Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$113.25



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 4


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 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 8403'S 16415'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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 -10C 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 3
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 3
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.