A very unusual international summit

In 1985, representatives from 25 nations joined scientists (and some ASOC folks) for a very unusual international summit - in Antarctica. At the time, several countries not party to the Antarctic Treaty were challenging the existence of the Antarctic club of Treaty members, who could be just a tad arrogant abut their Antarctic prerogatives, if that article is any guide. The Antarctic Treaty nations were seemingly puzzled as to why their system was being questioned. Non-Treaty Parties, for their part, didn't understand how a select few got to decide everything about a continent that technically belonged to no one. At the time, discussions concerning resource extraction in Antarctica were occurring behind closed doors between Treaty signatories. Those countries outside the system questioned whether it was right that a few countries would benefit from Antarctic resources. The summit was an attempt to have an open dialogue.

Scientists at the meeting stressed that science took precedence in Antarctica, and that by implication there was no reason for outside countries to worry that the Treaty system had any nefarious goals in mind - it was unlikely that anyone really would undertake the effort necessary to extract minerals or other resources from Antarctica. While it seems as though the meeting did have the effect of reconciling the sides a bit, it's worth revisiting the issue because similar tensions continue to bubble under the surface. Perhaps they always will. But there are murmurings that reveal that Parties aren't just down there to take ice core samples - countries build new stations to establish a stronger presence, certain policies are resisted because they might hurt commercial interests, etc.

The article hints at how the Treaty's strengths and weaknesses are sometimes the same thing. On the one hand, the Treaty drew together countries in unprecedented international cooperation - but on the other, it implies that a place that many consider to be essentially unowned is owned, and to join the club you have to jump through a few hoops. And developing countries understandably are annoyed by the prospect of developed countries continuing to do whatever they want without asking anyone else. The Treaty ostensibly devotes Antarctica to science and peace and recognizes no territorial claims, but by turning a blind eye to Antarctic claims, allows claimants to continue thinking that certain areas are theirs, even if they know no other Parties recognize the claims.

It's obvious that Parties to the Treaty are not solely acting out of a pure, selfless desire to promote science. There are nationalistic elements to their Antarctic activities. The question remains, however, if the balance will remain tilted towards science, or if the issues under the surface will come to the forefront.

"Does anyone wish to address the comma?"

ASOC just returned from the two-week long Antarctic Treaty meeting in Punta del Este, Uruguay. The results of the meeting from our perspective were mixed. On a positive note, Parties affirmed the importance of climate change to the Antarctic by agreeing to make climate change a major agenda item, and expressed support for the planned network of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean. However, they failed to make much progress on regulating bioprospecting and tourism or working with the IMO to develop a Polar Code. You can read all about it in our press release.

However, the lack of progress across the board is not really surprising to anyone who attended the meeting. All too often the only issues Parties seem capable of discussing and subsequently agreeing on (many issues come up but little concrete action is taken) are the minor grammatical ones as referenced in the title of this post, which is an actual quote from the meeting. Of course some issues are going to be contentious, and I don't expect Parties to swoop in and take care of all issues within a few days, but it seems that there is a disappointing lack of enthusiasm for difficult work. Ignoring problems won't make them go away.

Reflections on Climate Change, Consensus, and Icebergs

As a first-time attendee of an Antarctic Treaty Meeting, I was often simultaneously exasperated and enlightened. Exasperated because of the frequent long discussions on what seemed to be minor points, enlightened because now I better understand why international bodies have reputations for being do-nothings. After one long, borderline hostile debate, an interesting idea proposed by one Treaty party had been stripped, at least from our organization's point of view, of all meaning - to the point where other consultative parties more or less openly mocked the outcome. It was only later that I got a vague idea about why the idea had been so problematic to some Treaty parties, and even then the reasons seemed far less critical than the strenuousness of their objections led me to believe.

The idea at hand (I can't say too much about the exact details since the debates are not necessarily on the record) was not even suggested as a Resolution, which is binding. This was merely the first step in a fairly tentative consideration of an emerging, but ultimately minor, issue. Before it had even been studied, some Parties were worried about an outcome unfavorable to them. Now imagine the foot-dragging that must occur in similar fora that address issues with extremely broad ramifications, such as climate change. After seeing the painful process of developing an international consensus (and among less than thirty countries!) up close, I understand, if not approve of, the lack of action at the UN and similar bodies. When the climate change conference in Copenhagen rolls around this December, try not to only be angry at countries that hold up progress. Show support for the countries who are striving for progress. Believe me, they are just as frustrated as you are. Probably more.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that Copenhagen is probably going to be a fairly difficult process, even though the impact of climate change grows by the day. The European Space Agency (ESA) has been releasing excellent images of the continuing breakup of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica. Earlier this month, the land bridge connecting the shelf to an island collapsed, and now the ice shelf has become more destabilized, with icebergs beginning to calve. The danger with the continued breakup of the ice shelf is not that the icebergs will have any appreciable impact on sea level, but that ice shelves typically hold back glaciers and land ice. In the absence of the shelf, these other kinds of ice slide towards the ocean faster, and they can raise sea level. Many in the environmental community reacted to news about the Wilkins Ice Shelf with a hope that the unfortunate event would at least spur governments to take more decisive action. We'll see in December whether it will be business as usual or if goverments can put aside some of their differences and work a bit more cooperatively.

Antarctic Treaty Meeting Results

After two weeks of daylong meetings, numerous coffee breaks, and at times lively discussion, the Antarctic Treaty Parties managed to agree upon some long overdue measures on tourism, and made progress on marine protected areas (MPAs).

The tourism measure adopted by the Parties makes legally binding some previously only recommended restrictions, including not allowing ships carrying more than 500 passengers to land, and limiting the number of passengers from a ship that does land to 100. Now Parties will have to enact legislation on the national level to implement these new regulations, but getting all of them to agree to the Resolution was a promising first step.

The Parties also agreed to work more closely with CCAMLR (Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) to establish a network of MPAs.

Unfortunately, despite the climate change-focused opening of the meeting, the Parties failed to take much concrete action on climate change and were unable to agree on language for the Final Report that would have stressed the importance of a climate deal at the upcoming meetings in Copenhagen.

Given the number of different nations who all have to agree for anything to happen in the Antarctic Treaty System, though, I suppose we should just be grateful that any progress was made.

ATCM Update

The first week of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting has drawn to a close, with mixed results. Some promising steps were taken, namely the first joint meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection and the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources). The joint meeting was important because it offered both bodies the chance to discuss how they could cooperate to protect the Antarctic environment, even though their mandates are somewhat different. Discussions on Marine Protected Areas were also positive, with strong support shown in the joint meeting for some MPA papers that were submitted for consideration. Read our ECO Newspaper for more.

The ATCM additionally provided ASOC's (and everyone's) first look at the official report on the Explorer sinking from Liberia, under whose flag the ship was registered. The report was quite disturbing, with the investigator concluding that the ship had probably suffered substantial damage (initially reported as only a fist-sized hole) due to the ship Master's misjudgment of the thickness of the ice the ship was sailing through. The report seems to reinforce that there were some significant mistakes made, and that while the ship Master did make an excellent decision to abandon ship early, it was rather lucky that no loss of life occurred. ASOC looks forward to discussing the serious implications of this report next week.

U.S. Antarctic Policy Moves in the Right Direction

The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting got started with a bang this week, as Secretary Clinton delivered a fantastic speech at the opening of the meeting. Secretary Clinton discussed the need to address global warming, and mentioned that the U.S. was concerned about Antarctic tourism. Needless to say, our organization was pretty thrilled to have someone so high up mentioning Antarctic issues in detail. Secretary Clinton's speech followed a welcome move by President Obama the previous week to send Annex VI of the Environment Protocol of the Antarctic Treaty to the Senate for ratification. Annex VI establishes rules for the liability associated with environmental accidents by commercial operators in the Antarctic. It also establishes that the United States government would be reimbursed for costs it might incur in cleaning up operators' messes.

The ASOC delegation to the Antarctic Treaty meeting has its collective fingers crossed that these events are just the start of a productive meeting.

Antarctic Treaty Meeting

ASOC has been gearing up for several months for the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which will be held this year in Baltimore in the United States. It's the 50th anniversary of the Treaty, and as rumblings increase about the possible exploitation of oil and gas resources in the Arctic, it's the perfect time to celebrate the fairly revolutionary nature of the Treaty. As discussed by the journalist Peter Dykstra, the Treaty is a pretty impressive document. The Treaty reserved the continent for peace and science, and eventually incorporated a moratorium on minerals exploitation. The Treaty isn't perfect, however, with growing environmental threats from fishing, tourism, bioprospecting, and climate change. ASOC will be making the case for strong Antarctic environmental protection in its position as an observer to the Treaty system during the upcoming meeting.

In somewhat related news, the director of the Malaysian Antarctic Research Program (MARP) is urging his country to become a Consultative Party. It seems like Malaysia has a strong interest in studying climate change, and in environmental protection. The director noted, "With research, one can also find economic, sustainable economic benefits in Antarctica. However, we
must never let human greed take over such research as it might have greater negative impact on the planet." The article goes on to say that "When asked regarding the fact that global warming was a cycle that the planet had undergone many times prior to this, Dr Azizan commented,'Well, it's a matter of survivability and comfort. The planet will always be here, it's a question where we will be here or not, whether we can survive through it in comfort or not or whether we can survive or not.' " If Malaysia does indeed become a party to the Antarctic Treaty, it seems that it would be an interesting addition to the Treaty System, and could perhaps provide a strong voice for environmental protection.

Since we'll be at the meeting for the next two weeks, posting may be light but we hope to get some dispatches out, so watch this space for the inside scoop on what happens when fortysomething countries get together and try to agree on things!

Antarctic Tours for the Highest Bidder

Antarctic tourism has been growing exponentially, bringing with it a host of concerns about the environmental and safety problems associated with large numbers of visitors. Researchers from Maastricht University in the Netherlands recently proposed an interesting solution: cap the number of tourist days and auction off the rights to those days to tourism operators. This system is similar to the cap-and-trade measures proposed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but unlike that system, a tourism auction system raises serious questions about fairness. Travel to the Antarctic continent is already expensive, and this system could drive prices higher. Since Antarctica is a global commons, it seems unfair to institute controls which could make tourism even more inaccessible to the average person. However, the proceeds from the auction of tourism rights could provide much-needed revenue for the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (ATS) and its environmental protection programs.

The Antarctic environment would benefit from increased regulation and control of the burgeoning tourist industry, but it would be preferable for the ATS to ensure that any system it implements protects the environment without turning Antarctica into the sole province of the superrich.

Antarctic Treaty Parties Duck Tourism Challenges

The latest Antarctic treaty meeting concluded in Kiev without any agreement on proposed Resolutions addressing the increase of Antarctic tourism overall and on discouraging construction of hotels in Antarctica.

“ASOC is very disappointed that the Antarctic Treaty governments were unable to reach consensus on even a single step to reign in rapidly expanding tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area,” said Ricardo Roura, Coordinator of ASOC’s tourism campaign. “In spite of many excellent and comprehensive papers covering the growth and diversification of the tourism industry, and the sinking of the M/V Explorer last November, there was no political will to take the actions needed to protect human lives and the environment.”

The environmental organizations that are members of ASOC regard this failure of Consultative Parties to protect the values of science and environmental protection espoused in the Antarctic Treaty and its Environmental Protocol as warning signs of a serious blockage in the governance system for Antarctica.

Tourism in Antarctica over the past decade has been characterized by steep annual increases, diversification, and geographic expansion. According to industry statistics, the number of visitors increased to 46,000 thousands in 2007-08. Of these, more than 30,000 passengers set foot ashore, up from 10,000 a decade earlier. The largest increase in the past season has been on ships carrying over 500 passengers, which do not conduct landings, with more than 13,000 passengers traveling in this fashion in 2007-08, up from 6000 the previous year. Tourism is also diversifying, with a growing focus on activities such as kayaking, diving, skiing and mountain-climbing.

ASOC is very concerned about the rapid increases in maritime traffic in the Antarctic in recent years, particularly between the months of November and March, largely fuelled by tourism. This has increased the probabilities of shipping accidents, underscored by the sinking of the Liberian- flagged M/V Explorer in the Antarctic Peninsula off King George Island on November 23, 2007.

No fatalities resulted from this accident, but an unknown amount of fuel was spilled in the Southern Ocean. This is the most serious of a series of shipping accidents in Antarctica in the past several years.

ASOC's Executive Director James Barnes notes, “The sinking of the Explorer should be a wake-up call to the Antarctic Treaty Parties. There are growing commercial pressures in the Antarctic region, and its environmental protection regime is under siege. It is past time for the governments to act.”

ASOC believes that the particularly negative forms of tourism currently emerging, including land- based tourism, should be constrained before their scale is beyond the capacity of the Antarctic Treaty System to control them.

There is currently no comprehensive tourism management regime in Antarctica. Existing tourism instruments do not yet impose any legal obligations and have not curbed the steep growth trajectory of the industry. The only tourism Measure approved in recent years would require mandatory insurance and contingency plans for tourism activities in Antarctica, but it has not yet become effective.

Latest News from the 31st Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

At this year's Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), the international environmental community is hoping that several substantive issues will be addressed. These include:

-Antarctic tourism. Tourism in Antarctica over the past decade has been characterised by steep annual increases, diversification, and geographic expansion. ASOC fears that tourism is becoming entrenched as the main Antarctic activity in terms of scale and influence, resulting inevitably in the erosion of the intrinsic values of Antarctica and the primary roles of science
and environmental protection in the Antarctic Treaty System. The particularly negative forms of tourism currently emerging should be constrained before their scale is beyond the capacity of the Antarctic Treaty System to control them.

Sadly, in spite of a robust debate on the basis of important papers introduced by the UK, US, New Zealand, France, Germany, ASOC and IAATO, the governments didn't manage to reach consensus on anything - not even a Resolution (which is purely hortatory and not legally binding).

-Climate change. Climate change is no longer an issue limited to the developed and more populated parts of the world. The Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty have committed themselves to provide comprehensive protection to the Antarctic environment and its dependent ecosystems under the Environmental Protocol. Therefore, and based on the precautionary principle, Consultative Parties should recognize the adverse impacts of climate change on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean and take proactive action within the framework of the Treaty System to contribute towards climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Regrettably, no agreement could be reached on anything relating to climate change. The US minimized the impacts of GHG emissions in the Antarctica, terming them 'insignificant' on a local level. It's bases at the South Pole and McMurdo are the largest facilities in the Antarctic.

-Marine Protected Areas. ASOC introduced a comprehensive paper on creation of marine protected areas in the Antarctica, noting the commitments made by governments to set up a representative system by 2012. But there has been virtually no progress on this during the past several years. ASOC suggested the governments agree to a Resolution re-committing themselves to protecting 30% of the Southern Ocean by 2018, with a particular focus on protecting the Ross Sea as the world's largest MPA.

Although many governments supported ASOC's position, in the end there was no consensus on setting any targets for dates or percentages.

To read more about some of the important issues ASOC and others are raising at the ATCM, click here. The international NGO community publishes the ECO newspaper from the ATCM to provide regular updates on meeting progress. ASOC publishes these newspapers here.

We welcome comments from the public. Please use the comments below to provide feedback on the ATCM or other Antarctic issues.

31st Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

ASOC is in Kiev, Ukraine from May 31-June 14 for the 31st Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Click here to read our six Information Papers, including:

-The Impact of Climate Change on Antarctic Ecosystems
-A Decade of Antarctic Tourism: Status, Change, and Actions Needed