Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$113.25



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 154


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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 153
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. -