IP 136

Agenda Item: CEP 7(e) Presented by: ASOC Original: English

Implementing the Madrid Protocol: A case study of Fildes Peninsula, King George Island

1 IP 136

Implementing the Madrid Protocol: A case study of Fildes Peninsula, King George Island

Information Paper Submitted by ASOC1 to ATCM XXX

(CEP Agenda Item 7e)

1. Introduction

This Information Paper evaluates the implementation of the Protocol of Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Protocol) as illustrated at Fildes Peninsula, King George Island (KGI)2 in the . This is one of the most developed as well as most dynamic parts of . The case study is based on observations made at Fildes Peninsula during 1988-1997 and subsequently in 2006.3 It does not intend to be a comprehensive review of the implementation of the Madrid Protocol by individual stations at Fildes Peninsula, but rather an impression of how stations active in the area collectively implement the Protocol and the resulting environmental management needs. KGI and particularly Fildes Peninsula are amongst the most inspected sites in the Antarctic Treaty Area.4 In addition, Fildes Peninsula has been the subject of an ongoing debate over the establishment of an international management regime since 2004. Finally, scientists from several nations have been conducting research in the area since the 1970s and the island has a dedicated website.5 There is therefore ample information from official and academic sources about different aspects of Fildes Peninsula. Fildes Peninsula is in many regards unique, and currently has a greater concentration of international facilities than most other parts of Antarctica (except perhaps Ross Island and the Larsemann Hills). Fildes Peninsula is also the hub of emerging forms of air- and land-supported tourism. Because of its pattern of development and its diversity of concentrated human activities, Fildes Peninsula can be regarded as a microcosm of present human activities in the Antarctic, as well as a critical site for determining future environmental management approaches for the continent. Evaluating developments there is therefore important for the governance of the Antarctic region as a whole.

1 Lead author: R. Roura. 2 Note that the topographic name of “King George Island” is not unanimously used. Other names in use include Isla del Rey Jorge, Isla 25 de Mayo, and Waterloo Island. 3 Parts of this document have been published elsewhere, including Bastmeijer, K. & Roura, R. (In Press): ‘Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica’, in: Bastmeijer, K. & Koivurova, T. (eds.) Practising International Environmental Impact Assessment. Martinus Nijhof; and Roura R and Tin T (2004) Environmental Reports of Fildes Peninsula, 1988-1997: Benchmarks for Environmental Management. Washington DC: The Antarctica Project. 188pp. A presentation “Ground-truthing the implementation of the Madrid Protocol” was made by R. Roura on behalf of ASOC at the International Workshop of Antarctic Competent Authorities at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Berlin, 27 November 2006. 4 Nine official inspections took place at the four stations in Fildes Peninsula between 1975 and 2001, resulting in 35 facility inspections (ASOC and UNEP, 2003). Several inspections have taken place since. 5 http://www.kgis.scar.org

3 IP 136

2. Overview of Fildes Peninsula, KGI

King George Island, one of the South Shetland Islands, is an ice-covered island about 80km long and 30km wide. The Drake Passage and the surround the island to the north and south, respectively. The southern shore of KGI has two large bays – and Admiralty Bay – where most ice-free areas concentrate. Fildes Peninsula in the western part of KGI is one of the ice-free areas of Maxwell Bay. In 1966 Fildes Peninsula was designated as a Specially Protected Area (SPA) due to its “outstanding ecological interest”.6 The Soviet Union’s was subsequently built inside the intended SPA area, and was followed by the construction of Chilean, Chinese and Uruguayan stations. and Russia had been involved in the preparation of the SPA. Developments included a Chilean airstrip, a hotel, and a fuel tank complex used to service the Soviet fishing fleet. A network of roads developed between the bases and beyond, and as a result large tracts of the moss cover was damaged or destroyed. The SPA was reduced in size and it was eventually revoked in 1975 as pressures on the area increased. A two-part Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) was designated to protect geological features. As a result of these developments Fildes Peninsula became one of the most damaged and polluted parts of Antarctica, and one that the existing environmental measures at the time failed to protect.7 Consequently, the area has received particular attention of environmental groups. At present Fildes Peninsula in Maxwell Bay has a broad range of facilities of different types operated by various Chilean civilian and military institutions, some year round, some summer only; and year round bases from China, Uruguay and Russia. Facilities include field huts operated by Argentina, Chile, and Russia.8 A tour operator is based at Fildes Peninsula during the summer season and uses or hires facilities from several national programs.9 A non-government entity is also based at Fildes Peninsula.10 Land-based and fly-sail tourism operations are beginning to develop at Fildes Peninsula, partly with the support of some National Antarctic Programs. Some National Antarctic Programs that do not have facilities in Fildes Peninsula are nevertheless actively conducting scientific research there. By Antarctic standards this is an exceptionally high concentration of facilities and a diverse range of tourism infrastructure and activities.

3. Summary of observations 1988-1997

Between 1988 and 1997, the international environmental organization Greenpeace – a leading member of ASOC – visited Fildes Peninsula six times. These visits resulted in 21 separate reports on the environmental performance of the stations at Fildes Peninsula, plus observations made at nearby .11 The reports were based on observations by Greenpeace staff and informal interviews with the base commanders. An intensive effort took place in 1991, during which a four person scientific team was installed in a temporary field camp east of Bellingshausen Station for a month. This team carried out a study of the environmental impacts of the four bases on the peninsula.12 Two scientists (doubling as Russian and Spanish interpreters), a field person, and a Chinese interpreter composed the team. A review of this work was presented to the newly formed Fildes Peninsula Management Group in 2004.13

6 Auburn F (1982): Antarctic Law and Politics. London: Hurst. 7 The Agreed Measures, which at the time had not yet entered into force. 8 A Brazilian field hut located on the NE of Fildes Peninsula was removed in 2004. 9 http://www.aeroviasdap.cl, accessed November 2006. 10 http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/our_environment/antarctica.asp, accessed November 2006. 11 These reports were published by Greenpeace International in Amsterdam, and made available to the ATCMs. 12 Krzyszowska, Anna (1993): Human impact around polar stations on Fildes Peninsula (King George Island, Antarctica). XX Polar Symposium. Man impact on polar environment. Lublin, Poland, June 3-5 1993. 13 Tin and Roura (2004) op. cit.

4 IP 136

The observations made by Greenpeace at Fildes Peninsula began prior to the signature of the 1991 Protocol of Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Subsequently observations were made through a period during which the Protocol had not yet been ratified, but an agreement made by governments in 1991 at the th XVI ATCM in Bonn was in place to apply the provisions of the Protocol and its Annexes even though they were not yet in force. Between 1988 and 1997 Greenpeace reported an improvement on waste disposal procedures at most of the bases, and growing awareness on environmental issues by the base staff. However, changes in other aspects of the Protocol were slower to be implemented. For instance, during most of the visits it was difficult to find information about what national procedures were in place to implement the EIA requirements of the Protocol. Fuel storage and handling did not seem to improve through the years, and chronic fuel pollution was apparent at most stations. According to Greenpeace assessments, the main area affected by the activities around the stations covered 2 ca. 3.5km and totaled 12% of the surface area of Fildes Peninsula. Disturbances resulted from, among others, fuel contamination, landfills and waste disposal, mechanical disturbance, and activity around the stations.14

4. A snapshot of Protocol implementation in 2006

ASOC has been monitoring the implementation of the Madrid Protocol since its entry into force. Since 2004 ASOC followed closely developments in the establishment of a proposed protected area at Fildes Peninsula. In January-February 2006 ASOC participated as invited expert in the workshop “Possibilities for Environmental Management of the Fildes Peninsula and Ardley Island” organised by Germany at Russia’s Bellingshausen Station, with the participation of representatives and observers from a number of states and institutions. This visit enabled ASOC to observe and document changes that had taken place since the last Greenpeace visit in 1997. These observations should be regarded as a snapshot of Fildes Peninsula in early 2006. The observations are illustrative rather than comprehensive in that they do not cover every aspect of the implementation of the Protocol by every state operating in the area. However, the ASOC representative who conducted them had previous knowledge of the area, which served as background, and the observations were complemented with informal discussions with resident staff and scientists. The key aspects of the implementation of the Protocol and its Annexes are reported below. Protocol requirements for which ground observations provided no information are not reported here.

The Protocol

Environmental principles (Article 3) The overall impression is that some key Protocol requirements, such as basic waste management, are in compliance as a matter of routine, while other aspects receive less attention.

Cooperation (Article 6) At one level there is significant cooperation across all stations. This applies particularly to the sharing technical expertise or equipment, and search and rescue (as highlighted by the tragic incidents at nearby Argentine and Chilean stations during 2005-06). However, reportedly some transactions that formerly were done for free (or on quid pro quo bases) now involve payments in cash – for instance, air transport or accommodation.

14 For a listing of environmental impacts at Fildes Peninsula see e.g. Harris CM (1991): “Environmental effects of human activitieson King George Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica.” Polar Record 27: 193–204; and Peter HU, Busser C, Mustafa O and Pffeifer S (2005): Preliminary results of the research project “Risk assessment for the Fildes Peninsula and Ardley Island and the development of management plans for designation as Antarctic Specially Protected or Managed Areas”’. Institute of Ecology, University of Jena, Germany.

5 IP 136

Prohibition of mineral resource activities (Article 7) No mineral resource activities in the sense of the Protocol were conducted at Fildes Peninsula.15

Environmental impact assessment (Article 8) See below under Annex I.

Compliance with the Protocol (Article 13) It was possible to observe many positive signs of compliance with the Protocol around Fildes Peninsula. Waste dumps were not in use any longer and had been removed to a large extent. One of the stations kept an oil spill boom and used it as required. Crews were busy removing two old field huts, or parts thereof, and some other huts and buildings had been removed recently. Some badly rusted buildings and fuel tanks were being cleaned, and staff members were collecting in heavy-duty bags the rather large amounts of rust and paint they had removed. At an old dump, the remaining wood fragments had been organized into tidy piles. Reportedly the construction of a building proposed by a private entity had been delayed because national authorities had rejected the initial application, and had requested a new EIA. These observations are remarkable only in that it would have been unlikely that they could have been made ten years earlier, or before then. So, overall, there were some indications of processes in place, of actions being taken to implement the Protocol, and of a change of attitude among base staff. There were also a range of cases of poor compliance with Protocol requirements e.g. with regard to the feeding of wildlife, and the somewhat lax application of the “minor and transitory” concept in the processing of EIAs, further discussed below.

Emergency response action (Article 15) There was an oil spill boom deployed on the beach at one of the stations. Reportedly this had been used during the early part of that summer to respond to oil seeping from creek that separates two stations. This had apparently resulted from a winter spill that drained to the sea during the summer thaw. The fuel was contained temporarily but it is uncertain whether or not it was subsequently cleaned.

Signature, ratification and entry into force (Articles 21 to 23) All Parties that operate bases or field huts at KGI have met all legal requirements with regards to the signature, ratification and entry into force of the Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol.

Environmental impact assessment (Annex I)16 Overall, there was limited field evidence that could be used to judge whether or not EIA processes were being implemented. An assessment of compliance with EIA requirements was done by collecting on-site information about recent or current activities, and relating that information to EIA records in order to establish whether or not the activities had been subject to an EIA, and whether or not the level of evaluation had been appropriate. For practical reasons, an emphasis was placed on infrastructure projects and tourism activities rather than on scientific projects.17 In most cases the EIAs themselves were not reviewed. Most recent or current infrastructure or tourism activities in Fildes Peninsula had been the subject of EIAs at the Preliminary Assessment (PA) or Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) level. These EIAs had been conducted by the Parties operating at Fildes Peninsula as well as by two other states that do not have permanent facilities there.

15 While certainly not a “mineral resource activity” in the sense of the Protocol, there has been large-scale quarrying in some locations of Fildes Peninsula to supply material for the expansion of the airstrip. 16 The application of EIA at Fildes Peninsula is discussed in detail in Bastmeijer and Roura (in press). 17 Whilst there is a considerable level of activity at Fildes Peninsula not directly related to science, all countries operating there conduct science activities in varying degrees, and all have produced EIAs for some of these activities. These EIAs have not been considered here.

6 IP 136

The building or upgrading of infrastructure had been the subject of IEEs, and the tourism activities had been the subject of PAs. This suggests that the EIA processes for those Parties function, at least in their formal aspects. However, in almost all instances the interpretation of the level of EIA required had been pushed downwards. For instance, the base constructed in 1996, the church constructed in 2004, and the airstrip expansion had been processed as IEEs (and therefore each assessed as having 'no more than a minor or transitory impact') despite consisting of permanent infrastructure that in some instances resulted in lasting environmental damage. In addition, several of the infrastructure projects had been carried out over the past ten years on the edges of the existing settlements, which resulted in an expansion of the built up area. Since all of these projects had been subject of separate EIAs it can be argued that the cumulative effect of the construction and operation of infrastructure had not been taken into consideration in the EIA process.

Preliminary stage (Article 1) PAs were prepared for some of the tourism activities that took place at Fildes Peninsula in the 2005-06 summer, including a marathon and a fly-sail private expedition to Peter the First Island.

Initial Environmental Evaluation (Article 2) IEEs were prepared for a series of projects including the construction of a new base (albeit in 1996, prior to the entry into force of the Protocol); the removal of a field hut; the expansion of the airstrip; and a range of new or replacement buildings including a laboratory, a church, and a “container hotel”. In several cases the IEE covered not only the construction phase of a new facility, but also its long-term operation. The tourism expedition to Peter the First Island, which had been the subject of a PA processed by an ATCP active at , was also subject of an IEE processed by a different ATCP. It is not only curious that separate EIAs were apparently prepared for the same activity and processed in two different countries, but that the level of EIA required differed in each case.

Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (Article 3) There have been no CEEs for activities conducted at Fildes Peninsula. However, one of the states operating in Fildes Peninsula has submitted a CEE for the scientific drilling elsewhere in Antarctica. Our understanding is that a CEE will be submitted for the construction of a new station in inland Antarctica by another ATCP active in Fildes Peninsula. As noted above, some of the projects that have been the subject of IEEs have arguably had a “more than minor or transitory” impact and would have therefore warranted a CEE. It appears that the impact threshold above which an IEE is no longer sufficient and a CEE is necessary has been in practice raised significantly. This sets a negative precedent for Antarctic operations.

Monitoring (Article 5) Monitoring programs seem to be in place at some of the stations.

Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora (Annex II)

Protection of native fauna and flora (Article 3) Fildes Peninsula is rich in fauna and flora, and contains a number of particularly sensitive areas.18 There are a number of birds – including two species of skuas, Antarctic terns, and Wilson’s storm petrels – that nest close to existing facilities. As a result there are frequent interactions of these birds with people. Roads often run across areas where nests of various seabirds occur. Some roads pass close to breeding territories, in which case Antarctic terns or skuas sometimes swoop on people even if they are walking on the roads. It is logical to conclude that walking or driving within built up or impacted area does not necessarily imply that birds or other wildlife are not disturbed.

18 See for instance http://www.uni-jena.de/Publications-page-10445-lang-en.html.

7 IP 136

It is not uncommon to see skuas waiting around some of the buildings, presumably on the expectation of birds being fed (although feeding itself was not observed at Fildes Peninsula). Recreational fishing takes place at Fildes Peninsula. For instance, there were several fishing rods stored by an outcrop in a beach nearby a station. The target fish is Nothotenia sp.

Introduction of non-native species, parasites and diseases (Article 4) Domestic plants are kept at some stations.19 By the roadside close to the access to one of the stations there were three clumps of introduced flowering plants, each about 15cm in diameter, which had been found by German scientists. These plants – some sort of grass – were flowering. However, the plants were subsequently removed.

Waste disposal and waste management (Annex III)

General obligations (Article 1) There has been a general shift from dumping waste towards the development of waste management plans. Waste management involves primarily incineration and removal.

Waste disposal by removal from the Antarctic Treaty Area (Article 2) It would appear that for some programs waste has to be stored for a certain period of time – which may sometimes be more than one summer – while waiting to be removed from the Antarctic (see below under Storage of waste).

Waste disposal by incineration (Article 3) Most stations at Fildes Peninsula use incinerators for burnable waste. We could not assess what was being burnt or the quality of burning. Recreational bonfire rings were found at one of the beaches.

Other waste disposal on land (Article 4) Most of the old dumps around Fildes Peninsula have been cleaned up and are no longer used. In particular, a major clean up took place in 2001, which was carried out by a private entity working joinlty with a National Antarctic Program crew. The clean up removed large amounts of waste from one of the year round stations, and smaller amounts from the other stations. In total 1300 tonnes of waste were removed, most of which was scrap metal. Some of it has been simply dug out, with no remediation measures to follow. Our estimate would be that a high percentage of the old waste has been removed (maybe 95%) while the material that is small in size or too difficult to remove has been left behind, whether on the ground surface or partly cropping out from the ground. This included, for instance, tins, bottles, wires, steel rods, or the remains of 200 litre drums. The aesthetic effect of removing the bulk of the dumps was nevertheless significant. German scientists have documented considerable amounts of waste lying around Fildes Peninsula – some embedded on the ground, some windblown, and some transported by sea. However, it is possible to walk around parts of Fildes Peninsula without seeing any waste.

Disposal of waste in the sea (Article 5) There is sewage treatment at most of the stations. Sewage is disposed of at sea. Spanish marine biologists diving at Maxwell Bay off the international base complex during 2006-07 reported that the seabed was covered in organic matter and that the biodiversity was low. (See also Prevention of Marine Pollution (Annex IV)). There is some jetsam on the Fildes Peninsula beaches, but by and large this does not appear to come from local land based operations.

Storage of waste (Article 6)

19 A similar observation was reported in: United States, United States Report of Inspections, XXX ATCM, IP010.

8 IP 136

Waste is stored away indoors in various places until it incinerated or removed from Antarctica. For instance, reportedly further down the coast, at largely unused fuel farm, at least one old fuel tank had been cut open and turned into a waste storage depot.20

Prohibited products (Article 7) Inside one building a number of large blocks of polystyrene packing were seen lying around.21

Article 8: Waste management planning It is likely that all stations in the area have waste management planning, although we were able to see clear evidence of waste management planning at two stations.

Prevention of Marine Pollution (Annex IV) A large slick on Fildes Bay that had originated at the sewage outfall was seen floating across the bay early in February 2006. The composition of the slick could only be speculated – it may have been an oily or fatty substance. It rapidly crossed the bay to the beach opposite to the outfall location, about half a kilometre away. While it was not deployed at this time, as noted elsewhere, one of the stations keeps an oil boom.

Area protection and management (Annex V)

Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (Article 3) ASPA 125 in Fildes Peninsula, which has this status because of fossil occurrences, is divided into two large square zones. Scientists working in the area have reported that the boundaries of these zones do not reflect accurately the occurrence of fossils that they intend to protect – some areas inside the ASPA have no fossils, while other fossil-rich areas are located outside the boundaries. At any event, the boundaries of these zones are difficult to find on the terrain. German scientists report that the ASPA 150 at Ardley Island– a no fly area – is quite regularly flown over by helicopters and planes.22 Unusually, this ASPA has currently a zone reserved for tourism use along the beach on its northern coast and the access road. Visitors reportedly respect the boundaries of this zone.

Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (Article 4) There is none at Maxwell Bay so far, although discussions are underway about the establishment of one at Fildes Peninsula and surrounding areas.

Permits (Article 7) Reportedly the authorities of states active in the island issue permits to access ASPAs.

Historic Sites and Monuments (Article 8) There are two designated Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs) in Fildes Peninsula – HSM 50 and 52 – plus a replica of HSM 53, which is located in Elephant Island.23 There are also other cultural remains.

Other observations

Fuel handling and storage None of the stations appear to have a state of the art fuel storage system, including secondary containment,24 even though the external condition of most fuel tanks appeared to be better than in the past. At two stations maintenance works were underway at rusty fuel tanks.

20 A similar observation was reported in XXX ATCM, IP010, op. cit. 21 A similar observation was reported in XXX ATCM, IP010, op. cit. 22 Peter et al (2005), op. cit. 23 A new Historic Site and Monument has been proposed. Chile, Monument to the Antarctic Treaty, XXX ATCM, WP041.

9 IP 136

Chronic spillage was observable in some locations. An oil spill near the airstrip that drained into a stream and down a valley near the airstrip well over a decade ago was still detectable in some places several hundred meters downstream.

Roads There are roads or vehicle tracks in many parts of on Fildes Peninsula. Reportedly old roads resurface as old snow fields melt. Some roads are well defined and used regularly, other roads are well-travelled but no longer used, and others are random tracks that have perhaps been used only once and have left a long-lasting impression on the ground. The main roads join the four stations of Fildes Peninsula and the approaches to a hut on the Drake Passage.

Infrastructure expansion Infrastructure projects at Fildes Peninsula since the signature of the Protocol include a base built in 1996 adjacent to the existing facilities of the same ATCP (but run by different governmental institutions); a laboratory built in 1999; and a church built in 2004. More recently, the airstrip has been upgraded with a staging area that will enable a greater throughput of aircraft. The expansion of the airstrip is essentially a 2 parking area – a square surface of graded gravel about 10,000 m in surface area, which is adjacent to the airstrip. This will allow removing the planes that land at Fildes Peninsula from the airstrip itself so that other planes can take off or land. In turn, this would allow increasing the flow of planes to and from Fildes Peninsula. Infrastructure used for tourism purposes at Fildes Peninsula includes a hotel adjacent to the airstrip, a 'container hotel', and accommodation provided at one of the research stations.25 The airstrip is used to land passengers. The new church functions primarily as such but – being a beautiful building – it has become an instant tourist attraction. In February 2006 new buildings were being completed at two of the stations, while there was significant maintenance work underway at a third station. An “Education Base Camp” has been built adjacent to one of the research stations.26

Tourism The tourism activities at Fildes Peninsula witnessed during January-February 2006 included a number of brief landings – largely focused in visiting the new church; a marathon (which also was run at Hope Bay and Deception Island); and a private expedition to Peter the First Island that arrived to KGI by plane and departed from there by ship. Once at Peter the First Island it set up a substantive helicopter-assisted camp. The expansion of the airstrip, coupled with existing tourist uses, has clearly potential implications for tourism developments in the area.

5. Conclusions

The Fildes Peninsula area has been severely impacted by human activities. To date, the implementation of the Protocol has resulted in progress on a range of issues including solid waste management, the removal of buildings and huts that were no longer needed, and – to the degree that it appeared to be non-existent before – EIA. These improvements have largely focused on matters that are within the direct control of individual states. However, progress is still needed in matters that require international cooperation such as infrastructure expansion, tourism, and overall cumulative impacts. This suggests that there is a role to play for greater international environmental management of Fildes Peninsula. The international environmental management of Fildes Peninsula – for instance, through an ASMA - would be a natural consequence of the Parties’ commitment to the principles and objectives of the Protocol, and

24 A similar observation was made reported in XXX ATCM, IP010, op. cit. 25 XXVIII ATCM, IP056. 26 http://www.2041.com/IAE5/index.html, accessed April 2007. The EBASE was opened on 24 February 2007.

10 IP 136 growing experience in its implementation at both the national and international levels. This includes the application of the ASMA instrument at several key Antarctic locations. A coordinated approach to managing activities at Fildes Peninsula would be important to rationalize scientific activities,27 protect remaining sensitive features, and to streamline further developments. Land based and fly sail tourism operations have already established a “beachhead” there, so an international environmental regime may be one of the ways in which the international community can manage these developments. The experience of Fildes Peninsula provides valuable lessons that are applicable elsewhere in the Antarctic both in the type and level of human activity that is optimal for a certain area, and its subsequent management. ASOC contends that Antarctic areas with a high concentration of facilities should be internationally managed as a matter of routine, using the area protection and management tools available under the Protocol such as ASPAs and ASMAs. Such action would reflect a greater maturity of the Antarctic environmental management regime in place since 1998, and would take the implementation of the Madrid Protocol to the next level.

6. Acknowledgments

ASOC is grateful for the support provided – in different times and places – by a range of individuals and entities, which have allowed for a better understanding of the implementation of the Madrid Protocol on the ground:

• Base commanders and staff, Bellingshausen Station, Russia; and Escudero Station, Chile; • Chilean Antarctic Institute, Chile; • Federal Environmental Agency, Germany; • Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany; • Federal Ministry of the Environment, Germany; • Friedrich Schiller University, Germany; • Officers and crew Nordnorge, Antarctic Dream; • Participants of the Fildes Peninsula workshop at Bellingshausen Station, 2006; and • Russian Antarctic Expedition, Russia.

27 See also SCAR Recommendation XXVI-6 concerning rationalization of scientific activities on King George Island, which calls for efforts to integrate scientific objectives and for collaboration among the nations working on the island.

11