2012 XXXV ATCM report · 6 Fig. 1 – ASOC team at XXXV ATCM week 1: Left to right Lyn Goldsworthy (ATCM Rapporteur, not on ASOC delegation), Steve Campbell, Tina Tin, Ricardo Roura,

ASOC Report on XXXV ATCM

ASOC Report

XXXV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Hobart, Australia

11 – 20 June 2012

July 2012

ASOC Secretariat 1630 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: 1-202-234-2480 Fax: 1-202-387-4823 www.asoc.org


2

Table of contents Summary ........................................................................................................ 3

1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4

2 Overview of the XXXV ATCM ................................................................... 4

3 Meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection ..................... 9

4 Climate Change Issues ........................................................................... 12

5 Tourism Issues ........................................................................................ 12

6 Shipping Issues ...................................................................................... 14

7 Liability .................................................................................................... 14

8 Biological Prospecting ........................................................................... 15

9 Other Issues ............................................................................................ 15

10 Future actions and priorities for ASOC and Member Groups ............ 17

Appendix 1 – Acronyms .............................................................................. 18

Appendix 2 – List of documents submitted by ASOC to XXXV ATCM ... 19


3

XXXV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Hobart, Australia

11 – 20 June 2012

Summary The XXXV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) was conducted in Hobart, Australia from 11 to 20 June 2012. ASOC was represented by 13 delegates (9 on the ASOC delegation and 4 as NGO representatives on national delegations). ASOC submitted twelve information papers – three on the protection of the Antarctic marine ecosystem, one on tourism, two on the Environmental Protocol, two on shipping, two on wilderness and inviolate areas, and one on climate change, as well as the report of ASOC to the XXXV ATCM. The selection of themes of the information papers reflected the key priority issues identified by the Coalition. Salient points of the ATCM from an ASOC perspective include:

• The CEP tourism impact study, which received significant attention from the CEP and the ATCM. The ATCM took a series of actions to start the process implementing and addressing the recommendations.

• Krill fishing in ASMA No.1, Admiralty Bay, King George Island. Many parties commented on ASOC’s paper on this issue and were concerned about fishing in ASMAs. In the light of the concerns raised by several Members and ASOC that krill fishing may not be compatible with the scientific values of ASMA No.1, Brazil agreed to send the work plan for the revision of the management plan to SC-CAMLR’s 2012 WG EMM meeting. This work plan includes an explicit invitation for CCAMLR Members as well as observers and experts to engage on the revision of the work plan.

• New Zealand succeeded in shepherding the adoption of Resolution 7 (2012), Vessel Safety in the Antarctic Treaty Area, which included a recommendation that Parties report on any environmental emergencies involving their flagged vessels and that Parties continue to work on the Polar Code.

• The CEP endorsed the trial of WWF’s Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic Ecosystem Resilience (RACER) in the Antarctic.

• Russia reported that it had penetrated into subglacial Lake Vostok. In the process, some drilling fluid was not accounted for, but Russia asserted that it was physically impossible for any of it to have contaminated the pristine lake. Russia gave a less-than-satisfactory response to questions raised by ASOC and others about this incident.

• The ATCM adopted Resolution 6 (2012), Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions, which welcomed the classification of the continent and nearby islands into 15 conservation biogeographic regions based on data from the SCAR biodiversity database. These regions can be used in the identification of areas that could be designated as ASPAs.

• Overall, the ATCM did not result in any dramatic outcomes, but there was more energy among ATCPs for achieving progress on key issues than in recent years, and they agreed to begin a strategic planning process.


4

1 Introduction

The XXXV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) was conducted in Hobart, Australia from June 11-20, 2012.

This Report on the XXXV ATCM1 focuses on the key issues for ASOC member groups. It does not intend to be an exhaustive report, but rather to complement the official report of the ATCM. The report is structured as follows:

• Section 2 contains an overview of the XXXV ATCM.

• Sections 3 – 10 report in more detail on some of the key issues at XXXV ATCM.

• Section 11 contains conclusions.

• Appendix 1 lists commonly used Antarctic acronyms. Appendix 2 contains a list of documents submitted by ASOC to the ATCM..

2 Overview of the XXXV ATCM

2.1 ATCM structure ATCMs give effect to obligations under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

ATCMs are hosted by Consultative Parties (the full voting members – currently 28)2 in English-language alphabetical order. There are also 22 Non-Consultative Parties3 – non-voting members, some of which are active in Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty System although the majority are not. The ATCM conducts its business through a number of Working Groups – presently Legal and Institutional, Tourism, and Operational Matters. In addition, the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), which represents Parties to the Protocol, meets during the ATCM. There are now 35 Parties to the Protocol.

The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) has Expert status at ATCMs, and it is the only environmental non-governmental group with such access.4 The intergovernmental UNEP and hybrid governmental/non-governmental IUCN are also invited as environmental Experts. ASOC works closely with both UNEP and IUCN normally, although at this meeting IUCN was not represented at all and UNEP only briefly.

This was the first ATCM that lasted eight days instead of the usual ten days. The shorter time frame did not hamper substantially the conduct of business, in part because there were no lengthy discussions about issues of substance, but resulted in filling up every coffee and lunch break with small group discussions. There were substantive discussions on Marine Protected Areas on the margins of the meeting and outside its formal program, with a view to the forthcoming CCAMLR meeting in October 2012, and various preparatory meetings and workshops before then.

The ATCM received 64 Working Papers and 88 Information Papers tabled by Parties, Observers and Experts, as well as a set of Secretariat papers dealing with operations of the Secretariat and a review of the status of ATCM recommendations. The ATCM produced a Final Report containing 11 Measures5 (mainly management plans for protected/managed areas and historic sites and monuments); 11 Resolutions6 (of which four are of particular

1 This report was written by James Barnes, Jill Barrett, Claire Christian, Rod Downie, Rob Nicoll, Ricardo Roura, Lowell Smith, Tina Tin and Rodolfo Werner. 2 Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the USA and Uruguay. 3 Austria, Belarus, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Korea (DPRK), Malaysia, Monaco, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, and Venezuela. 4 Formally ASOC is an “Expert” to the ATCM and an “Observer” to the CEP meetings. In practice the role of ASOC is that of observer, as the term is commonly used outside the ATS. 5 A Measure is legally binding once it has entered into force. 6 A Resolution is hortatory.


5

interest); and 4 Decisions7 (of which one is of some interest).8 Electronic copies of these documents are available on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (ATS) website - http://ats.aq/. Information Papers are available in the original language, and Working Papers are available in the four official languages - English, French, Spanish and Russian.

The Final Report of the Meeting on the ATS website provides an official record of key discussions and decisions on all matters discussed. As an overall comment on how ASOC’s team performed, most of our 11 substantive Information Papers were widely commended, and were used and referred to in the ensuing debates.

ASOC delegates participated actively in the discussions of the various Working Groups, the CEP, and side meetings of various kinds. There are 40 or more entries each at the XXXV ATCM and the CEP XV reports listing ASOC interventions or references to ASOC’s work.

2.2 ASOC delegation ASOC was represented by 13 delegates, either on the ASOC delegation or as NGO representatives on national delegations. The ASOC delegation (Figures 1-2) was composed of:

1. Jim Barnes (ASOC Executive Director and Head of Delegation, France)

2. Jill Barrett (ASOC Legal Advisor – British Institute of International and Comparative Law, UK)

3. Claire Christian (ASOC Advisor, US)

4. Steve Campbell (ASOC Advisor – Antarctic Ocean Alliance, Australia)

5. Geoff Keey (ASOC Advisor – Antarctic Ocean Alliance, New Zealand)

6. Rob Nicoll (ASOC Advisor – Antarctic Ocean Alliance, Australia)

7. Dr. Ricardo Roura (ASOC Senior Advisor and CEP representative, The Netherlands)

8. Dr. Tina Tin (ASOC Advisor, France)

9. Dr. Rodolfo Werner (ASOC Advisor, Pew Environment Group, Argentina)

In addition, three government delegations included NGO representatives from ASOC:

10. Rod Downie (WWF-UK) on the UK delegation

11. Alistair Graham (Australian NGOs) on the Australian delegation

12. Lowell Smith (Sierra Club) on the US delegation

13. Bob Zuur (WWF-NZ) on the NZ delegation

7 A Decision concerns internal organization matters, such as rules of procedure for meetings or mandates for action by ATCM office-holders. 8 Exact text of these Measures, Resolutions and Decisions can be obtained from the ATS website’s official Report of the Meeting.


6

Fig. 1 – ASOC team at XXXV ATCM week 1: Left to right Lyn Goldsworthy (ATCM Rapporteur, not on ASOC delegation), Steve Campbell, Tina Tin, Ricardo Roura, Jim Barnes, Geoff Keey, Alistair Graham, Claire Christian, Jill Barrett, Lowell Smith, Rob Nicoll, Bob Zuur, Rod Downie, Rodolfo Werner (Photo by Bob Zuur) .

2.3 Materials submitted ASOC submitted twelve information papers – three on the protection of the Antarctic marine ecosystem, one on tourism, two on the Environmental Protocol (of which one was submitted jointly with UNEP), two on shipping, two on wilderness and inviolate areas, and one on climate change, as well as the report of ASOC to the XXXV ATCM. The latter is the only ASOC submission to be translated into the four official languages. The selection of themes of the information papers reflected the key priority issues identified by the Coalition. A list of the papers with abstracts is presented in Appendix 2.

The ASOC team published two issues of the international newspaper ECO.

The ASOC information papers, ECOs, poster and press release are available on the ASOC website (http://asoc.org/component/content/article/379#ATCM_XXXV).

2.4 ASOC priorities ASOC’s general priorities for the XXXV ATCM were to promote:

• Increased momentum towards a network of MPAs in the Southern Ocean by 2012. • Significant progress on developing comprehensive tourism regulations and a vision for Antarctic tourism. • Greater focus on addressing climate change in Antarctica in three ways: understanding climate change

in Antarctica and its implications; communicating Antarctic climate change information to the public; and developing strategies to increase the resilience of Antarctic ecosystems to climate change.


7

• Fuller implementation of the Environmental Protocol, including continued repair and remediation of environment damage.

• Continued progress towards the goal of preserving wilderness values and limiting the human footprint in Antarctica.

• Serious attention to recent vessel incidents in the Southern Ocean and ways to improve reporting and follow up from these incidents, as well as commitment to a strong Polar Code.

2.5 Key outcomes Positives

• The adoption of a Resolution with a checklist to inspect tourism activities, and the general recognition that tourism is comparatively less inspected than research and logistic activities in Antarctica.

• The adoption of a Resolution on vessel safety that includes a recommendation to report annually on environmental emergencies to the CEP.

• The decision to accept the recommendations of the CEP tourism study and commence work on their implementation.

• The adoption of a Resolution classifying the continent and nearby islands into 15 conservation biogeographic region, which can help identify potential ASPAs.

• The endorsement by the CEP of a trial of WWF’s Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic Ecosystem Resilience (RACER) to determine areas of conservation importance within one biogeographic region based on their resilience to climate change.

• Significant progress was announced regarding ratification of the Liability Annex, and there will be enhanced exchange of information through the Secretariat.

Negatives • The CEP discussed in some depth an event of krill fishing in ASMA No. 1 Admiralty Bay, King George

Island in 2010. The management plan for ASMA No. 1 does not list krill as an activity that is or may be conducted in the area. Furthermore, ASMA No 1 contains substantive penguin and seals populations, some of which are protected by an ASPA, and which long term scientific studies have proven to be in decline. Krill fishing in ASMA No. 1 was seen as an issue of concern by many Parties, particularly those undertaking the management of this area, albeit not by CCAMLR representatives. Some steps were taken to address the particular instance of krill fishing in ASMA No. 1, which are to be welcome, however ASOC remains concerned that harvesting pressure will extend to ASMAs and ASPAs. ASOC contends that fishing by CCAMLR members in disregard of management plans for protected areas established by the ATCM is unacceptable and against the principle, objectives and intent of the Protocol. This is particularly the case since all management plans for ASMAs and ASPAs with a coastal or marine component are pre-approved by CCAMLR prior to their adoption.

• Russia reported that its fifteen-year drilling program through over more than three kilometres of glacial ice had penetrated into subglacial Lake Vostok on Feb. 5, 2012. This was a significant technological achievement, and Russia deserves acknowledgement for having postponed the penetration for several years so as to comply with the requirements of the Protocol. However, several concerns remain: last minute changes in the drilling plan increased the risk of contaminating the lake water and water samples taken from the lake, some drilling fluid is not accounted for, and the lack of adherence to the international scientific consensus on environmentally clean drilling practices. Although Russia forcefully asserted that it was physically impossible for any drilling fluid to have contaminated the pristine lake water (possibly isolated from the biosphere for an estimated 15 million years), some Parties and ASOC expressed concern about these issues. Satisfactory answers were not given.”.

• Russia’s IP 72 acknowledged that the DROMLAN airfield is now being used to transport tourists to a tourism land-based facility located close to its research station. However, the DROMLAN program involves 11 national programs, which share logistics with flights from Cape Town to Queen Maud Land, enabling access to several national stations. This is ostensibly done to save public money, as NAP scientists and personnel are carried on the same aircraft as the tourists. However, no environmental impact assessment was done regarding this significant change to the terms of reference despite clear requirements under the Protocol Art. 8 (3).

Presently indeterminate


8

• There was some progress on addressing specific aspects of tourism, and a few Parties stated that they would look into further regulation of certain aspects of tourism. However, tourism discussions continued to be reactive to particular manifestations of the industry, whether established forms or new forms, in an absence of strategic discussions about what forms of tourism are appropriate in the Antarctic.

• Additionally, some delegations are prone to divert discussions about specific tourism impacts towards a discussion of impacts due to all causes at sites frequented by tourists. While it is important to assess the integrated impacts on specific sites due to all causes, from a policy perspective for management purposes it is important to identify those impacts due solely to tourism activities so that appropriate action can be developed, approved and implemented.

• It was notable that the Parties agreed to “institute discussion on issues related to the exercise of jurisdiction in the Antarctic Treaty area”, considering that this discussion was mandated in the Antarctic Treaty 1959 (Article IX, 1(e)). This discussion has the potential to stimulate initiatives that may help solve problems caused by gaps in jurisdiction and enforcement of law against individuals in Antarctica including provisions of the Protocol. But it remains to be seen whether most Parties will be willing to engage in meaningful discussion, given the sensitivity of the issues that it might expose.

• New Zealand and the Netherlands brought to the attention of the Parties an increasing human footprint throughout the Antarctic and the resulting decline in wilderness values. However, their attempt to initiate a meaningful debate on the how to contain this trend met with little success. Several Parties seem, explicitly or implicitly, to view protection of wilderness values in the Antarctic as a hortatory vision, not a legally binding commitment. New Zealand's offer to lead an informal intersessional contact group which will further develop this issue for consideration at ATCM XXXVI was accepted.

2.6 Measures, Resolutions and Decisions of particular relevance to ASOC • Decision 3 (2012) The Development of a Multi-Year Strategic Work Plan for the Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting. Parties decided to develop a Multi-Year Strategic Work Plan according to principles appended to the Decision, and to establish an ICG and to hold a workshop before ATCM XXXVI to develop a plan for consideration at that meeting.

• Resolution 6 (2012) Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions welcomed the classification of the continent and nearby islands into 15 conservation biogeographic regions based on data from the SCAR biodiversity database. These biogeographic regions can be used in conjunction with the Environmental Domains Analysis in the identification of areas that could be designated as ASPAs.

• Resolution 7 (2012) Vessel Safety in the Antarctic Treaty Area recommends that ATCP governments work through the IMO on the Polar Code and on the Torremolinos Protocol negotiations; consider appropriate measures to enhance the safety of fishing vessels flagged to ATCPs; report annually to the CEP on their responses to environmental emergencies after vessel incidents; remind operators of their flagged fishing vessels to provide information to the responsible Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre before entering the Antarctic Treaty area; and encourage CCAMLR members to implement CCAMLR Resolution 20/XXII, which calls on Members to license only those fishing vessels with a minimum ice classification standard ICE-1C.

• Resolution 9 (2012) The Assessment of Land-Based Expeditionary Activities provides a list of questions ATCPs may consider when authorizing or permitting land-based activities in Antarctica.

• Resolution 11 (2012) Checklist for visitors’ in-field activities encourages the use of a checklist for visitors’ in-field activities.

2.7 Operation of the Antarctic Treaty System Update on Non-Consultative Parties Malaysia ratified the Treaty in 2011, and Pakistan ratified the Treaty and the Protocol in 2012.

Future ATCM hosts The XXXVI ATCM will be held in Brussels, Belgium from 20 to 29 May in 2013.


9

3 Meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection

3.1 Strategic Discussions on the Future Work of the CEP New Zealand submitted WP 57, Antarctic Environments Portal in conjunction with Australia and SCAR. The portal would be a link between science and policy and serve as a public communications tool. Though not without some hesitation from a few countries, the CEP supported the general concept. Further intersessional work will be undertaken to develop a demonstration model for discussion at the next ATCM.

3.2 Annex I – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) No draft CEEs or IEEs were submitted to the meeting but the Republic of Korea (RoK) and the UK submitted final CEEs on the Jang Bogo Station and the Lake Ellsworth drilling project, respectively.

RoK was congratulated for its CEE – when completed, Jang Bogo Station would be one of the most technologically advanced stations in Antarctica. The station will be completed early in 2014, with the first team wintering over that year. Improvements with respect to the original plans include that sewage will be recycled to 40%; incineration will not be used, and fuel spill prevention was bettered. However, ASOC remains concerned about the cumulative impacts of the proposed operations of the station, including those that would extend geographically beyond the station itself. These concerns are not satisfactorily addressed in the final CEE for Jan Bogo Station.

The CEP’s tourism study was discussed under this agenda item. The study was presented as two papers, WP 22 and IP 33, both titled Environmental Aspects and Impacts of Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica. The WP contained a summary and recommendations, and the IP contained the full study. Further information on the discussion of the study is found below in Section 5 on Tourism.

Another important paper introduced under this item was IP 74 Results of Russian activity for penetrating subglacial Lake Vostok in the season 2011–12. Included in its presentation was an amateur video showing the final stages of drilling to the surface of the lake as seen from inside the drilling rig. Russia reported that some drilling fluid (composed of a mixture of kerosene and freon) was unaccounted for but claimed that due to the laws of physics – the drilling fluid is slightly lighter than water – the fluid could not have contaminated the lake. Scientists specialised in ice drilling confirmed privately to ASOC that the situation was far more complex (turbulence, surge mechanisms, and other factors could have resulted in some drilling fluid entering the pristine lake water). Several ATCPs congratulated Russia on their achievement, but one Party suggested that they could have operated in a more precautionary manner under the circumstances, and inquired about the drilling fluid. ASOC also asked about the missing drilling fluid and about the existence and content of a risk assessment for Russia's drilling program. Russia avoided answering these questions. ASOC is pleased that Russia's plans for continuing this work over the next few years appear to give careful attention to the need to avoid future contamination of Vostok's water while it investigates its limnological properties, and what these can tell us about Earth's climate history.”

3.3 Annex II – Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna Most of the discussion under this agenda item centred around minimizing the risk from non-native species. The SCAR lecture by Aleks Terauds, titled “Aliens in Antarctica”,9 was well received and prompted the CEP to agree to use spatially explicit, activity-differentiated risk assessments in developing future strategies to decrease the risks from invasive species. The CEP also agreed to collaborate with SCAR, COMNAP, IAATO and IUCN to monitor areas identified in the SCAR lecture as being at highest risk. Most of the focus of this work, however, is on ice-free and nearshore areas in the Antarctic, and as such a small percentage of the Antarctic continent and of the entire region. The CEP additionally agreed to encourage Parties to use the SCAR/COMNAP checklist for supply chain managers as a way to reduce the risk from fresh foods.

There were two papers, one by SCAR and one by Germany, on noise pollution, but there was little discussion beyond a request from the Committee to provide future updates on the issue. Lack of discussion can be

9 The SCAR presentation is available online at http://tinyurl.com/7jokms9 (shortened url).


10

attributed to lack of expertise among CEP members on what is a very technical issue, and also to lack of political will.

3.4 Annex V – Protected Areas Human footprint and wilderness values

ASOC presented two papers related to this issue, IP 49 Annex V Inviolate and Reference Areas: Current Management Practices and IP 52 Data Sources for Mapping the Human Footprint in Antarctica. New Zealand and the Netherlands submitted WP 50 Concepts for Wilderness protection in Antarctica using tools in the Protocol. Additionally, New Zealand tied the wilderness discussion to the discussion on strategic questions related to tourism. This agenda item failed to generate a robust discussion, but the level of interest by Treaty Parties was significantly higher than in previous years. In addition the Committee acknowledged that some degradation of the Antarctic wilderness had taken place and approved the initiative by New Zealand and the Netherlands to develop, in conjunction with SCAR and other interested Parties, materials to aid in assessing the impact of human activities on wilderness values in the EIA process and explore the possibilities for considering inviolate areas in conservation planning, and potential synergies with the protection of wilderness values. ASOC will be represented in this informal intersessional discussion and developmental work, and the results of these deliberations will be presented at the next meeting of the CEP.

Management plans and site guidelines A number of revised management plans and site guidelines were approved by the CEP. Of interest to ASOC were WP 19 The proposed designation of an Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) for high altitude geothermal areas of the Ross Sea region, WP 40 Proposal for a new Antarctic Specially Protected Area at Cape Washington and Silverfish Bay Terra Nova Bay, Ross Sea and WP 41 Proposal for a new Antarctic Specially Protected Area at Taylor Glacier and Blood Falls, Taylor Valley, McMurdo Dry Valleys Victoria Land. WP 19 (New Zealand) had an interesting proposal that several non-contiguous but ecologically similar areas should be designated as one single ASPA. ASOC congratulated New Zealand on this strategic and innovative approach to protection, which has been used before in some ASMAs. In WP 41, the US proposed an ASPA for Blood Falls, a unique iron-rich glacial discharge. The proposal itself is unusual because it considers protection in three dimensions, i.e., including the subglacial environment. WP 40 was a joint proposal from Italy and the US in Terra Nova Bay in the Ross Sea that is primarily intended to protect silverfish and emperor penguins. The Blood Falls and Terra Nova Bay proposals were adopted, while the geothermal areas proposal was referred to the SGMP for intersessional discussion.

The site guidelines paper of interest was WP 59 Revised Visited Site Guidelines: Aitcho Islands from Ecuador and Spain. The paper had some fairly dramatic pictures showing localized degradation of vegetation on Barrientos Island due to trampling – mostly by tourists. Though the revised site guidelines were not approved, the CEP put a moratorium on access to one walking route and amended the site guidelines to reflect this. The issue will be revisited at the next CEP meeting. The discussion highlighted the great reluctance by Parties to place any restrictions on tourism, even in the face of solid scientific information collected over several years demonstrating tourism impacts.

Aside from the discussions at the CEP itself, there were several side meetings discussing krill fishing at ASMA No. 1 (discussed below); the Deception Island ASMA; and the Dry Valleys ASMA.

Marine Protected Area Issues Ukraine presented IP 68, Progress of Ukraine on Designation of Broad-scale Management System in the Vernadsky Station Area. The rationale for this proposal is based on the increase in activities conducted in this area (i.e. scientific, logistic and tourism).

The CEP Observer to CCAMLR presented IP 80, Report of the CEP Observer to the CCAMLR Workshop on Marine Protected Areas, Brest, France, 29 August to 2 September 2011. Besides providing a summary of the outcome of the workshop, she noted that it was recognized that SC-CAMLR and CEP have common interests in marine protection, which may result in having ASPAs and ASMAs designated by the ATCM within the CCAMLR MPAs. It would be interesting to see how this might be accomplished, especially in the context of the latest discussions on ASMA No. 1 that took place during the CEP meeting and the well-known objection by some Parties to one treaty body commenting upon the business of another or overlapping protected areas from different management regimes.


11

ASOC presented IP 54, Implications of Antarctic Krill Fishing in ASMA No. 1 – Admiralty Bay, which highlighted the occurrence of krill fishing in ASMA No. 1 during 2009/10, an activity not explicitly identified in the ASMA’s Management Plan. ASOC reminded Members that the area was established, in part, because Admiralty Bay has a high concentration of breeding seabirds and seals, and stated that penguin numbers in the area had decreased, as reported in the scientific literature, and that the scientific research of the past several decades on fish, krill, benthic communities and seabirds in the area could be jeopardised by fishing. This was the first instance of reported fishing in an ASMA and set a precedent of concern.

In its paper, ASOC recommended an immediate review of the Management Plan, suggesting that all new drafts or reviewed Management Plans of ASMAs should be explicit about conditions related to the potential capability for harvesting of marine living resources in any marine component. Furthermore, ASOC recommended that the CEP advise the ATCM to request that CCAMLR consider a means of providing information to CCAMLR Members on the geographic location of the ASMAs and ASPAs with marine components, and that CCAMLR also implement a voluntary precautionary closure to fishing in the marine components of all relevant ASMAs and ASPAs. In addition, CCAMLR should develop complementary conservation measures to deal with ASMAs and ASPAs and establish some incident reporting to the ATCM.

The paper presented by ASOC received large support by Parties, including those active in ASMA No. 1 and more generally in the area.. However, Japan stated that the prohibition on fishing should be introduced only when it is necessary to achieve the objectives of a management plan. The CEP Chair thanked ASOC for its important contribution and highlighted the need for the CEP to find solutions to this problem and to continue communicating with CCAMLR on this issue.

Poland highlighted that monitoring of penguins in Admiralty Bay by the US is part of the CCAMLR system and has been conducted for 40 years. Since krill is a critical item of the diet of penguins, it was surprising to see trawlers catching krill in Admiralty Bay, potentially damaging the long-term data set, stating that krill harvesting near biological monitoring sites has to be totally forbidden. The restricted zone should be determined by penguin feeding grounds, which could be up to 50 km from the rookery. This restriction could be introduced to management plans of ASMAs and ASPAs in general.

The SC-CAMLR Observer to CEP noted that IP 28, Report by the SC-CAMLR Observer to the Fifteenth Meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection, included a communication to the CEP calling the attention of the Committee that there was no mention of harvesting in the management plan for ASMA No. 1 and that CCAMLR could not conclude whether fishing in ASMA No. 1 was compatible with the objectives of the ASMA.

In the light of the concerns raised by several Members and ASOC that krill fishing may not be compatible with the scientific values of the ASMA, Parties undertaking the management of ASMA No. 1 agreed to send a revised version of IP 66, Working Plan Proposal for the Review of the Admiralty Bay Antarctic Specially Managed Area Management Plan (ASMA No. 1), to SC-CAMLR’s WG EMM in order that the issue of krill fishing in ASMA No. 1 could be addressed during the intersessional period following the established procedure.

The SC-CAMLR Observer to CEP took note of the discussions so as to inform CCAMLR and make sure that this issue will be discussed in the next CCAMLR meeting. The communications between CEP and SC-CAMLR are vital to ensure the implementation of effective spatial management measures in the Treaty Area.

ASOC also presented IP 50, Antarctic Ocean Legacy: A Marine Reserve for the Ross Sea and the related information in IP 51, A vision for circumpolar protection, which called for the creation of a network of marine protected areas and no-take marine reserves in the Southern Ocean. These papers were short abstracts with the AOA papers as attachments.

Finally, AOA held a well-attended lunchtime event to launch the circumpolar report.

3.5 Repair and Remediation of Environmental Damage

Australia had pushed strongly this issue, submitting half a dozen WPs and IPs outlining its experience on the matter. Australia advocated a nuanced approach that does not immediately require the removal of waste. This position appears to result from tensions between clean up obligations under the Protocol, and domestic quarantine issues with importing Antarctic waste into Australia.

Australia and the UK had prepared WP 21, An Antarctic Clean-Up Manual. Although some Parties thought the manual was ready for adoption, which ASOC would have welcomed, this was not agreed and the manual will be further worked on during the intersessional period.


12

ASOC introduced IP 57 Repair or Remediation of Environmental Damage, which reviews some of the key issues associated with the repair or remediation of environmental damage. It also comments on the various points suggested by Australia in WP 28 submitted to the XXXIV ATCM in 2011 following Decision 4, 2010, under (3). The paper suggested that at a minimum, environmental damage should be documented and an assessment made about the feasibility to repair it. The CEP Chair welcomed this and any future contribution from ASOC on this issue.

4 Climate Change Issues WWF successfully introduced the concepts of climate change resilience and adaptation into Antarctic Treaty discussions, through WP 33 (UK and Norway) - WWF’s Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic Ecosystem Resilience (RACER).

RACER is a new tool for identifying and mapping places of conservation importance on the basis of ecosystem resilience across the Arctic. RACER was introduced by the UK and Norway as one possible approach to identify similar areas in the Antarctic. As such, RACER might assist to underpin ecosystem-based management approaches for Antarctic environments in the context of climate change.

Though there was broad support for RACER from several ATCPs and SCAR, some countries were more sceptical. Some of these countries questioned whether conservation tools developed for one region can be used in another. It was noted that the CEP successfully applies many conservation tools from elsewhere, such as EIA, in an Antarctic context.

The CEP endorsed the trial of RACER in the Antarctic, to present back to CEP XVI. WWF will try to secure funds for a RACER analysis of one of the Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions.

ASOC introduced IP 58 (Rev. 1) Earth Hour Antarctica (2013) proposing a coordinated continent-wide switch off of all non-essential lights at Antarctic research stations for the 2013 Earth Hour. UK, Australia and NZ strongly supported the proposal (Australia and UK were co-sponsors), and COMNAP agreed to table it at their Annual General Meeting to discuss operational coordination.

SCAR provided an update on its progress with developing a Climate Communications Plan, which is partly supported by ASOC. SCAR will focus on communicating the updated Executive Summary from the Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE) report. The update is currently being prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

Australia introduced WP 32 ATCM Interests in International Climate Change Discussions – Options for Enhanced Engagement. Though this was a good paper, follow-up discussions were inconclusive on how the Treaty Parties might establish an effective working relationship and formal or informal institutional linkages with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). SCAR is already an observer to UNFCCC and interacts with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is likely that this will remain the main/only vehicle for communication between ATCM and UNFCCC.

5 Tourism Issues

Tourism issues at the CEP Most of this year’s tourism discussion at the CEP focused on WP 22 and IP 33, both titled Environmental Aspects and Impacts of Tourism and Non-governmental Activities in Antarctica, which were presented by New Zealand. This was the outcome of a protracted process started in 2009. The recommendations of these papers were also discussed at the Tourism Working Group.

ASOC introduced IP 55, Key Issues on a Strategic Approach to Review Tourism Policies, but this paper was largely overshadowed by WP 22 and IP 33 from New Zealand. The discussion on the NZ papers was extensive. One Party noted repeatedly that in looking at impacts to certain sites, it thought all activities, not just tourism, needed to be considered. While conceptually correct, it is the case that tourism is the main or only activity at many sites, and at any event is relevant – for both management and scientific reasons – to identify the contribution of tourism to environmental impact. This Party also seemed reluctant to go along with other Parties in prohibiting certain types of activities. However, there was wide recognition that the current regulations for land-based activities are not complete. Some Parties pushed back on the idea of closing pristine areas. In terms of


13

permanent tourism facilities in Antarctica, the US suggested a threshold for activities that would prohibit any activities that would require a CEE. The US stated its support for new binding rules on tourism, and New Zealand reminded Parties that improved supervision of tourism would ease the burdens on those Parties responsible for search and rescue (SAR) coordination.

ASOC thanked New Zealand for WP 33 and noted that it was a comprehensive analysis of the status and trends of Antarctic tourism, based on the information that is available for the period considered in the study. However, the study was not comprehensive in terms of identifying tourism impacts, partly on account of the relatively limited dedicated studies published in the scientific literature, which highlighted the need for further research on tourism impacts. ASOC noted that the publications cited in the study stated that there had not been any conclusive evidence that tourism has had any impacts on the Antarctic environment; however they have also not been able to conclude that tourism had not had any impacts on the Antarctic environment, due to the lack of data. Long-term site occupation for the seasonal landing of tourists was not mentioned in the report as an impact in itself. ASOC considered that the report left out the critical need to develop a “vision” for Antarctic tourism, which would enable ATCPs to shape tourism developments instead of reacting to them. Nonetheless, ASOC supported the eight recommendations from the study. In particular, Recommendations 7-8 were the most strategic in nature, and similar to recommendations made by ASOC in the past.

The recommendations from WP 22 were also discussed in detail at the TWG, leading to several actions:

• An intersessional contact group was established to determine whether existing sources could provide the information called for by recommendations 1 and 2;

• The CEP was tasked with developing an appropriate definition and method of assessing site sensitivity and undertaking a relative sensitivity analysis for the most heavily visited sites, in response to recommendation 3;

• The CEP was requested to consider how site guidelines are reviewed and updated (Recommendation 4);

• The ATCM agreed to undertake a regular review of trends in tourist activity at heavily visited or highly sensitive sites (Recommendation 5);

• The CEP was tasked with considering how to target monitoring efforts and to develop on-site monitoring study to assess the effectiveness of site guidelines at one or more visitor sites (Recommendation 6).

• The CEP was requested to consider developing a series of management parameters or environmental indicator triggers to guide monitoring efforts (Recommendation 7);

• The ATCM agreed that Parties were invited to identify potential new management options for tourism. The Meeting also agreed that Parties should share experiences in allowing visits to rarely visited or unvisited areas, including the EIA process used for such activities (Recommendation 8).

The proposed actions on Recommendations 6, 7 and 8 are particularly useful.

Tourism issues at the Tourism Working Group IAATO reported that tourism continued to decline (by about 22% with respect to the previous year), and attributed the 2011/12 decline to the economy and the ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil. IAATO predicts tourism will increase in the 2012/13 season.

Argentina reported on the results of an intersessional contact group on the supervision of Antarctic tourism (WP 43), the outcome of which was a draft checklist that would support inspections of the on-ground conduct of visitors’ activities. The checklist was adopted in a Resolution. ASOC has been advocating more extensive and frequent inspections of tourism, and a dedicated checklist, since the 2009 ATME on shipborne tourism where it presented a paper on addressing these issues.

The US introduced WP 37 Coastal Camping Considerations, in conjunction with Norway, which recommended that there be additional guidance for authorities reviewing permit applications for overnight camping, whether separately or in site guidelines. IAATO noted that camping had been increasing. The discussion will continue informally in the intersessional period.

In IP 72, Russia noted that the DROMLAN program had accepted the use of spare capacity on its planes to transport tourists to its research station as a way of reducing costs. This type of use had specifically been excluded in the IEE for the establishment of the blue ice runaway. ASOC noted that the change in the type and


14

intensity of the activity should require an EIA as mandated in the Protocol, Art. 8 (3) but there was no reply from Russia, nor did other Parties pick up the point.

Following a proposal by France to expand the use of the EIES to include non-governmental activities, the ATCM adopted Decision 4 (2012) Electronic Information Exchange System, which aims to increase the flow of information among Parties regarding tourism and NGO activities they process and in particular to prevent permit hopping. The use of EIES however remains voluntary, though with about 75% participation now.

There was a substantive debate about tourism policies, where it was apparent that different Parties have very different attitudes and concerns about tourism, including impact on national Antarctic programs, search and rescue issues, and environmental impacts. Some Parties are only able or willing to regulate tourism on the basis of its environmental impacts as assessed in EIA, while other Parties are prepared to look into the purpose of the activity. One Party noted that impacts on the environment were the starting point of deliberations, but the acceptability of impacts may depend on the purpose of activities.

There seems to be a common view developing among Parties that tourism should not have more than a minor or transitory impact.10 This is positive as it would exclude some forms of tourism but it is also exceedingly vague to aid policy making. The risk is that tourism will be accepted as having, by definition, no more than a minor or transitory impact. The discussion of tourism policy issues will continue intersessionally, convened by The Netherlands, under somewhat vague terms of reference.

The discussion of tourism issues was more substantial than in recent years, thanks to the CEP tourism study and WP 27 rev.1 by The Netherlands, and the able chairmanship of Ambassador Don MacKay (New Zealand). However, when Parties had to take action they tended to focus on small-scale regulatory issues rather on the larger picture. As a consequence, through the ATCM there was progress on a number of steps forwards on a number of discrete issues such as camping, guidelines for yachts, and use of EIES, but no broad strategic discussion. Issues of cumulative impacts and the expansion and diversification of activities seem to have some traction, at least among some Parties, and some of the future discussion will focus on these issues, which have been highlighted by ASOC for a number of years.

6 Shipping Issues Although New Zealand succeeded in achieving the adoption of a resolution on vessel safety, the meeting was relatively light on shipping issues. ASOC introduced two papers, IP 53 Follow-up to Vessel Incidents in Antarctic Waters and IP 56 Progress on the Development of a Mandatory Polar Code. In the CEP, there was little discussion of IP 53 even though the chair was very encouraging. NZ spoke in support of this paper. When the papers were discussed in the Operations Working Group, again there was little discussion.

However, WP 49 ATCM Response to CCAMLR Fishing Vessel Incidents from New Zealand, which was introduced first, did generate some discussion. Parties were reluctant to endorse the proposed resolution in WP 49, which encouraged Parties to improve fishing vessel safety via the Torremolinos Protocol, the Polar Code and by reporting on efforts to limit the environmental impact of stricken vessels. Although these were largely hortatory, some ATCPs expressed a reluctance to “prejudice” Polar Code discussions with an ATCM resolution. After significant work on the margins, a final resolution was adopted containing most of the provisions of the draft resolution and additionally recommending that governments report annually on environmental emergencies. Although this was positive, it was unfortunate that there appeared to be little recognition (beyond New Zealand) that the Polar Code is not moving in a positive direction in terms of Antarctic environmental protection.

Additionally, there was only limited discussion about the key message of IP 53, which was that there needs to be better reporting and follow-up on the possible environmental impacts of vessel incidents.

7 Liability Six Parties (Finland, Italy, Peru, Poland, Spain, and Sweden) have now ratified Annex VI. As has become the norm, each ATCP was expected to provide an update on their work in progress towards ratification of Annex VI. Six Parties (Australia, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom and Uruguay) said that they hoped

10 This mirrors one of IAATO’s bylaws, which states that “Members subscribe to the principle that their planned activities will have no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment.”


15

that domestic legislation to enable ratification would be passed by their legislature in the near future, while most others stated that government work was actively in progress. Some however said nothing, or said that they had no information to share, or referred only to problems in implementing this Annex. Overall, there might be further 3-6 ratifications before the next ATCM.

Worryingly, since entry into force requires all ATCPs to ratify, a few countries signalled they have barely begun work towards ratification.

On the basis of the current rate of progress, it is likely to be several years before Annex VI has any prospect of coming into force.

8 Biological Prospecting Belgium provided an update on its bio-prospecting activities in Antarctica, and The Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and UNEP submitted IP 63 An Update on Biological Prospecting in Antarctica and Recent Policy Developments at the International Level. The paper updates information in the database, now up to 218 entries, with 12 related to krill and 10 new patents from China, Korea, US, and Malaysia.

Once again, while Parties rhetorically asserted that the ATS is the right venue for managing bio-prospecting, they could not agree on any mandate to work on the issue intersessionally. ASOC reminded Parties that they had agreed to make information on bio-prospecting available in Resolution 7 (2005), and that it is very important to do so. It is expected that a group of Parties will prepare working papers for next year’s meeting in order to take the discussion forward.

9 Other Issues

9.1. Strategic Planning for the ATCM Australia prioritized the effort to agree to develop a Multi-Year Strategic Work Plan. A decision was adopted in which it was agreed to develop such a Plan, within existing resources, in accordance with agreed guiding principles; and to establish an ICG convened by Australia and Belgium to undertake further Plan coordination. A workshop will be held immediately before ATCM XXXVI to develop a draft Plan for discussion by the ATCM. During protracted informal consultations on the draft decision, some delegations resisted the concept of a strategic plan, extracting a concession that it “should not interfere with the regular development of the ATCM agenda”.

9.2. Protocol Ratification Initiative Former French and Australian Prime Ministers Michel Rocard and Bob Hawke reported on the initiative that begun last year regarding enhanced support for the Environmental Protocol promoting the ratification of the Protocol by a number of non-consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty. France, Australia and Spain led intersessional work with 15 countries approached, which helped lead to Malaysia and Pakistan acceding to the Antarctic Treaty, and committing to joining the Protocol. Colombia and Hungary stated they would accede to the Protocol, while Cuba, Estonia, Guatemala and several others had begun to prepare for accession. A resolution was adopted calling for further efforts and a report back to ATCM XXXVI.

Bob Hawke reminisced about 1989, sitting in a Paris garden with Michel Rocard, who agreed to resist the fait accompli of the mining regime, engaging Felipe González of Spain to make a trio. Spain’s head of delegation noted the desirability of strengthening environmental protection, in part by creating specially protected marine areas.

9.3. Jurisdiction in Antarctica France submitted a paper on jurisdiction in Antarctica (WP 28) to follow up on their attempts to prosecute French nationals in connection with an incident at the designated historic site Wordie House in 2010, when crew members from two yachts under French registration spent the night in the historic hut having forced entry and lit a fire. The paper raised various jurisdictional and evidential problems that had made it difficult for the French authorities to mount a successful prosecution. There was a useful debate about how countries exercise jurisdiction and enforce laws in Antarctica. Several Parties described how they had dealt with, or been unable to deal with, similar incidents of misbehaviour by tourists, under their domestic laws. Other Parties indicated that


16

they had not yet had to use such powers and believed that their legal systems might share some of the problems described by France.

It was acknowledged that gaps in jurisdiction and enforcement powers in domestic legal systems of the Parties would be likely to present increasingly serious problems in the future, given the steadily increasing traffic in Antarctica, including individual tourists, groups, scientists, etc. and the diversity of activities – marathons, for example. France proposed a Resolution on this, and the creation of an intersessional ICG that can exchange experiences and approaches for solving this problem. Many Parties welcomed the initiative, and it was agreed to establish an intersessional CG on this subject led by France. However during informal consultations on the draft resolution (attended by Jill Barrett) the terms of reference of the ICG proposed by France were modified due to the concerns of some Parties to avoid debate which might touch on sensitive issues of sovereignty and to avoid any obligation to provide information about individual cases.

9.4. Inspections IP 47 United States-Russian Federation Report of Inspection was presented in the Operations Working Group. This was the first joint inspection by Russia and the facilities inspected were NZ’s Scott Base, Italy’s Terra Nova and the French-Italian station Concordia. Overall the reports were positive, but it was noted that Italy has no national legislation and regulations for implementing the Protocol, which causes problems at Concordia, since France does have legislation. Italy, however, denied that this caused problems and stated that it had always operated in the Antarctic with high environmental standards since before the Protocol was adopted.

There were some questions about the EPICA borehole and the drilling fluid used. It was clarified that the drilling fluid was not kerosene and that no drilling fluid had been lost from the borehole as was reported in IP 47.

ASOC presented its joint paper with UNEP, IP 59 Review of the Implementation of the Madrid Protocol: Inspections by Parties (Article 14), that reviews the practice of inspections undertaken by Parties carried out under Article 14 of the Madrid Protocol and under Article VII of the Treaty. It noted that the total number of inspections conducted since entry into force of the Madrid Protocol in 1998 is 14, the number of different facilities or sites inspected is 83. Only 12 of the 27 Consultative Parties have conducted one or more inspections between 1998 and 2011, and 27 of the 29 Consultative Parties had one or more of their facilities inspected during that period. Of the 101 facilities on the COMNAP list, 56 (55%) have been inspected and 45 (45%) have never been inspected. One ASMA, 6 ASPAs and 7 HSMs have been inspected between 1998 and 2011, while 7 vessels, of which 6 were tourist vessels, were inspected.

Several Parties commented that IP 59 was extremely helpful including for planning future inspections. The UK suggested that in the future the ATS website should link Antarctic facilities to previous inspection reports as this would be helpful for future inspection programmes.

9.5. Exchange of information The Secretariat outlined the current status with the electronic information exchange system in SP 10, which shows that pre-season reporting now is up over 80% and annual reports are about 75%. ASOC asked what can be done to help all Parties meet their obligations and achieve 100% compliance. ASOC noted that the French WP 29 has useful suggestions to improve Electronic information exchange.

Chile presented its WP 63, which requests an exchange of information on ship position in real time, for all vessels operating in Antarctica, primarily to help the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres and facilitate search and rescue. France and other countries strongly supported the idea, but Japan resisted on fishing vessels, stating that those positions are confidential. France noted that the Secretariat’s database should have a ‘memory’ of permit refusals as well as permit acceptances.

9.6. Antarctic Conservation for the 21st Century SCAR, IUCN, and New Zealand introduced IP 35 Antarctic Conservation for the 21st Century: Background IP, progress, and future directions, which proposes a methodical way forward in the development of an updated Antarctic Conservation Strategy. The draft strategy is based on a horizon scanning approach involving a diverse group of people with collectively good knowledge of Antarctica and pertinent issues. They produced an overview and timeliness of various threats, and actions to address them. Jim Barnes is a member of the group that produced the Strategy.


17

9.7. Mt Field National Park field trip ASOC initiated the organization of a field trip for delegates over the weekend. The idea was to give delegates a chance to see a wild area and to learn about wilderness management. Antarctic Tasmania organized two trips, one on each day of the weekend, for a total of 40 delegates to Mt Field National Park. All expenses were covered by Antarctic Tasmania. Rangers from Parks Tasmania led walks around Lake Dobson and Russell Falls and answered questions about the park’s flora and fauna. The field trips run to full capacity, including several Heads of Delegation and CEP representatives. All in all, the field trips were appreciated by the attendees and it is worth looking into organizing something similar for the next meeting in Brussels.

10 Future actions and priorities for ASOC and Member Groups ASOC’s general priorities for the XXXV ATCM (section 2.4) regarding MPAs, tourism regulation, climate change, implementations of the Environmental Protocol, protection of wilderness values, and the Polar Code, will generally be carried over to the XXXVI ATCM, including as appropriate through participation in intersessional work and targeted lobbying.

In particular, actions and priorities for ASOC member groups include:

• Tourism: Continue to advocate for substantive actions to regulate tourism and engagement by Parties in more substantive discussions of tourism, particularly on issues of cumulative impacts, diversification of activities, and occupation of new sites. Monitor the outcomes of actions taken to address the recommendations of the CEP tourism study, particularly Recommendations 6-8.

• Climate Change: Urge Parties to develop strategies to increase the resilience of Antarctic ecosystems to climate change. Liase with SCAR to provide support for the implementation of the climate change communications plan.

• Protected Areas: Promote the use of the conservation biogeographic regions to identify and designate new ASPAs. Encourage Parties to further discuss and develop wilderness and inviolate areas concepts. Participate in discussion groups of various ASMAs, including Dry Valleys, with a view to ensuring that high environmental standards are maintained.

• ASMA No. 1/relationship between the ATCM/CEP and CCAMLR: Monitor the response of WG EMM/SC-CCAMLR to the ATCM discussion on ASMA No. 1 and work towards agreement between the ATCM and CCAMLR that fishing should not take place in this ASMA (and other ASMAs, or ASPAs).


18

Appendix 1 – Acronyms

ASMA Antarctic Specially Managed Area ASOC Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition http://www.asoc.org/ ASMA Antarctic Specially Managed Area ASPA Antarctic Specially Protected Area ATCM Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ATCP Antarctic Treaty Consultative Party ATS Antarctic Treaty System CCAMLR Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources http://www.ccamlr.org/ COMMISSION Commission for CCAMLR CEE Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation CEP Committee for Environmental Protection (of the ATCM) http://www.cep.aq/ COMNAP Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs http://www.comnap.aq/ EIA Environmental Impact Assessment IAATO International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators http://www.iaato.org ICG Intersessional Contact Group IEE Initial Environmental Evaluation IMO International Maritime Organization IP Information Paper presented to either the ATCM or CCAMLR IPY International Polar Year IUCN World Conservation Union (formerly International Union for Conservation of Nature)

http://www.iucn.org IWC International Whaling Commission MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee (of IMO) MSC Maritime Safety Committee SCAR Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research http://www.scar.org/ SGMP Standing Group [of the CEP] on Management Plans UNEP United Nations Environment Program http://www.unep.org/ WG Working Group WG-EMM CCAMLR’s Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management WP Working Paper


19

Appendix 2 – List of documents submitted by ASOC to XXXV

ATCM

Number Title Abstract

IP 49 Annex V Inviolate and Reference Areas: Current Management Practices

Setting aside an area that has been rarely or never visited by humans in order to preserve a potential reference area for future research is a tool that has been used for over three decades in Antarctic environmental management. The designation of inviolate areas is specifically called for under Annex V of the Protocol. However, it is under-used, with inviolate areas covering a very small area (a total of approximately 30 km2 over the entire Antarctic Treaty Area). The designation of closed and inviolate areas of significant size can make multiple contributions towards meeting the objectives of the Protocol. They will provide reference sites that remain pristine and available for different fields of scientific interest in the future. They will also contribute towards the protection of Antarctica’s wilderness values. The designation of inviolate areas is a tool that is already in the toolbox of Antarctic environmental management practices, which can be used more widely to complement existing environmental management activities.

IP 50 Antarctic Ocean Legacy: A Marine Reserve for the Ross Sea

This Information Paper summarises the report “Antarctic Ocean Legacy: A Marine Reserve for the Ross Sea” published by the Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA), of which the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) is a member. The Alliance is calling for the creation of a network of marine protected areas and no-take marine reserves in the Southern Ocean, including one in the Ross Sea. Appendix 1 contains the full report.

IP 51 Antarctic Ocean Legacy: A Vision for Circumpolar Protection

This Information Paper summarises the report “Antarctic Ocean Legacy: A Marine Reserve for the Ross Sea” published by the Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA), of which the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) is a member. The Alliance is calling for the creation of a network of marine protected areas and no-take marine reserves in the Southern Ocean, including one in the Ross Sea. Appendix 1 contains the full report.

IP 52 Data Sources for Mapping the Human Footprint in Antarctica

A comprehensive and systematic assessment of the human footprint in Antarctica has never been attempted. The first step in constructing a model of the human footprint in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean consists of compiling data from the different information repositories in a common format. Information on human activity in Antarctica is relatively centralized, and with the right permissions, together with dedicated effort, it would be possible to assemble all the information in one place. While this is not a small task, it only needs to be repeated once every five or ten years for the purposes of monitoring changes over time and planning. Such work would help to fulfil the CEP’s obligation to advise the ATCM on the state of the Antarctic environment. While it certainly would not paint a complete picture, if the infrastructure, logistics and activities of the national Antarctic programs could be assembled, maintained and disseminated in a common format, then a large part of the human footprint in Antarctica could be defined more clearly and in a more transparent fashion, which would help Treaty Parties and CCAMLR members take coherent steps through time to limit the human footprint.

IP 53 Follow-up to Vessel Incidents in Antarctic Waters

This information paper undertakes a preliminary assessment of reporting following a vessel incident. It considers the comprehensiveness of reporting on the incident and any subsequent investigation into the cause of the incident. It also addresses reporting of the extent and impact of pollution arising from an incident, and the implementation of lessons learned or recommendations arising from an incident via the initial response, environmental monitoring or subsequent investigation. It identifies a number of shortcomings in the current system and recommends that the ATCM and CCAMLR address these as a matter of urgency.

IP 54 Implications of Antarctic krill fishing in ASMA No. 1 - Admiralty Bay

The 2011 meeting of CCAMLR’s Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) noted that in, 2009/10, the krill fishery operated in Admiralty Bay (ASMA No.1). Fishing was not identified or envisaged as an activity consistent with the agreed Code of Conduct when the management plan was adopted by the ATCM, following its approval by CCAMLR. In this context, this information paper reviews the cooperation framework between the ATCM and CCAMLR and the need for better cooperation between both bodies. Particularly with regard to ASMA No.1, this raises issues about the implementation of management plans for ASMAs in relation to the harvesting of marine living resources. The information paper offers a series of recommendations to the CEP, ATCM and CCAMLR to bring more clarity to the process of adopting management plans for ASMAs in order to prevent future events such as in ASMA No. 1 from occurring again.

IP 55 Key Issues for a Strategic Approach to Review

This information paper examines key issues that are relevant for a strategic review of Antarctic tourism including supervision of tourism, the development of new international regulatory instruments or guidelines, and environmental aspects and impacts of Antarctic tourism. The paper concludes that increased supervision of tourism, through inspections or other means, is necessary


20

Tourism Policies

to match the scale of this activity. In addition, some aspects of tourism, particularly expansion, diversification and new site occupation, which are mutually interlinked, should be addressed in a proactive manner through legally binding regulation. Finally, identifying tourism impacts requires additional monitoring efforts that should be paid for by Parties, the industry, consumers, and/or some forms of partnership. If the ATCPs fail to address tourism within a reasonable time frame, the chances are that tourism will continue its dynamic trajectory and the Antarctic values the 1991 Protocol aims to protect will be placed in jeopardy.

IP 56 Progress on the Development of a Mandatory Polar Code

This information paper provides an update on progress towards the development of a mandatory Polar Code by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its relevance to Antarctic vessels. Specifically, it highlights areas where further work is required, identifies the next steps towards completion of the work and raises concerns about the possible minimal impact of a mandatory Code on Antarctic vessels. It recommends that ATPs demonstrate leadership at the IMO and ensure that the Code is applied to both new builds and existing vessels, requires polar class standards for all vessels likely to encounter ice, addresses fishing vessels and yachts as a matter of urgency and includes an Environmental Protection Chapter. ASOC submits that only when these concerns are addressed will the Code contribute to the future management of vessels and ensure that the highest safety and environmental standards are applied to vessels operating in Antarctic waters.

IP 57 Repair or Remediation of Environmental Damage

In 2010 the XXXIII ATCM requested the CEP “to consider environmental issues related to the practicality of repair or remediation of environmental damage in the circumstances of Antarctica, in order to assist the ATCM in adopting an informed decision in 2015 related to the resumption of the negotiations [on the liability regime]” (Decision 4, 2010, under (3)). Following this request, In 2011 Australia submitted XXXIV ATCM/WP28 identifying several suggested points for inclusion in the CEP’s response to the ATCM (Australia, 2011). This Information Paper reviews some of the key issues associated with the repair or remediation of environmental damage and comments on the various points suggested by Australia in WP28. ASOC agrees that the eight key points raised by Australia are relevant when formulating its response to Decision 4 (2010). Overall, there is a general understanding of what constitutes environmental damage in Antarctica; repairing and remediation of environmental damage should be carried out to the extent possible, while taking into consideration the adverse environmental effects that repair and remediation could have; and at a minimum, the assessment and monitoring of damage, suitable recording and reporting should be carried out.

IP 58 rev. 1

Earth Hour Antarctica (2013)

WWF’s Earth Hour is the world’s largest environmental initiative in which hundreds of millions of people, businesses and governments around the world turn out lights for one hour to take a stand against climate change and show that everyone has the power to change the world they live in. ASOC, Australia and the United Kingdom propose a coordinated continent–wide switch off of all non-essential lights at Antarctic research stations for Earth Hour on 30th March 2013, within all operational and safety constraints.

IP 59 Review of the Implementation of the Madrid Protocol: Inspections by Parties (Article 14)

This Information Paper reviews the practice of inspections undertaken by Parties carried out under Article 14 of the Madrid Protocol.

IP 85 Report of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition

ASOC’s Annual Report to the ATCM summarizing our priority issues and paper topics.

2012 XXXV ATCM report · 6 Fig. 1 – ASOC team at XXXV ATCM week 1: Left to right Lyn Goldsworthy (ATCM Rapporteur, not on ASOC delegation), Steve Campbell, Tina Tin, Ricardo Roura,

Documents