Science and Stewardship in the Antarctic (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Implementation of the Environmental Protocol
Implementation of the Environmental Protocol
Pages 47-77
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 47... ...
Even by today's standards, tO work in or visit Antarctica requires extra commitment and effort. Most antarctic scientists share the Protocol's commitment to protection of the antarctic environment and support effective implementation of the Protocol's goals.
|
From page 48... ...
The Protocol's goal of preserving and enhancing the protection of the antarctic environment demands that scientists in the field be guided in their expected courses of action in potentially environmentally damaging situations. However, the reality of Antarctica for remote field camps, such as the one shown In Figure 4.1, is that scientists and on-site support personnel will not always have the opportunity to consult with authorities at home base before making certain decisions, particularly in emergency situations.
|
From page 49... ...
Marine Mammal Commission In 1972, the Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) , which sets aside marine mammals as a special group and puts their husbandry under federal control.
|
From page 50... ...
The experience of the National Institutes of Health and the scientific community in establishing the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to oversee recombinant DNA research can inform the debate over the benefits of a transparent process and the importance of basing regulatory control of scientific activities on the best and most current scientific information about the risks of the regulated activities. FIGURE 4.1 Remote field camp on ice stream, West Antarctica.
|
From page 51... ...
Science in Antarctica requires flexible approaches for several additional reasons. First, like all science, antarctic science focuses on the unknown, and the investigator cannot know for certain where the research may lead nor precisely how it will be conducted as it evolves.
|
From page 52... ...
The Protocol itself gives a high priority to scientific endeavors. It must be recognized that compromises will be necessary to make any legislation practicable and to ensure that the outcome supports both antarctic science and environmental protection.
|
From page 53... ...
Agencies must recognize that the principles in Article 3 have substantive content and that actions taken under the Annexes will be measured against those principles in assessing environmental impacts. The Committee believes that, once government authorization for specific activities is obtained, scientists and others pursuing those activities should be able to proceed without risk of being found in violation of Article 3 as long as they are carrying out procedures as approved by the relevant authorization.
|
From page 54... ...
A formal science advisory body to the CEP would have the CEP's functions central to its mission. When it comes to the judgment and interpretation of scientific information in the formulation of advice and recommendations to the ATCM, however, it will be important that the CEP have sufficient scientific expertise within its ranlcs to address the scientific complexities and uncertainties that often arise in issues concerning environmental systems.
|
From page 55... ...
This certainty has raised concerns that not enough attention has yet been paid to the pitfalls inherent in the design of effective monitoring programs. Evidence from other programs (NRC, 1990)
|
From page 56... ...
, in part because such data have not often been acquired with the kind of scientific rigor that has characterized much of the rest of antarctic research. The National Science Foundation's support of two long-term ecological research sites in Antarctica has significantly advanced progress toward the first objective.
|
From page 57... ...
Implementation of the Environmental Protocol 57
|
From page 58... ...
For example, it has been alleged that increased emphasis on monitoring will reduce resources for more traditional antarctic science. In the Committee's view, this is not the optimum path to either good science or good environmental stewardship.
|
From page 59... ...
For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was given responsibilities relating to enforcement of restrictions on minerals development under the Antarctic Protection Act, and the conservation of living resources under CCAMLR.
|
From page 60... ...
. FIGURE 4.3 A tracked vehicle often used for traveling on annual sea ice close to antarctic bases.
|
From page 61... ...
An across-the-board approach could be environmentally counterproductive if it entailed additional logistic support for small-scale activities. The Committee believes that the legislative and regulator implementation of the Protocol should reflect the potential environmental impact of the proposed activities.
|
From page 62... ...
The incentives for self-regulating agencies to say "yes in order to accomplish activities are greater than for such agencies to say "no" or "wait." ~ The near-pristine state of Antarctica is essential to its value as a place to conduct many types of scientific research. Antarctic science that reaches into space or attempts to explain global processes depends to a significant extent on the high quality of the natural environment.
|
From page 63... ...
The Committee recommends the following: Recommendations Sac The existing n2anagen2ent relationship between the National Science Foundation and the research conzn2unity should be essentially unchanged. That is, the current pattern of subn2itinl of proposed research projects and their approval, funding, and oversight, should remain intact, n20dif ed only as new scientist c and environmental requirements nzight suggest Recomb 5b: The National Science Foundation should be granted przmary rulen2aking authority necessary to in2plen2ent the Protocol; however; when that authority involves matters for which other federal agencies have signif cant and relevant technical expertise (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency for solid and liquid waste)
|
From page 64... ...
In addition, NEPA applies only to actions of the government or supported by the government, while the Protocol requires environmental evaluations of nongovernmental activities, such as tourism.
|
From page 65... ...
However, the term Minor or transitory impact has no clear or inherent meaning, and the Protocol gives no definition or specific threshold of severity or persistence of impact for determining the appropriate level of environmental assessment, if any. Consequently, scientists and administrators will need lo exercise judgment to meet the dual goals of responsible stewardship and avoidance of unnecessary constraints on antarctic science.
|
From page 66... ...
However, the Committee believes that Article 8 and Annex I can reasonably be interpreted to exempt from individual environmental assessment an entire category of common activities of scientists that are likely to have only a slight or de minimis effect on the environment—for example, travel to various locations or research sites (Figure 4.4~; collecting air, ice, water, or limited rock samples; setting up temporary camps and experimental equipment. Humans obviously exert some effect, albeit minimal, on the antarctic environment by simply being there.
|
From page 67... ...
With foresight and an understanding of the practical context, the goal of environmental protection can be attained in a manner compatible with the most effective conduct of antarctic science. In the discussion that follow s, we describe a hierarchy of categorization for antarctic science projects that addresses this goal.
|
From page 68... ...
68 Science and Stewardship us the Antarctic Significant —_ Clew 1 //ew Sfation Minor or Transitory ` Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) .~> Initial Environmental Evaluation (IKE)
|
From page 69... ...
TABLE 4.1 Framework for environmental evaluation of logistic support requirements for individual science projects. (Courtesy of D
|
From page 70... ...
70 Science and Stewardship in the Antarctic · low volume collection of biological or geologic specimens, provided no more mammals or birds are taken than can normally be replaced by natural reproduction in the following season; . small scale detonation of explosives in connection with seismic research conducted in the continental interior of Antarctica where there will be no impact on native flora or fauna; .
|
From page 71... ...
. Annex I requires tour operators to prepare initial and/or comprehensive environmental evaluations of their proposed activities; the issues are similar lo those associated with assessing the impact of science and its support.
|
From page 72... ...
The Committee feels that the CEE requirement will affect few individual research projects and not encumber antarctic science. Projects having a minor or transitory impact require the preparation of an initial environmental evaluation (IEE)
|
From page 73... ...
to an approval process, delays could result in an adverse impact on the scientific goals of these projects. Thus, the committee recommends: _ I ~ Legislation implementing the Protocol should not impose additional delays u' the approval of scientif c projects determined to have no more than a minor or transitory impact on the antarctic environment.
|
From page 74... ...
74 Science and Stewardship in the Antarctic \ \ /,' \?
|
From page 75... ...
DECISION ON PROJ ECT Fl NAL CEE ENV I RON ME NTALLY U N AC C E PTA B L E _ FIGURE 4.7b. Timeline for the comprehensive environmental evaluation process (CEE)
|
From page 76... ...
In addition, because much of antarctic science is related to improving human understanding of global processes important to maintenance of Earth's environment, it would seem natural that environmental organizations become important allies of this work. 1b move toward this inclusive and transparent relationship between those who are responsible for the governance of Antarctica and the public that supports activities there, the Committee believes that the regulatory, permitting, oversight and assessment processes established by legislation implementing the Protocol must provide for adequate opportunities for public participation.
|
From page 77... ...
legislation must ultimately be consistent with any international liability regime, the Committee suggests that the Congress may wish to defer addressing the issue of liability in implementing legislation until this international framework has been more clearly established and the negotiation of the Annex has been completed. Conclusion The implementing legislation and regulations will form the framework that will guide federal agencies and the scientists they support, as well as others, in achieving the goals of the Environmental Protocol.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.