|
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 3
1
Workshop on the Antarctic Treaty
System: Overview
fames H. Zumberge and Lee A. Kimball
When Malaysia and Antigua and Barbuda launched their 1983
initiative to bring Antarctica before the United Nations
General Assembly (Beck 1985), they could never have
predicted that their efforts would help launch the most
international undertaking yet attempted in Antarctica
(Holdgate 1985).
In September, 1983, the United Nations General Assembly
agreed to place "The Question of Antarctica" on its fall
agenda. In the same year, the XII Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Meeting under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty was
taking place in Canberra, Australia. Recalling the
highly successful meeting sponsored by the University of
Chile at Teniente Marsh, Antarctica, in October, 1982
(Holdgate 1983, Orrego Vicuna 1984), the germ of an idea
took shape in Canberra that led to the Workshop on the
Antarctic Treaty System. It was held January 7-13, 1985,
and was sponsored by the Polar Research Board of the
National Research Council. The site was a base camp at
84°03'S 164°15'E on the Bowden Neve in the Transantarctic
Mountains, 1700 m above sea level. The camp is called
Beardmore South because of its proximity to the head of
the great Beardmore Glacier, a huge river of ice flowing
200 km from the interior ice sheet to the Ross Ice Shelf.
The purpose of the workshop was to bring together in
Antarctica individuals active in antarctic science and
politics with those eager to learn more about the
Antarctic Treaty System and eager to play a role in
determining the future of Antarctica. In an atmosphere
conducive to free interchange, participants were able to
gain a deeper appreciation of each others' views on
management of potential resources, political and legal
regimes, and the evolution of the Treaty System, while
experiencing the practical realities of antarctic
operations.
3
OCR for page 4
4
Where the Teniente Marsh meeting convened scientists,
industrialists, lawyers and government officials from the
then 14 consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty, the
Beardmore Workshop at Beardmore South Field Camp
specifically sought to expand the circle to include
participants from the consultative parties, the
nonconsultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty, states
not party to the treaty, international and
nongovernmental organizations, private industry and the
media. All told, 57 individuals from 25 countries
participated in his or her personal capacity in the
workshop.]
The informal nature of the meeting and the fact that
participants were invited in their personal capacities
allowed them to explore topics of interest off-the-record
on a noncommittal basis. (Journalists present could not
directly quote participants without their permission.)
In most participants' assessment, this fostered a
constructive exchange that will serve as a necessary
complement to the more politicized discussions taking
place in a variety of international forums.
Efforts to plan and organize the workshop fell to a
committee chaired by James H. Zumberge, U.S. Delegate to
the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and
the staff of the Polar Research Board, working with
National Science Foundation (NSF) officials.2 Despite
some initial skepticism, once the Foundation staff agreed
that staging the meeting against an antarctic backdrop
would most vividly illustrate the kinds of activities
carried out in Antarctica and the difficulties they
present, and once they determined that they could move up
construction of the Beardmore South Field Camp from the
1985-86 season to the 1984-85 season and thus avoid
significant costs to the U.S. Antarctic Research Program,
the workshop became a reality. NSF made available
transportation between Christchurch, New Zealand, and
Antarctica, cold-weather clothing, and facilities at the
Beardmore Camp. The Tinker Foundation, Ford Foundation,
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation joined the
National Geographic Society in granting additional funds
to the Polar Research Board to help defray travel costs
to New Zealand for many of the participants.
OCR for page 5
5
TRENDS IN DEBATE AT THE WORKSHOP
The workshop was divided into five sessions: (1)
Introduction and Overview, (2) Legal and Political
Background, (3) Antarctic Science, (4) The Antarctic
Environment: Management and Conservation of the
Environment, of Living Resources and of Nonliving
Resources, and (5) Institutions. This volume contains
papers and summaries of discussions at the workshop.
The meeting was not designed to produce conclusions or
recommendations, but rather to stimulate an open
discussion, and in this it succeeded admirably, not only
during formal sessions but also in casual conversations
at mealtimes, on long walks, and during breaks. The
extent to which the inevitable comradery that develops at
such an event strengthened personal acquaintances among
the variety of antarctic decision-makers represented will
alone serve well the determination of future directions
for antarctic science and politics. Beyond that, the
questions and comments or prepared papers from panelists
and audience alike laid the groundwork for continuing
dialogue on the positive contributions of the Antarctic
Treaty System, criticisms of it by the international and
environmental communities, and measures to improve the
Antarctic Treaty System that command widespread support.
Statements on the benefits and drawbacks of the
Antarctic Treaty System are well recorded elsewhere.3
These points were all aired at the workshop. In summary,
defenders of the Antarctic Treaty System find it a
particularly outstanding example of international
cooperation today that preserves peace, promotes
international scientific collaboration, and protects
Antarctica as a 'special conservation area.' They
believe that the treaty system is an open one that is
evolving to satisfy growing international interest in
Antarctica. They oppose any efforts to replace the
Antarctic Treaty System or to subject it to a major
overhaul.
On the other hand, some members of the international
community challenge what they deem as the secret and
exclusive nature of the system and have called for wider
international cooperation in Antarctica, particularly
with respect to potential mineral resources development
there. Representing this point of view, Ambassador Zain
of Malaysia outlined his concerns at Beardmore as follows:
1. "the assertion of the Antarctic Treaty Consulta-
tive Parties...that they--and they alone--have the right
to make decisions pertaining to Antarctica ('exclusive');
OCR for page 6
6
2. that these would cover all activities in
Antarctica ('total'); and
3. that these are not subject to review or even
discussion by any other body (' unaccountable ').
The environmental community has questioned the adequacy
of environmental protection and conservation measures in
Antarctica and whether or not they are being effectively
enforced. Some environmentalists have proposed that
Antarctica be closed to all mineral resources development
activities, while others argue for making Antarctica an
international park.
Both environmentalists and members of the scientific
and political establishments have begun to explore whether
Antarctic management regimes require more directed
research, tailored in particular to support the resource
management regimes found in the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR) or in the minerals regime currently being
negotiated. They also express concern about the
compatibility of science and resources development in
Antarctica.
I DEAS AND SUGGESTIONS PUT FORWARD
The participants from consultative parties underscored
the importance of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty on
territorial claims as the cornerstone for all antarctic
legal/political regimes. Those countries favoring a
'common heritage of mankind' approach to Antarctica that
would dismiss the claims heard the claimant states' view
that their rights, including rights to offshore zones of
jurisdiction, are protected by Arcticle IV.
would clearly complicate any effort to fully
internationalize Antarctica, as for example, under a
United Nations trusteeship. It was equally clear that
Article IV was fundamental to the nonclaimant states'
support for the Antarctic Treaty System, because it
preserves their position as well. In the same vein,
participants took note of the consensus requirement for
antarctic decision-making, another reassurance against
any undermining of either the claimant or nonclaimant
position.
Participants also discussed the 'interest' or
'activities' criterion for consultative party status
within the Antarctic Treaty System, which according to R.
Tucker Scully of the U.S. State Department, "has
substituted a functional basis for a political or
ideological basis for involvement in decision-making.
These claims
OCR for page 7
7
Commitment to a particular legal status for Antarctica
does not establish eligibility to take part in decisions
relating to activities in Antarctica. Demonstration of
concrete interest in those activities becomes the
standard."
Participants continued to differ over whether
Antarctica could or should be internationalized (in the
manner of the deep seabed) and over the justification for
the 'activities' criterion for decision-making status.
But as the workshop evolved, they focused less on
challenging the legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System
per se and more on how to spread its benefits and perfect
management mechanisms so as to command widespread
international support for the system.
Those participants from the developing countries
expressed genuine interest in taking part in antarctic
science and pointed out that many of them are directly
affected by Antarctica's role in atmospheric and oceanic
circulation. This view somewhat surprised others, who
believed that the only reason for increased international
interest in Antarctica was an interest in resources there.
But in the words of Hassan El-Ghouayel of Tunisia, "There
won't be any profit from mineral exploitation for many
decades. It will be much more valuable for us to share
the rewards of science in Antarctica. n Several scientists
present made the same point, including Lewis M.
Branscomb, former chairman of the U.S. National Science
Board.
Several participants expressed interest in the
possibilities of joint scientific research programs and
sharing of program facilities and logistics capabilities,
particularly if advanced technology were to become more
widely used in Antarctica. Political questions about the
extent to which joint scientific activities, and/or
supply and transport activities, might be weighed in
meeting the 'activities' criterion for consultative party
status were also raised. Some participants pressed for
clarification or modification of the criteria applied to
this determination.
With respect to participation in the Antarctic Treaty
System on the political level, those present expressed
interest in two emerging trends:
(1) participation by
the nonconsultative parties in Antarctic Treaty meetings
as observers, and the further development of this role;
and (2) the further development of working relationships
with international and nongovernmental organizations.4
The nature of the evolving minerals regime and the
role afforded nonconsultative parties and nontreaty
states in the negotiation of the regime, its institutions
once established, and potential minerals activities under
OCR for page 8
8
it were discussed in some detail. There were suggestions
that funds from potential minerals activities could be
made available to foster developing nation participation
in antarctic science or other activities, and that
developing nations would be able to participate in joint
venture arrangements for minerals activities. The idea
seemed to persist among several of the workshop
participants from states not party to the Antarctic
Treaty System that Antarctica has a vast mineral resource
potential, even though it has repeatedly been stressed in
a number of studies that no minerals of economic worth
are known to exist in Antarctica (Behrendt 1983, Holdgate
and Tinker 1979, Zumberge 1979).
On the issue of accountability, there was agreement
that the consultative parties should persist in
increasing the availability of information on antarctic
activities and meetings including information on the
contributions of antarctic science.5
Information alone, however, does not satisfy those who
raised the point at the workshop that the Antarctic
Treaty System should be accountable in a forum where all
states would be able to consider antarctic matters on an
equal footing. How the different views on antarctic
management would be reconciled to the satisfaction of all
concerned, and what role outside interests would have in
influencing that process, remains unsettled. That the
Antarctic Treaty System would continue to evolve in
response to new interests and activities in Antarctica,
however, was not in doubt.
In the areas of environmental protection and
conservation in Antarctica, participants agreed that the
Antarctic Treaty System has provided a valuable mechanism
to further scientific research, particularly
environmental research, and that it has taken a
far-sighted preventive approach to conservation and
environmental protection in Antarctica. But they also
expressed concern with the increasing level and variety
of antarctic activities and their potentially damaging
effects. In this context as well, many shared the view
that there was some merit in joint station and logistics
activities as a means to reduce the buildup and
concentration of individual national facilities and to
promote efficient use of scarce national resource
allocations for antarctic programs.
Different speakers also proposed ways to better
coordinate antarctic conservation measures. They
suggested the development of a "conservation strategy"
OCR for page 9
9
for Antarctica, seeking improvements in the institutional
arrangements of the Antarctic Treaty System, and drawing
on the expertise and experience of international
organizations such as the United Nations Environment
Program and the International Onion for the Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources. The workshop
participants from the consultative parties, however,
pointed out that under the stewardship provided by the
Antarctic Treaty System, Antarctica remains essentially
undamaged environmentally except for the localized
impacts from logistical support of scientific activities.
The need to improve environmental impact assessment
and monitoring of antarctic activities received attention
as well. It was pointed out that the Scientific Committee
on Antarctic Research was working on assessment procedures
for station and logistics activities as requested by the
XII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, and on
extending the coverage of protected areas in Antarctica.
Suggestions to perfect the application of inspection
procedures with respect to compliance with environmental
protection measures in Antarctica were also put forward,
noting the linkage between inspection, assessment and
monitoring arrangements, and reporting requirements under
the various antarctic regimes.6
Some participants questioned in addition the adequacy
of implementation and enforcement under the Antarctic
Treaty System, referring in particular to environmental
protection measures and to marine living resources
conservation under the Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources. In their view, these
potential weaknesses could be far more problematic if
replicated in the minerals regime, which would govern
potentially far more damaging activities. Given the
problem of lack of data with respect to krill, there was
some support for the idea of developing krill as an
experimental fishery. Finally, if minerals development
were ever to take place in Antarctica, most participants
supported the application of stringent safeguards to
protect against possible environmental damages from these
activities or interference with Antarctica's value as a
scientific laboratory.
THE ANTARCTIC SETTING
During the workshop, the National Science Foundation made
certain that participants took advantage of the locale by
OCR for page 10
10
arranging for three fascinating, informative and well.
presented lectures by U.S. Antarctic Research Program
scientists as well as a one-day trip to the South Pole, a
tour of U.S. Amundsen-Scott Station there and brief
introductions by researchers at the Pole to their work.
The three lectures particularly captured the imagination
of participants, who for the most part were not well
versed in antarctic science. Dr. Anna C. Palmisano spoke
on the ecology of sea-ice microbiological communities in
McMurdo Sound, Dr. Imre Friedmann on endolithic
microorganisms within antarctic rocks, and Dr. William
Cassidy on his study of meteorites discovered in
Antarctica.
The trip to the South Pole provided the only real
exposure to the extremes of the antarctic climate and
environment and to the logistics and structures required
to cope with it. The incessant wind, the sunless sky,
and the vast expanse of the world's largest ice
sheet--interrupted only by the Pole station
itself--reminded everyone of the true character of the
continent.
Otherwise the setting for the Beardmore South Field
Camp and the unusually warm -10°C weather there provided
an extraordinarily stunning and welcoming venue for the
workshop. The 10-hour flight aboard two Hercules C130,
ski-equipped planes from Christchurch, with a refueling
stop at Williams Field in McMurdo, afforded a view of sea
ice, icebergs, the coastal area, and the Transantarctic
Mountains, which not only brought to life the beauty of
photographs but also conveyed in a way that photographs
cannot the vastness and ice-filled relief that is
Antarctica.
The bringing together of scientists and nonscientists
proved to be a revealing experience on how differently
the two groups seek answers to questions or solutions to
problems. The scientists look for factual evidence to
support a new hypothesis or refute an older one. The
lawyers and diplomats argue from philosophical or legal
principles in which precedent plays an important role.
The principle of the 'common heritage of mankind' as
derived from or embodied in the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention, for example, was the underlying philosophy of
those who espoused the replacement of the Antarctic
Treaty System by a system of governance in which all
nations of the world would have a vote or at least a
voice in Antarctica's future.
For those workshop participants who work in the
OCR for page 11
11
international political arena, the politics of Antarctica
will never again be politics alone. The sense of
isolation imparted by Antarctica created an enduring
impression that is likely to remain with participants
whenever they consider again the management of Antarctica
in a far more cosmopolitan setting. Scientists who
participated in the workshop learned that their view of
Antarctica is certainly not the only one. NonscientistS
gained a deeper appreciation of the global and
interdisciplinary nature of current antarctic science and
of the long tradition of international cooperation in
research and exploration of the Antarctic. One can only
hope that scientist and nonscientist alike learned from
each other during the presentation of prepared papers and
the lengthy discussions that followed in the Jamesway hut
at Beardmore South Field Camp. While it is certain that
no consensus emerged, it is equally certain that the
Workshop on the Antarctic Treaty System was an enriching
and enlightening interchange of disparate views.
NOTES
1. Individuals from 47 countries were invited, and those
attending came from 25. Of the then 16 consultative
parties, all were invited and 12 attended, with two
last-minute drop-outs; of the then 16 nonconsultative
parties 10 were invited and 7 attended; of the
nontreaty states 21 were invited and 6 attended, with
3 last-minute drop-outs; and of the international
organizations 12 were invited and 10 attended. Two
industry representatives and two media representatives
also attended.
2. Organizing Committee members in addition to Zumberge
were: Thomas A. Clingan, Jr., University of Miami Law
School; W. Timothy Hushen, Polar Research Board; Lee
A. Kimball, International Institute for Environment
and Development; Robert H. Rutford, University of
Texas at Dallas; and Donald B. Siniff, University of
Minnesota.
3. See United Nations General Assembly records of the
First Committee for 1983 and 1984, United Nations
Documents No. A/C.1//38/PV. 42-46 and A/C.1/39/PV. 50,
52-55; Lee Kimball, "Antarctica: Summary and
Comment:", International Institute for Environment and
Development (~TED), April 6, 1984; the United Nations
study on Antarctica, U.N. Document No. A/39/583 (Part
OCR for page 12
12
I), 31, October 1984, pp. 33-38 and Part II, volumes
I-III; discussions in Proceedings of an
Interdisciplinary Symposium, June 22-24, 1983, ed
Rudiger Wolfrum (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1984)
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference, June
17-20, 1984, ed. Lewis M. Alexander and Lynne C.
Hanson (Center for Ocean Management Studies,
University of Rhode Island, 1985).
4. Following the Workshop on the Antarctic Treaty System,
the nonconsultative parties seemed satisfied with
their level of participation in the round of antarctic
minerals regime negotiations in Rio de Janeiro in
February and March, 1985. On the other hand, the
preparatory meeting for the XIII Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Meeting, which took place in Brussels in
April, 1985, did not act on the decision at the XII
meeting to identify international organizations having
a scientific or technical interest in Antarctica that
could assist in consultative party meeting
deliberations and invite them to attend the XIII
meeting as observers.
5. The XIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in
October, 1985, approved a recommendation to enhance
public availability of information and documentation
on the Antarctic Treaty System.
6. These issues were addressed at the XIII Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Meeting.
REFERENCES
Beck, P.J. 1985. The United Nations' Study on
Antarctica, 1984. Polar Record, 22 (140): 499-504.
Behrendt, J.C. ted.) 1983. The Petroleum and Mineral
Resources of Antarctica. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 909, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.
Holdgate, M.V. 1983. Policy for Antarctic Resources.
Polar Record, 21 (133): 392-93.
Holdgate, M.V. 1985. International Workshop on the
Antarctic Treaty System, 7-13 January 1985. Polar
Record 22 (140): 538-39.
Holdgate, M.V. and Tinker, J. 1979. Oil and Other
Minerals in the Antarctica. London House of Print.
Orrego Vicuna, F. (editor) 1984. Antarctic Resource
Policy. Cambridge University Press.
Zumberge, J.H. 1979. Mineral Resources and Geopolitics
in Antarctica. American Scientist, 67-77.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
antarctic science
