic. Granted the possibility of such
development, however, it was agreed that a strongly
protective regime should be drawn up as a further step
in the development of a preventive approach to
environmental management. ~ ~~ ~
in more detail in Chapters 17-20.)
(This subject is considered
As part of the adaptive evolution of the ATS in the
environmental field, many participants supported the case
for stronger links with international organizations with
relevant expertise. The unique role of SCAR was generally
appreciated. Climatic data from Antarctica were being
drawn on by the World Meteorological Organization in the
World Climate Research Program. The IUCN can contribute
substantial understanding of wildlife and habitat con-
servation principles and practices. UNEP can offer ideas
on environmental impact assessment, marine pollution
control, and hazardous waste management and itself needs
to draw on Antarctic data in the GEMS and in state-of-the-
environment assessments. The UNEP regional seas program
might provide assistance to consultative meetings or
CCAMLR discussions. The workshop heard suggestions that
consultative meetings might benefit from the presence of
UNEP and IUCN as observers, as sources of relevant expert
ideas and suggestions.
OCR for page 219
219
The institutional machinery for developing Antarctic
conservation may need to be developed further. Most
participants accepted, on pragmatic grounds, that the
sensible course is to build on the existing institutions
of the treaty system, and it was noted that these have
evolved and are still doing so. It was suggested that
some kind of full-time Antarctic environmental protection
agency staffed by trained professionals might be justi-
fied, to carry out monitoring, assessment, and inspec-
tions; manage protected areas; produce publications; and
act in support of the treaty consultative meetings. Such
a group might be backed by a special fund administered by
nongovernmental agencies. The case for these and other
mechanisms might usefully be considered in the process of
preparing the proposed conservation strategy for the
Antarctic.
It was, however, stressed that the ATS depends on
consensus among the independent, sovereign consultative
and contracting parties. While the treaty system could
be viewed as a management tool, it has not fully inter-
nationalized or unified the continent in an administrative
sense. Moreover, its responsibilities are broader than
environmental protection alone.
Outside organizations should work by persuasion, based
in turn on the quality of their ideas, and need to recog-
nize that the ATS is a unique attempt to provide a frame-
work for the management of geopolitical tensions that, if
they were not so managed, would represent a far greater
threat to the Antarctic environment and wildlife conserva-
tion than any activity in Antarctica being conducted at
present or foreseen in the future.
OCR for page 220
Representative terms from entire chapter:
antarctic treaty
