DOCSLIB.ORG

Fourth Consultative Meeting Under the Antarctic Treaty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fourth Consultative Meeting Under the Antarctic Treaty Recent International Meetings Fourth Consultative Meeting tion, the Representatives agreed on an explanatory statement concerning a Recommendation of the under the Antarctic Treaty Third Consultative Meeting. Of the 28 Recommen- dations, 22 dealt with conservation; the others PETER ROBERTS treated important legal, operational, and procedural Bureau of International Organization Affairs questions. A congratulatory message was forwarded to the antarctic stations of all countries. Department of State The Fourth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meet- Antarctic Conservation ing took place in Santiago, Chile, from November 3 As the subject of 22 Recommendations, the con- to 18, 1966. It was attended by Representatives of servation of antarctic animal and plant life took the 12 nations signatory to the Antarctic Treaty: center stage. The Agreed Measures on Conservation, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, adopted at the Third Consultative Meeting in New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Brussels in 1964, have not yet come into effect. Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Nevertheless, all Consultative Governments have Ambassador Ralph A. Dungan represented the agreed to accept these Measures as guidelines pend- United States. Dr. James Simsarian was his Alter- ing their approval (Recommendation Ill-IX). The nate. Other United States Delegates were Mr. Henry Fourth Consultative Meeting considered ways in S. Francis, Jr., Mr. Peter Roberts, and Colonel Mar- which the Agreed Measures could be further de- shall E. Sanders. veloped. The purpose of these meetings, as specified in The Representatives felt that the time had come Article IX of the Treaty, is to exchange informa- to designate some specially protected areas and tion, consult together on matters of common inter- species. This action was forecast in the Agreed est pertaining to Antarctica, and to formulate, con- Measures, but the annexes which were to list these sider, and recommend to governments measures in areas and species were left blank pending further furtherance of the principles and objectives of the scientific study. The deliberations of the Scientific Treaty. The Recommendations adopted at Consult- Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) in Oc- ative Meetings come into effect only after they have tober 1966 (infra) produced a number of proposals been approved by all of the governments participat- on the subject, and individual countries based their ing in the meetings. proposals on the areas recommended by SCAR. A A gratifying number of solid, constructive meas- lively and constructive discussion resulted in agree- ures emerged from the Fourth Consultative Meeting. ment to recommend that the following 15 areas be In all, 28 Recommendations were adopted. In addi- designated Specially Protected Areas: January-February, 1967 13 "Taylor Rookery" [near 67°27S. 60°50E.], tific data are needed if such an agreement is to be Mac. Robertson Land; Rookery Islands [67°36S. realistically based. Nonetheless, the Representatives 62°33E.], Holme Bay; Ardery Island and Odbert felt that sealing in antarctic waters is of sufficient po- Island, Budd Coast; Sabrina Island, Balleny Is- tential importance to warrant drawing up Interim lands; Beaufort Island, Ross Sea; Cape Crozier, Guidelines for the Voluntary Regulation of Pelagic Ross Island; Cape Hallett, Victoria Land; Dion Sealing. Recommendation IV-21 was adopted for Islands, Marguerite Bay; Green Island, Berthelot this purpose. In general, the Guidelines set forth Islands; Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island; Cape the principles that the harvest of seals should not Shirreff, Livingston Island; Fildes Peninsula, King exceed the maximum sustainable yield of any spe- George Island; Moe Island, South Orkney Is- cies; that the natural ecological system should not be lands; Lynch Island, South Orkney Islands; and disturbed; that seals should not be taken or killed in southern Powell Island and adjacent islands, the water; that the Ross seal should be taken only South Orkney Islands. for scientific purposes; that a system of alternating geographic zones and time periods should be ob- The Ross and fur seals were recommended as served. The Recommendation also calls for ex- Specially Protected Species. change of information on sealing operations and pro- The effect of these 17 Recommendations, when poses steps to be taken should any species or the approved, will be to restrict sharply the taking of ecology in any locality appear to be endangered. animals or plants in the areas concerned and the SCAR was encouraged to continue its interest in the taking of Ross and fur seals anywhere in Antarctica. subject and prepare reports on it from time to time Specimens may be taken only for compelling scien- (Recommendation IV-22). tific reasons (routine research requirements are not enough), and under no circumstances may the ecol- Other Subjects ogy be disturbed. 1. The Representatives considered the effects that The implementation of the Agreed Measures was tourist activity might have on the conduct of scien- also advanced by two further Recommendations. tific research, on conservation, and on the operation Recommendation IV-18 provides for cooperation of antarctic stations. Most stations are happy to re- between the various national expeditions to ensure ceive visitors, but 50 or 60 unannounced visitors at that their combined activities do not inadvertently a small station could raise serious problems. A result in taking larger numbers of animals than those visitor should know what is expected of him, both permitted under the Agreed Measures. Recommen- under international agreements in force and under dation IV-19 proposes the adoption of a standard the requirements of the station he visits. Recom- form to exchange required information on animals mendation IV-27 was adopted to meet these points. killed or captured for scientific purposes. 2. Experience has made clear that a number of It may be some time before these 19 Recommen- antarctic subjects are best dealt with by meetings of dations come into effect since most governments will experts. It was considered necessary, therefore, to need to enact new legislation before approving them. define the role of such meetings, how they should be For this reason, the meeting recommended that the convened, and what effect their deliberation should governments regard the 19 Recommendations as have. Recommendation IV-24 deals with these guidelines in the interim (Recommendation IV-20). matters. 3. A meeting of experts on logistics was recom- Conservation on the High Seas mended. The Government of Japan offered to act as Since most antarctic animals are marine, the prob- host to this meeting in June 1968. Detailed terms of lem of conservation on the seas is intimately related reference for the meeting are specified in Recom- to conservation on land. Under the Treaty, no dif- mendation IV-25. ficulty exists in dealing with conservation on land 4. It was agreed that the question of antarctic and shelf ice south of 60°S. The Treaty provides, radio communications should be reviewed in prepar- however, that "nothing in the present Treaty shall ing for the next Consultative Meeting (Recom- prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or the exer- mendation IV-26). cise of the rights, of any State under international 5. The Government of France offered to hold a law with regard to the high seas within the area." Consultative Meeting in Paris in 1968. In Recom- The question of conservation in the waters of the Treaty area, therefore, raises a number of legal and formal issues which require careful study before any The text of the Interim Guidelines for the Voluntary Regulation of Pelagic Sealing and other Recommendations binding international agreement can be reached. adopted at the Fourth Consultative Meeting will appear in There is also general understanding that more scien- later issues of the Antarctic Journal. 14 ANTARCTIC JOURNAL mendation IV-28, the Representatives advise their Antarctic Institute made all the local arrangements governments to accept the French offer. for the SCAR meeting and provided the clerical and 6. Recommendation III-VII, adopted at the other services needed. The President of Chile held Brussels meeting in 1964, has not yet come into ef- a reception for the attendees. fect. That Recommendation asks the governments The detailed work was undertaken by the Work- to encourage Parties which do not attend Con- ing Groups on Biology and Oceanography and a sultative Meetings to accept approved Recom- Working Group of Delegates. The Working Group mendations and to signify their intent to apply and be on Logistics held an unscheduled ad hoc meeting bound by them. Several Consultative Parties felt it for the purpose of reorganizing and planning its fu- was desirable to make clear that Recommendation ture activities. III-VII in no sense diminishes the responsibilities which Acceding Parties assumed in acceding to the Perhaps the most complex deliberations under- Treaty. The Representatives, therefore, adopted an taken were those of the Working Group on Biology. Explanatory Statement Concerning Recommenda- In 1964, at the Third Consultative Meeting, the Ant- tion III-Vu. In that statement, the considerations arctic Treaty Powers recommended measures relat- that are pertinent to the application of Recom- ing to the conservation of flora and fauna. In addi- mendation III-VII are set forth so that there can be tion to general rules of conservation, the measures no misunderstanding of the intent of the Recom- included a provision to afford special protection to mendation. certain species and areas. At that time, the Treaty governments did not, however, attempt to designate At the close of the Fourth Consultative Meeting, either the species or the areas, but requested SCAR warm and well-merited appreciation was expressed to consider the matter. After long and careful by all the Representatives to the Government of Chile; to the Chairman of the meeting, Ambassador study, the Working Group on Biology proposed that 2 species of seals and 14 areas deserved special Julio Escudero; to the Secretary General, Mr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Antarctic Peninsula
    Hucke-Gaete, R, Torres, D. & Vallejos, V. 1997c. Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, by marine debris at Cape Shirreff and San Telmo Islets, Livingston Island, Antarctica: 1998-1997. Serie Científica Instituto Antártico Chileno 47: 123-135. Hucke-Gaete, R., Osman, L.P., Moreno, C.A. & Torres, D. 2004. Examining natural population growth from near extinction: the case of the Antarctic fur seal at the South Shetlands, Antarctica. Polar Biology 27 (5): 304–311 Huckstadt, L., Costa, D. P., McDonald, B. I., Tremblay, Y., Crocker, D. E., Goebel, M. E. & Fedak, M. E. 2006. Habitat Selection and Foraging Behavior of Southern Elephant Seals in the Western Antarctic Peninsula. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #OS33A-1684. INACH (Instituto Antártico Chileno) 2010. Chilean Antarctic Program of Scientific Research 2009-2010. Chilean Antarctic Institute Research Projects Department. Santiago, Chile. Kawaguchi, S., Nicol, S., Taki, K. & Naganobu, M. 2006. Fishing ground selection in the Antarctic krill fishery: Trends in patterns across years, seasons and nations. CCAMLR Science, 13: 117–141. Krause, D. J., Goebel, M. E., Marshall, G. J., & Abernathy, K. (2015). Novel foraging strategies observed in a growing leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx) population at Livingston Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Animal Biotelemetry, 3:24. Krause, D.J., Goebel, M.E., Marshall. G.J. & Abernathy, K. In Press. Summer diving and haul-out behavior of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) near mesopredator breeding colonies at Livingston Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Marine Mammal Science.Leppe, M., Fernandoy, F., Palma-Heldt, S. & Moisan, P 2004. Flora mesozoica en los depósitos morrénicos de cabo Shirreff, isla Livingston, Shetland del Sur, Península Antártica, in Actas del 10º Congreso Geológico Chileno.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antarctic Treaty
    The Antarctic Treaty Measures adopted at the Thirty-ninth Consultative Meeting held at Santiago, Chile 23 May – 1 June 2016 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty November 2017 Cm 9542 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Treaty Section, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London, SW1A 2AH ISBN 978-1-5286-0126-9 CCS1117441642 11/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majestyʼs Stationery Office MEASURES ADOPTED AT THE THIRTY-NINTH ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Santiago, Chile 23 May – 1 June 2016 The Measures1 adopted at the Thirty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting are reproduced below from the Final Report of the Meeting. In accordance with Article IX, paragraph 4, of the Antarctic Treaty, the Measures adopted at Consultative Meetings become effective upon approval by all Contracting Parties whose representatives were entitled to participate in the meeting at which they were adopted (i.e. all the Consultative Parties). The full text of the Final Report of the Meeting, including the Decisions and Resolutions adopted at that Meeting and colour copies of the maps found in this command paper, is available on the website of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat at www.ats.aq/documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 78/Tuesday, April 23, 2019/Rules
    Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 16791 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require Agricultural commodities, Pesticides SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The any special considerations under and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as Executive Order 12898, entitled requirements. amended (‘‘ACA’’) (16 U.S.C. 2401, et ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Dated: April 12, 2019. seq.) implements the Protocol on Environmental Justice in Minority Environmental Protection to the Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Populations and Low-Income Antarctic Treaty (‘‘the Protocol’’). Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Annex V contains provisions for the 1994). Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is protection of specially designated areas Since tolerances and exemptions that amended as follows: specially managed areas and historic are established on the basis of a petition sites and monuments. Section 2405 of under FFDCA section 408(d), such as PART 180—[AMENDED] title 16 of the ACA directs the Director the tolerance exemption in this action, of the National Science Foundation to ■ do not require the issuance of a 1. The authority citation for part 180 issue such regulations as are necessary proposed rule, the requirements of the continues to read as follows: and appropriate to implement Annex V Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. to the Protocol. et seq.) do not apply. ■ 2. Add § 180.1365 to subpart D to read The Antarctic Treaty Parties, which This action directly regulates growers, as follows: includes the United States, periodically food processors, food handlers, and food adopt measures to establish, consolidate retailers, not States or tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • 1- 7555-01 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/28/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-24522, and on FDsys.gov 7555-01 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY: National Science Foundation ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, P.L. 95-541. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received. DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by [INSERT 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or [email protected] or (703) 292-7149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Treaty Handbook
    Annex Proposed Renumbering of Antarctic Protected Areas Existing SPA’s Existing Site Proposed Year Annex V No. New Site Management Plan No. Adopted ‘Taylor Rookery 1 101 1992 Rookery Islands 2 102 1992 Ardery Island and Odbert Island 3 103 1992 Sabrina Island 4 104 Beaufort Island 5 105 Cape Crozier [redesignated as SSSI no.4] - - Cape Hallet 7 106 Dion Islands 8 107 Green Island 9 108 Byers Peninsula [redesignated as SSSI no. 6] - - Cape Shireff [redesignated as SSSI no. 32] - - Fildes Peninsula [redesignated as SSSI no.5] - - Moe Island 13 109 1995 Lynch Island 14 110 Southern Powell Island 15 111 1995 Coppermine Peninsula 16 112 Litchfield Island 17 113 North Coronation Island 18 114 Lagotellerie Island 19 115 New College Valley 20 116 1992 Avian Island (was SSSI no. 30) 21 117 ‘Cryptogram Ridge’ 22 118 Forlidas and Davis Valley Ponds 23 119 Pointe-Geologic Archipelago 24 120 1995 Cape Royds 1 121 Arrival Heights 2 122 Barwick Valley 3 123 Cape Crozier (was SPA no. 6) 4 124 Fildes Peninsula (was SPA no. 12) 5 125 Byers Peninsula (was SPA no. 10) 6 126 Haswell Island 7 127 Western Shore of Admiralty Bay 8 128 Rothera Point 9 129 Caughley Beach 10 116 1995 ‘Tramway Ridge’ 11 130 Canada Glacier 12 131 Potter Peninsula 13 132 Existing SPA’s Existing Site Proposed Year Annex V No. New Site Management Plan No. Adopted Harmony Point 14 133 Cierva Point 15 134 North-east Bailey Peninsula 16 135 Clark Peninsula 17 136 North-west White Island 18 137 Linnaeus Terrace 19 138 Biscoe Point 20 139 Parts of Deception Island 21 140 ‘Yukidori Valley’ 22 141 Svarthmaren 23 142 Summit of Mount Melbourne 24 118 ‘Marine Plain’ 25 143 Chile Bay 26 144 Port Foster 27 145 South Bay 28 146 Ablation Point 29 147 Avian Island [redesignated as SPA no.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 167
    Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 167 Hawker Island, Princess Elizabeth Land Introduction -west from Davis station off the Vestfold Hills on the Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica. The island was designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) No. 167 under Measure 1 (2006), following a proposal by Australia, primarily to protect the southernmost breeding colony of southern giant petrels (Macronectes giganteus) (Map B). The Area is one of only four known breeding locations for southern giant petrels on the coast of East Antarctica, all of which have been designated as ASPAs: ASPA 102, Rookery Islands, Holme Bay, Mac.Robertson Land near Mawson Station; ASPA 160, Frazier Islands, Wilkes , Hawker Island also supports breeding colonies of Adélie penguins (Pygocelis adeliae), south polar skuas (Catharacta maccormicki), Cape petrels (Daption capense) and occasionally Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii). 1. Description of values to be protected The total population of southern giant petrels in East Antarctica represents less than 1% of the global breeding population. It is currently estimated at approximately 300 pairs, comprising approximately 45 pairs on Hawker Island (2010), 2-4 pairs on Giganteus Island (Rookery Islands group) (2007), approximately 250 pairs on the Frazier Islands (2001) and 8-9 pairs at Pointe Géologie (2005). Southern giant petrels also breed on other islands in the southern Indian and Atlantic Oceans and at the Antarctic Peninsula. The southern giant petrel colony at Hawker Island was discovered in December 1963; at that time there were 40- but it is unclear how many nests were occupied. Between 1963 and 2007, intermittent counts of adults, eggs or chicks were undertaken at various stages of the breeding cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 102
    Measure 2 (2015) Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 102 ROOKERY ISLANDS, HOLME BAY, MAC.ROBERTSON LAND Introduction The Rookery Islands are a group of small islands and rocks in the western part of Holme Bay, lying to the north of the Masson and David Ranges in Mac.Robertson Land, East Antarctica (67°36'36" S, 62°32'01" E, Map A and Map B). The Rookery Islands were originally designated as Specially Protected Area No. 2 through Recommendation IV-II (1966), after a proposal by Australia. A management plan for the Area was adopted under Recommendation XVII-2 (1992). In accordance with Decision 1 (2002), the site was redesignated and renumbered as Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) No. 102. Revised ASPA management plans were adopted under Measure 2 (2005) and Measure 2 (2010). The Area is designated to protect breeding colonies of the five bird species known to breed in the region, including the southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus) and the Cape petrel (Daption capensis) which are not known to occur elsewhere in the region. The Area is one of only four known southern giant petrel breeding colonies in East Antarctica. 1. Description of values to be protected The Rookery Islands contain breeding colonies of five bird species: Adélie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae), Cape petrel, snow petrel (Pagodroma nivea), southern giant petrel, and Antarctic skua (Catharacta maccormicki). It is also highly likely that Wilson's storm petrels breed on the islands. The Area is primarily designated to safeguard this unusual assemblage of bird species. The Rookery Islands also provide a representative sample of the near-shore island habitats occurring along the coast of Mac.Robertson Land.
    [Show full text]
  • National Science Foundation § 670.29
    National Science Foundation § 670.29 the unique natural ecological system ASPA 115 Lagotellerie Island, Mar- in that area; and guerite Bay, Graham Land (c) Where a management plan exists, ASPA 116 New College Valley, information demonstrating the consist- Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Is- ency of the proposed actions with the land management plan. ASPA 117 Avian Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula § 670.29 Designation of Antarctic Spe- ASPA 118 Summit of Mount Mel- cially Protected Areas, Specially bourne, Victoria Land Managed Areas and Historic Sites ASPA 119 Davis Valley and Forlidas and Monuments. Pond, Dufek Massif, Pensacola Moun- (a) The following areas have been tains designated by the Antarctic Treaty ASPA 120 Pointe-Geologie Parties for special protection and are Archipelego, Terre Adelie hereby designated as Antarctic Spe- ASPA 121 Cape Royds, Ross Island cially Protected Areas (ASPA). The ASPA 122 Arrival Heights, Hut Point Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as Peninsula, Ross Island amended, prohibits, unless authorized ASPA 123 Barwick and Balham Val- by a permit, any person from entering leys, Southern Victoria Land or engaging in activities within an ASPA 124 Cape Crozier, Ross Island ASPA. Detailed maps and descriptions ASPA 125 Fildes Peninsula, King of the sites and complete management George Island (25 de Mayo) plans can be obtained from the Na- ASPA 126 Byers Peninsula, Living- tional Science Foundation, Office of ston Island, South Shetland Islands Polar Programs, National Science ASPA 127 Haswell Island Foundation, Room 755, 4201 Wilson ASPA 128 Western shore of Admiralty Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. Bay, King George Island, South Shet- ASPA 101 Taylor Rookery, Mac.
    [Show full text]
  • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC PROGRAM AVIATION OPERATIONS 2020-2025 Draft Released for Public Comment
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC PROGRAM AVIATION OPERATIONS 2020-2025 draft released for public comment This document should be cited as: Commonwealth of Australia (2020). Environmental Impact Assessment – Australian Antarctic Program Aviation Operations 2020-2025 – draft released for public comment. Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston. © Commonwealth of Australia 2020 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to. Disclaimer The contents of this document have been compiled using a range of source materials and were valid as at the time of its preparation. The Australian Government is not liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of or reliance on the contents of the document. Cover photos from L to R: groomed runway surface, Globemaster C17 at Wilkins Aerodrome, fuel drum stockpile at Davis, Airbus landing at Wilkins Aerodrome Prepared by: Dr Sandra Potter on behalf of: Mr Robb Clifton Operations Manager Australian Antarctic Division Kingston 7050 Australia 2 Contents Overview 7 1. Background 9 1.1 Australian Antarctic Program aviation 9 1.2 Previous assessments of aviation activities 10 1.3 Scope of this environmental impact assessment 11 1.4 Consultation and decision outcomes 12 2. Details of the proposed activity and its need 13 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 Inter-continental flights 13 2.3 Air-drop operations 14 2.4 Air-to-air refuelling operations 14 2.5 Operation of Wilkins Aerodrome 15 2.6 Intra-continental fixed-wing operations 17 2.7 Operation of ski landing areas 18 2.8 Helicopter operations 18 2.9 Fuel storage and use 19 2.10 Aviation activities at other sites 20 2.11 Unmanned aerial systems 20 2.12 Facility decommissioning 21 3.
    [Show full text]
  • (Amendment) Regulations 2002
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2002 No. 2054 ANTARCTICA The Antarctic (Amendment) Regulations 2002 Made - - - - - 2nd August 2002 Laid before Parliament 5th August 2002 Coming into force - - 27th August 2002 The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in exercise of his powers under sections 9(1), 10(1), 25(1) and (3) and 32 of the Antarctic Act 1994(a), and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following Regulations: Citation and commencement 1. These Regulations may be cited as the Antarctic (Amendment) Regulations 2002 and shall come into force on 27th August 2002. The Antarctic Regulations 1995(b) (“the principal Regulations”), as amended(c), and these Regulations may be cited together as the Antarctic Regulations 1995 to 2002. Amendment of Schedules 1 and 2 to the principal Regulations 2. The Schedules to the principal Regulations shall be amended as follows: (a) There shall be added to Schedule 1 the areas listed and described in Part A of Schedule 1 to these Regulations. (b) There shall be deleted from Schedule 1 the area listed as “Specially Protected Area No. 20 “New College Valley””. (c) The areas listed and described in Schedule 1 as “Specially Protected Areas” and “Sites of Special Scientific Interest” shall be renamed “Antarctic Specially Protected Areas” and renumbered in accordance with Part B of Schedule 1 to these Regulations. (d) There shall be added to Schedule 2 the Historic Sites and Monuments listed in Schedule 2 to these Regulations. Peter Hain 2nd August 2002 For the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (a) 1994 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardisation of Zones Within Specially Protected and Managed Areas Under the Madrid Protocol
    Standardisation of zones within specially protected and managed areas under the Madrid Protocol Colin M. Harris Environmental Research and Assessment 5 The Foopath Grantchester Cambridgeshire CB3 9NE Originally published as Harris, C.M. 1994. Standardisation of zones within specially protected and managed areas under the Antarctic Environmental Protocol. Polar Record 30(175): 283–86. Abstract Many countries are revising management plans for protected areas so they comply with Annex V to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Annex V allows for “identification of zones ... in which activities are to be prohibited, restricted or managed”. The many countries could use a wide range of terms to meet site-specific zoning needs. If let develop ad hoc, a confusing and inconsistent set of zones would likely evolve. This could be avoided by a coordinated and pro-active approach to identifying the zones needed. Based on field observations and examination of current and proposed management plans, a simple, standardised, model of six types of zone is proposed: Restricted, Sensitive, Scientific, Tourist, Facilities and Historic. Their application, where needed, would meet the full range of management needs within specially protected and managed areas in Antarctica. Introduction The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Protocol) was agreed with five annexes by Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) in 1991 (SCAR 1993). Annex V on “Area Protection and Management” provides for the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs), which, when the Protocol comes into force, will together replace the five existing categories of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Specially Protected Areas (SPAs), Specially Reserved Areas (SRAs), Multiple-use Planning Areas (MPAs), and Areas of Special Tourist Interest (ASTI).
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 101
    Measure 1 (2015) Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 101 TAYLOR ROOKERY, MAC.ROBERTSON LAND Introduction Taylor Rookery is an emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) colony located on the east side of Taylor Glacier, Mac.Robertson Land (67°27’S; 60°51’E, Map A). The site was originally designated as Specially Protected Area No. 1, through Recommendation IV-I (1966), after a proposal by Australia. A management plan for the Area was adopted under Recommendation XVII-2 (1992). In accordance with Decision 1 (2002) the site was redesignated and renumbered as Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) No. 101. Revised ASPA management plans were adopted under Measure 2 (2005) and Measure 1 (2010). Taylor Rookery is designated as an ASPA to protect the largest known colony of emperor penguins located entirely on land. 1. Description of values to be protected Of the 48 currently known emperor penguin colonies around Antarctica, the first land-based colony was only discovered at Emperor Island, Dion Islands, Antarctic Peninsula (67°52’S, 68°43’W) in 1948. About 150 breeding pairs occupied the island, but since the 1970s the population decreased and comprised only 22 pairs in 1999. No emperor penguins have been sighted at the Dion Islands since 2009 and the colony is likely to have become extinct. The colony at Taylor Glacier was the second land-based colony to be discovered, in October 1954. This colony is entirely land-based throughout the breeding season. Because of this uncommon characteristic this colony was designated as a Specially Protected Area in 1966, as was Emperor Island.
    [Show full text]