Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:44:42.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental impact assessment in Antarctica under the Protocol on Environmental Protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

David Lyons
David Lyons
Affiliation:
Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The background to the development and implementation of environmental impact assessment procedures in Antarctica is reviewed and the principles and procedures of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol of 1991) are outlined. The difficulties in determining the appropriate level of assessment and the practical, operational aspects of carrying out the evaluations are examined. Particular attention is given to the meaning of terminology in the Protocol, the interpretation of environmental principles and standards, alternatives to the proposed activity, the requirements for sufficient information, the process of obtaining and taking into account public comment, the monitoring of environmental indicators, and the practical implications where an activity needs to be suspended, cancelled, or modified. The workloads generated by the procedures and the credibility of the processes are discussed in view of a possible perception that the exercises may amount to little more than ‘red tape’ to justify decisions that would be taken in any case. Recommendations are made that could improve the EIA process in Antarctica.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 29 , Issue 169 , April 1993 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ATCPs. 1975. Report of the Eighth Consultative Meeting, Oslo, 9–20 June 1975. Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1984. Report of the Twelfth Consultative Meeting, Canberra, 13–27 September 1983. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1987. Final Report of the Fourteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Rio de Janeiro, 5–16 October 1987. Rio de Janeiro: Federative Republic of Brazil, Ministry of External Relations.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1988. Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities - Final Report of the IVth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources. Wellington.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1992a. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty - Final Report of the Eleventh Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting, Madrid, 22–30 April 1991; 17–22 June 1991; 3–4 October 1991. Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores.Google Scholar
ATCPs. 1992b. Final Report of the Sixteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Bonn, 7–18 October 1991. Bonn: Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
Australian Antarctic Division. 1991a. Implementation of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division (Administrative Circular 173, 25 November 1991).Google Scholar
Australian Antarctic Division. 1991b. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division (Administration Instruction 34, 31 December 1991).Google Scholar
Australian Antarctic Division. 1992. Environmental impact assessment process — preliminary assessments and guidelines for preparation of initial and comprehensive environmental evaluations. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division (Working Paper).Google Scholar
Beeby, C. 1990. The Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities and its future. In: Herr, R.A., Hall, H.R., and Haward, M.G. (editors). Antarctica's future: continuity or change? Hobart: Australian Institute of International Affairs: 47–60.Google Scholar
Benninghoff, W.S., and Bonner, W.N.. 1985. Man's impact on the Antarctic environment: a procedure for evaluating impacts from scientific and logistic activities. Cambridge: SCAR.Google Scholar
Bureau of Industry Economics. 1990. Environmental assessment: impact on major projects: research report 35. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Comnap. 1992a. The Antarctic environmental assessment process: practical guidelines. Washington, DC: COMNAP.Google Scholar
COMNAP. 1992b. Report to the XVII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Venice, November 1992. Washington, DC: COMNAP.Google Scholar
Drewry, D.J. 1992. Director's introduction. In: BAS annualreport 1991–1992. Cambridge: British Antarctic Survey.Google Scholar
Green, C. 1991. Initial environmental evaluation of the reintroduction of hydroponics into ANARE stations. Unpublished honours thesis. University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
Greenpeace International. 1991. Initial environmental evaluation: removal of World Park Base, Cape Evans, Ross Island, Antarctica. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.Google Scholar
Hawke, R.J.L. 1990. Australia's policy in Antarctica. In: Herr, R.A., Hall, H.R., and Haward, M.G. (editors). Antarctica's future: continuity or change? Hobart: Australian Institute of International Affairs: 17–20.Google Scholar
Heap, J. (editor). 1990. Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System. Seventh edition. Cambridge: Polar Publications.Google Scholar
Knoblock, K.R. 1990. Statement of American Mining Congress on the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, testimony to the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 14 March 1990. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Parker, B.C., McWhinnie, M.A., Elliott, D., Reed, S., and Rutland, R.H.. 1978a. Ross Ice Shelf Project Environmental Impact Statement, July 1974. In: Parker, B.C., and Holliman, M.C. (editors). Environmental impact in Antarctica. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: 7–36.Google Scholar
Parker, B.C., Mudrey, M.G., Cartwright, K., and McGinnis, L.D.. 1978b. Environmental appraisal for the Dry Valley Drilling Project, phases III, IV, V (1973–74, 1974–75,1975–76). In: Parter, B.C., and Holliman, M.C. (editors). Environmental impact in Antarctica. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: 37–143.Google Scholar
SCAR. 1973. SCAR Bulletin No 43 - XIIth Meeting of SCAR. Polar Record 16 (103): 621–655.Google Scholar
Scully, R.T. 1991. The Eleventh Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting, International Challenges 11 (1): 77–99.Google Scholar
Shears, J. 1991. Knowledge and information needs. Working paper for the COMNAP Antarctic EIA Workshop, Bologna, Italy, June 1991.Google Scholar
Shevlin, J. 1991. Devisingaworkableassessmentscheme. ANARENews 68:6–7.Google Scholar
Steverson, E.S. 1991. An initial environmental evaluation of the removal of Old Casey Station, Antarctica. Unpublished honours thesis. University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
Wathern, P. 1988. An introductory guide to EIA. In: Wathern, P. (editor). Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. London: Unwin Hyman: 3–30.Google Scholar