Environmentlnternational, Vol. 13, pp. 3-7, 1987 0160-4120/87 $3.00 + .00 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.

THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ANTARCTIC RESEARCH, THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AND CONSERVATION IN ANTARCTICA

James H. Zumberge office of the President University of Southern California Los Angeles, California 90089-0012, USA

(Received 5 March 1986; Accepted 20 August 1986)

A Symposium on Scientific Requirements for Antarctic Conservation was jointly sponsored by the Inter- national Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Scientific Com- mittee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), and was held in Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany in April 1985. IUCN and SCAR are different in scope of mission, criteria for membership, and financial resources in support of their activities. The two organizations find a common ground in conservation in the Antarc- tic, SCAR and the Antarctic Treaty came into being as a result of the 1957-1958 International Geophysi- cal Year, and although the Consultative Parties of the Treaty and SCAR have no formal relationship, SCAR has responded to frequent requests from the Treaty nations for scientific information and advice related to the formulation of policy. Among these requests are those related to living resources of the Southern Ocean and the environmental effects of mineral resource exploration and exploitation. SCAR also recommended the adoption of principles for Antarctic conservation and the establishment of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Specially Protected Areas. In most cases these recommendations have been implimented by the Consultative Parties. The role of the Consultative Parties was debated in the United Nations General Assembly where some members of the Third World Nations challenged the exclusivity of the Treaty Nations in the governance of Antarctica. They proposed instead that Antarctic affairs should be regulated under a UN trusteeship because Antarctica is "the common heritage of all mankind." To ex- plore this controversy in all its ramifications, an informal workshop was held in a remote site in Antarc- tica in January 1985. Participants included scientists, diplomats, international lawyers, environmental advocates, conservationists, and representatives from industry and the United Nations. The views of both the Consultative Parties and the Third World Nations were presented and informally debated at length. The conservation of Antarctic resources and the protection of the environment were two themes on which all agreed. The differences related to the manner in which conservation of resources and environmental protection should be carried out and under what authority.

This issue o f Environment International is devo ted to the top ic o f Scient i f ic Requ i r emen t s for A n t a r c t i c Con- servat ion. It is based on a s y m p o s i u m held in Apr i l , 1985 in Bonn , F e d e r a l Repub l i c o f G e r m a n y and s p o n s o r e d j o i n t l y by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i o n for C o n s e r v a t i o n o f N a t u r e a n d N a t u r a l Resources ( I U C N ) and the Scien- t i f ic C o m m i t t e e for A n t a r c t i c Resea rch ( S C A R ) o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Counc i l o f Scient i f ic U n i o n ( I C S U ) .

The c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f I U C N and S C A R in sponso r ing this S y m p o s i u m represents the first f o r m a l e f fo r t o f these two o rgan i za t i ons to focus on a sub jec t o f com- m o n interes t . The in i t ia t ive was t a k e n by I U C N when, in 1983, it invi ted S C A R to j o i n in sponso r ing a n d orga- nizing a S y m p o s i u m on Scientif ic Requi rements for An t - arc t ic C o n s e r v a t i o n . S C A R d id no t r e s p o n d pos i t ive ly at f i rs t because it had never be fo re engaged in j o i n t

s p o n s o r s h i p wi th an o r g a n i z a t i o n ou t s ide o f the ICSU fami ly , bu t I U C N preva i l ed wi th s o u n d reasons why the t e am o f S C A R and I U C N m a d e g o o d sense in this en- deavour .

These two o rgan iza t ions are, however , qui te d i f fe ren t in the scope o f their miss ions and cr i te r ia for m e m b e r - ship. I U C N is a g lobal o rgan iza t ion with some 500 mem- bers f rom 114 countr ies . These m e m b e r s inc lude s tate government s , g o v e r n m e n t agencies, and non-gove rn - men ta l o rgan iza t ions . In con t ras t , S C A R is an orga- n iza t ion focused exclusively on the lands and seas tha t are ma in ly sou th o f the 60th para l l e l in the Sou the rn Hemisphe re . S C A R is bu t one o f m a n y commi t t ees or- gan ized under the pa ren t b o d y , ICSU, and has only e ighteen na t i ona l m e m b e r s and seven representa t ives f rom o the r bod ies adhe r ing to ICSU.

4 James H. Zumberge

The budget for IUCN is of the order of $3.3 million, of which only 20o70 is derived from members, with the balance coming from governmental grants, foundations, and the United Nations. SCAR's budget is of the order of $125,000, all of which is derived from members' dues, with occasional small subventions from ICSU for specials projects.

IUCN has a permanent secretariat housed in Gland, Switzerland. SCAR has a part-time executive secretary housed in one room of the Scott Polar Institute in Cam- bridge, England.

It was not the differences between IUCN and SCAR that brought us together in Bonn; it was our mutual in- terest in scientific information as a basis for establishing sound policies for Antarctic conservation that drew us together. In this respect, I was impressed by the contents of the small booklet published by IUCN for the United Nations Political Affairs Division for the UN General Assembly's discussion of Antarctica in 1984 (IUCN 1984). This booklet takes a measured approach to con- servation in Antarctica. IUCN is realistic in its approach, yet firm in adherence to its own philosophy articulated in the World Conservation Strategy of 1980. In that statement, the linkage of development and conservation is apparent in the definition of conservation as "the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations." That definition of conservation is rational, practical, and workable as a guiding principle to all who are serious about establishing conservation policies and practices in Antarctica.

Because SCAR is so small, and its activities so little known in the world at large, I will devote some of my re- maining remarks to SCAR and its relationship to the Antarctic Treaty Nations. The balance of my presenta- tion will contain observations about the interests of the United Nations in Antarctic affairs.

SCAR's mission is to initiate, promote, and coordinate scientific activity in the Antarctic. Its membership is open only to countries actively engaged in Antarctic research. For many years, this requirement for member- ship carried the implication that a premanent land-based research facility had to be occupied the year-round, but this is no longer necessarily the case. Any nation that maintains an ongoing scientific programme in Antarc- tica, on land or at sea, qualifies for membership.

The increased interest in Antarctic research over the past decade is reflected in the growth of SCAR. From an original twelve national members (Argentina, Aus- tralia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, USSR, and USA), SCAR expanded its membership to seventeen with the addition of Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany, in 1978, the German Democratic Republic in 1981, and Brazil and India in 1984. The Peoples Republic

of China and was voted to membership at the bienniel SCAR meeting in San Diego, California in June, 1986, bringing the total membership to eighteen.

At the same meeting, SCAR established a new class of membership for those who have a sincere interest in conducting research in Antarctica but lack either the scientific personnel or the financial and other resources to mount an ongoing programme. Countries applying for membership in this category might fulfill their re- search commitments by collaborating with other groups who already have established research programmes. (Multinational research programmes in Antarctica have been commonplace for many years.)

The relationship between the Antarctic Treaty and SCAR deserves comment. There is no formal relation- ship between the sixteen Consultative Parties of the Treaty Nations and SCAR. Membership in one group does not automatically assure membership in the other. The origins of both SCAR and the Treaty can be traced to the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958. SCAR arose from a desire of the twelve nations active in Antarctic research during the IGY to provide a mecha- nism whereby the extraordinary cooperation and col- laboration of the IGY participants could be continued beyond the IGY. Under the auspices of ICSU, a Special Committee on Antarctic Research was established in 1957 in Stockholm, and held its first formal meeting in 1958 in the Hague. In 1960, SCAR substituted "scien- tific" for "special" and became the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.

The Antarctic Treaty was also a child of the IGY. It is the first treaty ever established to protect a scientific programme. The final draft was signed in December 1959, and ratification by the twelve founding govern- ments was finalized on June 23, 1961. There are a number of unique elements in the Treaty. In addition to assuring the continuation of cooperative research and the protection of the Antarctic environment, the Treaty requires the setting aside of all claims to sovereignty, prohibits nuclear testing, allows for unilateral inspec- tion, and demilitarizes the entire treaty area.

To say that SCAR and the Treaty are separate and in- dependent of each other does not imply that there is no interaction between the two. While SCAR is not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty document, the minutes of the first Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Canberra in 1961 contain several references to SCAR. One of these (Recommendation I-IV) is worth quoting because it establishes the relationship of the two bodies from that time to the present day. " ( 1 ) . . . the free exchange of information and views among scientists participating in SCAR, and the recommendations concerning scien- tific programmes and cooperation formulated by this body constitute a most valuable contribution to interna- tional scientific cooperation in Antarctica; [and] ( 2 ) . . . since these activities of SCAR constitute the kind of ac- tivity contemplated in Article III of the Treaty, SCAR

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 5

should be encouraged to continue this advisory work which has so effectively facilitated international coop- eration in scientific investigation."

The matters on which SCAR has been asked by the Consultative Parties for advice have ranged from logis- tics and telecommunications to living resources of the Southern Ocean and environmental effects of mineral resource exploration and exploitation. In addition, the Treaty Consultative Parties adopted a series of agreed measures on Antarctic conservation based on SCAR recommendations and, also on the advice of SCAR, set aside certain parts of Antarctica as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and designated other areas as Specially Protected Areas (SPA).

Currently there are seventeen Specially Protected Areas and eight Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The SPAs by definition are virtually isolated from all human activities and therefore closed to any scientific investiga- tions. The SSSIs, however, are open to scientific in- vestigators and include sites of non-biological interest as well as those of biological importance.

The full descriptions of Sites of Special Scientific In- terest and Specially Protected Areas are contained in the first edition of Conservation Areas in the Antarctic (Bonner and Lewis, 1985). In the foreword to this book, Dr. Richard M. Laws, Chairman of the SCAR Working Group on Biology and Director of the British Antarctic Survey, states that the conservation objectives of SCAR " . . . are the protection of the environment and biota of the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic by the establishment of areas representatives of undistributed ecosystems, and the formulation of management plans for these areas."

At the eighteenth meeting of SCAR in Bremerhaven in 1984, SCAR identified four new SPAs and fourteen new SSSIs within the Treaty area for adoption by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. SCAR and the Consultative Parties have been active in Antarctic con- servation ever since the Treaty came into force and will continue to exert a strong influence on the preservation of specific parts of the environment through existing and new SPAs, and providing other areas for scientific research while, at the same time, protecting them from other, non-scientific intrusion by man.

Summarizing the relationship of SCAR and the Ant- arctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCP), it can be said that they serve separate but mutually beneficial roles in the international affairs of Antarctica. The suc- cess of this relationship is based on understandings be- tween the two bodies that are as valid today as they were twenty-five years ago. The Consultative Parties derive their authority from the Antarctic Treaty. The authority of SCAR is not based on the authority of the SCAR Constitution, but rather on the experience and scientific reputations of the men and women who represent the in- ternational scientific community as SCAR Delegates or members of SCAR Working Groups. Collectively, these experts constitute the greatest concentration of talent

engaged in Antarctic science and associated technology ever assembled.

Over the years, SCAR and the Consultative Parties have forged a strong and productive working relation- ship that remains to this day. No small reason for the success of this partnership has been SCAR's determina- tion to maintain a rigid distinction between science and politics. Even though the line between the two is more finely drawn today than formerly, SCAR continues to avoid an advocacy role in matters and policies that, while they may relate to scientific activities, are the business of those who administer the affairs of the Ant- arctic Treaty. An exception to this general SCAR policy of a non-advocacy role, is in the establishment of SSSIs and SPAs. SCAR has clearly taken the lead in defining these conservation areas, and the Treaty Nations have endorsed and validated them under the authority con- tained in the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, formulated in 1964 and sub- sequently ratified by all the Consultative Parties.

The most recent indication of SCAR's concern for Antarctic conservation is its response to the XII meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties in 1983 re- garding the environmental impact of scientific activities (Benninghoff and Bonnet, 1985). This is a document that could serve as a basis for establishing a more formal conservation policy for Antarctica, not only for scientific activities but also for those that are non-scientific such as tourism and resource development. SCAR continues to play an important role in the protection of the Ant- arctic environment.

The last few years have seen a significant increase in interest in Antarctica. This interest is measured not only in the increased membership in SCAR and the increase in signatories to the Antarctic T r e a t y - sixteen of whom are Consultative Parties and sixteen who are non-Consul- tative Par t i e s -bu t also the entrance of the United Nations on the Antarctic scene. And without question, the joint IUCN/SCAR Symposium itself was an addi- tional clear reflection of an awakening concern for the future of this magnificent part of the Planet Earth.

The "Question of Antarctic" was debated in the 39th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1984. Written testimony by many organizations, in- cluding IUCN and SCAR, contributed to the United Nations report on the Question of Antarctica (UN, 1984). The intensified interest in Antarctica manifested in the United Nations study was stimulated in part by the Third World Nations. These countries, led by Ma- laysia, were concerned that the future of Antarctica might be in jeopardy if it remained under control of the Consultative Parties, especially if these nations did not recognise the role of the Thrid World in the affairs of Antarctica.

The Third World countries argue from the position that since no sovereignty is exercised in Antarctica, it should be regarded as part of the heritage of all man-

6 James H. Zumberge

kind, much in the way that the world community re- gards the open sea in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The resource potential of Antarctica undoubtedly had much to do with this point of view. As an example of this attitude, I quote the views of the government of Bangladesh: "In view of the absence of indigenous population in Antarctica and the prospects of tremendous mineral and fossil (fuel) resources in the area, a global regime for Antarctica should be established on the principle of the common heritage of mankind" (UN, 1984). This statement more or less echoes the views of most, but not all, of the Third World nations.

The Consultative Parties, on the other hand, stress their role as stewards of Antarctica and cite the many actions taken by the Treaty Nations since 1961 to main- tain the Antarctic as an arena of peaceful activities, pro- tect its unique environment, and plan for the orderly development of both living and non-living resources through such additional concords as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, and the Agreed Measures for the Con- servation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. They also point to their efforts to establish an Antarctic minerals regime which, in addition to dealing with the interests of clai- mant and non-claimant states, would also assure orderly resource development and commensurate protection of the environment.

It is not my role here to evaluate the pros and cons of these divergent views on the future of Antarctic policy. Whether the Treaty will remain in force after 1991 when its effectiveness will be evaluated by the Consultative Parties, or whether the Treaty will collapse and leave Antarctica under a United Nations Trusteeship, is a question that will be decided in the fullness of time. But to begin the dialogue between those who favour the con- tinuation of the Antarctic Treaty, with perhaps an ex- panded role for the Non-Consultative parties, and those who favour a UN-based governance system for Antarc- tica, a Workshop on the Antarctic Treaty System was held in Jaunary, 1985 (National Academy of Sciences, 1986). The site for the Workshop was a temporary field camp in the heart of the Transantarctic Mountains near the head of the great Beardmore Glacier, some 400 miles (640 KM) from the geographic South Pole. The Work- shop was sponsored by the Polar Research Board of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

For four days, fifty-seven participants from twenty- four nations discussed many diverse aspects of the future of Antarctica. Among the participants were represen- tatives from the Treaty Nations, acceding nations, Third World countries, industry, environmental and conservation groups, and the United Nations. In addi- tion to several persons presenting papers at this Sym- posium, both the Director-General of IUCN, Dr. Ken- ton Miller, and the President of SCAR, Dr. James H. Zumberge, were in attendance.

The purpose of the Workshop was to provide a forum for all points of view, and to give those who had never been to Antarctica a firsthand experience of the geog- raphy, climate, and living conditions on a typical inland site high on the polar ice sheet. The value of the Beard- more Workshop may not be known for several years, but I believe that progress was made there in removing ignorance and misinformation from the basis for future decisions regarding Antarctica.

The Symposium addressed the scientific requirements for Antarctic conservation. Both SCAR and IUCN have a serious interest in this topic, and 1 am pleased that the two organisations were co-sponsors. A number of scien- tific studies on both terrestrial and marine living orga- nisms have already been accomplished in Antarctica. Notably among these is the broad scope of biological questions addressed under the auspices of the SCAR- sponsored BIOMASS, the acronym for Biological In- vestigation of Marine Antarctic Systems and Stocks. This massive undertaking is a multinational effort designed to provide a fundamental understanding of the intrrelationships of the marine creatures that inhabit the highly productive waters of the Southern Ocean.

As for conservation in Antarctica, I have never heard it said by any man or woman who has visited the lands or sailed the waters south of sixty degrees south latitude that the conservation of these areas is something that should be taken lightly or ignored. For those of trs who have spent the better part of our careers working on An- tarctic projects, we welcome allies who care enough about our planet to exert a strong influence in the con- servation of this remarkable continent and the waters surrounding it. If the papers and discussions included in this issue advance the cause of conservation in Antarc- tica, our time was well spent.

As Chairman of the Symposium, I wish to express my thanks to Martin Angel and Nigel Bonner for their orga- nizational skills in getting so many distinguished scien- tists to participate in this historic event. I want to extend the thanks of all of us to the Federal Republic of Ger- many for its generous support of these meetings, and Pro- fessor Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt, President of Deutscher Naturschutzring, and Herr Helmutt Roscheisen, for their exemplary efforts in making the local arrangements. Those of us who arrive just in time for the opening ses- sion of an international symposium and find all arrange- ments in order sometimes fail to remember the extended efforts and hard work of those who designed the pro- gramme, invited the speakers, provided funding, and handled local arrangements. To each of these indivi- duals and their efficient staffs, we offer our heartfelt thanks and appreciation.

References

Benninghoff, W. S. and Bonner, W. N. (1985) Man's impact on the Antarctic environment: A procedure for evaluating impacts from

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 7

scientific and logistic activities. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Cambridge, UK.

Bonner, W. N. and Lewis, R., ed (1985) Conservation Areas in the Antarctic. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Cam- bridge, UK.

IUCN (1984a) Conservation of Antarctic Ecosystems. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN (1984b) Partnership for Conservation. International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzer- land.

National Academy of Sciences (1986) Antarctic Treaty System: An assessment. Committee on Polar Research, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

UN (1984) Report on Antarctica, Views of States, V; I. A Study re- quested under General Assembly Resolution 38/77, 29 October 1984. United Nations, New York, N.Y.