Antarctic Treaty

Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, Final Report of the Xlth Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting, Madrid, 3-4 October 1991. 

The Antarctic Treaty has proved an outstanding model of international cooperation. Article 6 of the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection (5) calls for co-operation of the parties in the specific area of the planning and conduct of environmental activities. The scope, magnitude, and expense of the environmental tasks have to be balanced against the support available from the Antarctic operators for important and globally-relevant scientific research and in accordance with the priority accorded to their research as underscored in the Madrid Protocol (Article 3.3). International co-operation in environmental monitoring is, therefore, imperative. 

ATCM, Final Report of XXIll Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Resolution 1 Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica. Lima, Peru, 1999. 

The Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid Protocol provide the necessary framework for environmental management and have obliged all the nations with an active presence in the continent to reduce their impacts on the antarctic environment. The Treaty s aim is to guarantee the peaceful use of Antarctica and to ensure conservation of flora, fauna and the natural environment. Through more adequate environmental impact assessment and management as well as environmental monitoring it is expected the Antarctic will remain the cleanest place on earth despite an increase in human presence. 

The Italian environmental policy of research in Antarctica, with special regard to the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid Protocol... 

Italy signed the Antarctic Treaty in 1981 and a National Programme for Scientific Research in Antarctica (Programma Nazionale di Ricerche in Antartide, PNRA) was established in 1985. Funding was provided for five years and this was renewed five years later. At present, the programme is in its sixteenth year of existence. 

In this chapter the relationship between the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol on the Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty will be briefly outlined, together with a discussion of the most important points of the Protocol. The implementation of the Protocol by the Italian Antarctic Research Programme will be then described in some detail, including some examples drawn from the experience accrued so for with the monitoring of the impact of human activities around the TNB research station. 

The Antarctic Treaty does not address explicitly the protection of the Antarctic environment one of the very few references is in art. IX, l.f Measures regarding the preservation and the conservation of living resources in Antarctica , where the Contracting Parties are exhorted to recommend the measures to their governments (1-3). 

Later, a number of recommendations on environmental issues were prepared by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM). The first was Recommendation VI-4 Man s impact on the Antarctic environment (Tokyo, 1970) in it, the Representatives recommend to their Governments that ... 

At the IX ATCM (London, 1987) the same concepts are expressed in Recommendation IX-5, Man s impact on the Antarctic environment . This Recommendation is of particular importance, because the Parties recognize as a primary responsibility the protection of the Antarctic environment from harmful human interference, the consideration of the environmental impact of future activities and the continuation of environmental monitoring. Moreover, in the IX ATCM the Antarctic Treaty area was designated as a Special Conservation Area and the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctica Flora and Fauna were adopted the Parties also decided to recommend to their governments that they reaffirm their commitment to environmental protection. 

The XV ATCM (1989, Paris) represented a real turning point for the protection of the Antarctic environment. The parties, in Recommendation XV. 1 prompted their governments to undertake as a priority objective the further elaboration, maintenance and effective implementation of a comprehensive system for the protection of the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems aimed at ensuring that human activity does not have an adverse impact on the Antarctic environment and its dependent or associated ecosystems or compromise the scientific, aesthetic or wilderness values of Antarctica . The parties asked that a Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting be held in 1990 to explore and discuss proposals relating to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment. 

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science and provides for an indefinite ban on mineral resources exploitation and on mineral prospecting. This ban, and indeed all parts of the Protocol, can be renewed after 50 years from the entry into force of the Protocol at the request of any Consultative Party. 

At the beginning of the Italian Antarctic activities no environmental impact assessment of the station was available. Neither the Italian legislation at the time, nor the Antarctic Treaty required it. Several environmental assessments were prepared instead for other less important activities, such as the installation of a seismographic station. Recently an environmental overview of the base was prepared and tabled at the XXI ATCM. 

Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System. 8th Edition, 1994, U,S, Department of State, Washington, USA. 

It is however with the conclusion of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid, 4 October 1991, hereinafter called PEP AT), entered into force on 14 January 1998, that the ATS recorded noticeable progress in the regulation of EIA procedures. After the improvements introduced by PEPAT and its Annex 1, specifically devoted to this matter, the ATS can be considered the most developed and detailed system of legally binding rules on EIA elaborated at the international level so far". ... 

Rec. VIII-11 applies to major operations in the Antarctic Treaty Area, Rec. XII-3 refers to any scientific activity (...), including the planned provision of logistic facilities to support such activity. 

Activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned on the basis of information sufficient to allow prior assessment of, and informed judgments about, their possible impacts on the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and on the value of Antarctica for the conduct of scientific research. 

PEPAT does not contain a definition of adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems (Art. 3, para. 2 a). Impact and transboundary impact are defined in the Espoo Convention in Art. 1, sub-paras, vii and via (28). The environmental principles that according to Art. 3 must be fundamental considerations in the planning and conduct of all activities in the Antarctic Treaty area are very wide in their scope. PEPAT does not supply a list of mandatory and non-mandatory projects to ensure that the most dangerous activities will always be subject to lEE or CEE (28, 29), nor does it provide guidance for a uniform interpretation of the terms minor and transitory impact contained in Arts. 1, 2 and 3 of Annex I. 

Beyond the duty of transparency, however, there are also other important obligations of international co-operation established by PEPAT. For instance. Art. 6 provides for duties of assistance to other parties in the preparation of EIA (para. 1 b) sharing of information that may be helpful to other parties in planning and conducting their activity in the Antarctic Treaty area with a view to the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems (para. 2) cooperation with parties which exercise jurisdiction in areas adjacent to the Antarctic Treaty area with a view to ensuring that activities in the Antarctic Treaty area do not have adverse environmental impacts on those areas (para. 3). 

Italian general legislation on EIA is modelled on EC Directive 85/337. The application of PEPAT as lex specialis, instead of any other general and incompatible rule, is beyond any discussion. PEPAT aims at enhancing the protection of the very particular Antarctic ecosystem. Its provisions on EIA apply to human activities which prevalently take place in the Antarctic Treaty area and can produce adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems. 

Finally, some specific provisions are desirable in order to tackle the issue of the exercise of jurisdiction and control on human activities in the Antarctic Treaty area. This is a well-known, delicate and intricate problem, but the effective enforcement of PEPAT and its national implementing provisions inevitably run into this thorny issue. Moreover, according to Art. IX, para. e) of the Antarctic Treaty, ATCPs can adopt recommendations regarding, inter alia, questions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica. No measures dealing specifically with jurisdictional questions have been adopted so far (72). 

More than rights or privileges, participation in the ATS involves shouldering important responsibilities. The solemn recognition of some of these burdens was renewed on the occasion of the conclusion of PEPAT. The ATCPs have a special responsibility to ensure that all activities in Antarctica are consistent with the purposes and principles of the Antarctic Treaty. The development of a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems is in the interest of the mankind. 

Compliance by States with international obligations relies, chiefly, on the behaviour of their bodies and the existence of appropriate national mechanisms aimed at controlling implementation of international commitments. If ATCPs (or only some of them) are not able to control public and private undertakings in Antarctica, the ambitious assertion of a special responsibility in the Antarctic Treaty area in the interest of mankind risks becoming a classic example of claimed authority without real accountability. 

Once again the important role that State s bodies can play in the effective control on human activities in the Antarctic is evident. The physical peculiarities of Antarctica make the exercise of control in the Antarctic Treaty area a rather difficult task. Stringent control applied at the preparatory stage of these activities on the basis of clear and adequate national provisions can make this task easier. The effective protection of the Antarctic environment begins many miles away from Antarctica, where the capitals of the parties to PEPAT are located. 

---