XXVII ATCM ATCM INFORMATION PAPER MARCH 2004 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH AGENDA ITEM 14

ARE MORE ANTARCTIC STATIONS JUSTIFIED?

Submitted to the XXVII ATCM by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition Are More Antarctic Stations Justified?

I. INTRODUCTION

At least five new Antarctic national stations are currently proposed or planned (Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, India and South Korea) (Table I). Other significant infrastructure projects currently underway include substantial upgrades of existing national stations, the development of air links to various locations in Antarctica and related runways, and an ice road to the South Pole.

These developments occur in a context of at least 73 established stations (whether full year or summer only), maintained by 26 States already operating in the Antarctic Treaty Area.1 As a whole, the pattern of new station activity does not obviously correlate with new and significant scientific research in previously poorly known parts of Antarctica.

If this is so, what is driving the new station activity in Antarctica, is it necessary or desirable, and what alternatives might there be?

II. WHAT IS DRIVING THE NEW STATION ACTIVITY IN ANTARCTICA?

Many previous drivers of national interests in Antarctica either seemingly no longer apply or do not carry the same importance as they once did in previous eras of Antarctic exploration and expansion. Chief among these would be territorial and sovereignty claims and minerals prospecting. The agreements made within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) to freeze territorial claims and the 50-year moratorium on mining would make these unlikely new motivations, at least as long as the status quo remains.

Undoubtedly the new drivers of Antarctic interest and increased investment are multiple and complex. New technologies and expanding fields of scientific exploration would account for some growth of bona fide scientific endeavours. Excessive concentration of stations in some locations and subsequent decline of research opportunities may be a push factor driving Parties to new locations with more research opportunities. Diplomatic nuances including the desires of some States to enhance their international prestige and influence on the global stage, assert their national identity or promote their geopolitical interests, would also be felt in Antarctica. Finally, the premise that an actual presence in Antarctica remains the main currency of influence within the ATS may explain some interest on the part of new countries.

However, the world of the 21st century is driven largely by commercial interests – whether directly by those interests or mediated through governments. National prestige is not manifesting itself in the same forms as it used to, and scientific endeavours are rarely undertaken without there being some good commercial (or military) reason behind them. Consequently, are commercial interests one of the factors driving some station proposals?

1 COMNAP (the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs) has produced a list of stations that can be taken as representative of active research stations. As of April 2004 the number of facilities in the COMNAP list is 82, of which 73 are located inside the Antarctic Treaty Area. So-called “semi-permanent stations” are not included in this list. The 1997 edition of the United Kingdom’s Antarctic Pilot lists 177 research stations and refuge huts inside the Antarctic Treaty Area, 27 aircraft landing places and 72 Historic Sites and Monuments, some of which include historic buildings.

2 Fishing and tourism are the main commercial interests in and around Antarctica at present. Neither activity requires permanent Antarctic stations nor national scientific footholds, although infrastructure within the region is sometimes canvassed as desirable by these interests (inter alia, to facilitate crew changeover, refueling, reducing inter-continental transit time and costs for high value vessels or time- sensitive users). However, the presence of terrestrial stations can and does provide support, logistical and otherwise, for these industries. What other resources are still available for exploitation in Antarctica then? Bioprospecting is arguably the activity most likely to attract significant commercial and corporate attention. The potential profits to be made from finding and patenting exploitable traits of organisms uniquely adapted to survive under frozen conditions are unlikely to escape the scrutiny of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

Whether there are any direct links between the rush for new stations and bioprospecting (or other commercial interests) is open for conjecture. However, this is a matter that should not be overlooked by the ATS for the sake of preserving its own stability and global relevance.

III. ARE NEW STATIONS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE?

If some of the motivation for new station construction stem primarily from reasons such as enhanced national prestige or the desire for increased influence within the ATS, it would be reasonable to question the necessity for such proposals. In addition, the notion that station proposals can be followed through without too much difficulty so long as science is used as a justification also warrants questioning.

The possible adverse impacts of significantly increased activity, both on the environment and on the ATS as a whole, also require careful consideration. Consideration of the environmental impacts of a proposed activity is of course required under the Protocol – particularly Arts. 3 and 8, and Annex I. Under these requirements, any proposal for a new station would require the consideration of alternatives to the proposed activity and any impacts that the activity may have, including consideration of cumulative impacts in the light of existing and known planned activities. However, the construction of research stations and associated infrastructure such as roads, runaways, etc. should consider cumulative impacts not only in discrete locations or regions of Antarctica. The encroachment by new structures upon a vast but ultimately finite wilderness, particularly ice-free areas, should also be considered.

Even if the purpose of a new station is primarily bona fide scientific research, current practice suggests that the need for a permanent station is relative. Of the 73 stations in the ATA listed in the COMNAP website, 33 (45%) are active only in summer. Many summer scientific activities could be carried out of vessel or field camps of different sizes and characteristics. Even large-scale, multi-year scientific projects can, and have been, conducted from temporary camps (e.g. the Cape Roberts drilling project).

It is strange to ASOC that in this time of increasing demand for flexibility in science, logistics and finances, that Parties would be eager to pour long term resources into permanent constructions that may well outlive their purposes in a relatively short time. It seems that options that provide the greater flexibility have an added value in challenging circumstances.

3 IV. WHAT ALTERNATIVES ARE THERE?

Enhanced international co-operation between States could fairly easily result in the sharing of expertise and infrastructure for new scientific programs, and reducing the footprint (and costs) of research stations. Scientific cooperation is a central tenet of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty (cf. Preamble, Art. II, Art. III). Cooperation requirements under the Protocol are described in Art. 6, which refers specifically to the establishment of new stations and alternatives in sub-clauses (d) and (e). Art. 6 (d) requires consultation among Parties with regard to the choice of sites for prospective stations and other facilities in order to avoid the cumulative impacts caused by their “excessive concentration in any location.” Art. 6 (e) requires Parties, where appropriate, to undertake joint expeditions and share the use of stations and other facilities. We argue that such cooperation would also reinforce the bases of the ATS, whereas commercial interests would tend to have the opposite effect.

In practice there are several alternatives for cooperation that do not require the construction of new stations. The alternatives for which there is already a precedent in the ATS include:

! No stations - The Netherlands operates without a station of its own, instead making significant contributions to the operations of partner programs so that the cooperation is cost-effective for all Parties involved. ! Joint stations - France and Italy run a joint station (Concordia) while Finland’s Aboa station is located nearby Sweden’s Wasa station. In the latter case, while the stations are independent from each other, they both share some facilities and logistics. ! Annexes - Some States have made arrangements to set up annexes to an existing station. Germany has two of such annexes: Dallman Laboratory at Argentina’s Jubany, and a Geodetic Observatory at Chile’s O’Higgins. ! Transfer of ownership - There have been four instances in which British stations that were no longer in use were transferred to other states.2

These arrangements minimize or avoid entirely the footprint of establishing a new station in a pristine location, reduce operational and environmental clean up costs, and are often beneficial for scientific research. For instance, the transfer of UK’s Faraday to Ukraine allowed for the continuation of long-term research programs that would otherwise have been discontinued.

However, this list of alternatives is not exhaustive. There may be other alternatives open for scientific research, including the use of temporary camps as listed in section III. For instance, Antarctic stations are nearly always run by individual States instead of international entities such as the European Union or scientific bodies such as SCAR. Interestingly, Article III.2 of the Antarctic Treaty refers to “encouragement…to the establishment of cooperative working relations with [the UN] and other specialized international organizations having a scientific or technical interest in Antarctica”. It seems curious that at the start of the 21st Century, half a century after permanent scientific engagement really commenced in Antarctica, that we still have only these national stations, and not international scientific facilities. Why not a United Nations’ University facility, or a World Meteorological Organization center, or even an European Union station? (In contrast, there is already an international research station in space.)

2 These include Chile’s Carvajal (transferred 1984; formerly Station T, Adelaide); Ukraine’s Verdnaskiy (transferred 1996 – formerly Station F, Faraday); Chile’s Canas Montalva (transferred 1986; formerly Station V, View Point); and Uruguay’s Elichiribehety (transferred 1997 - formerly Station D, Hope Bay). (Source: Martin MA and Rae J: Research stations and refuges of the British Antarctic Survey and its predecessors. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk ).

4 V. CONCLUSIONS

In principle, ASOC welcomes scientific activity in Antarctica that is conducted in accordance with the objectives, principles and rules of the Protocol. ASOC is not a priori opposed to any of the new stations being proposed. In some cases the construction of new stations may indeed be justified and advantageous to science or associated logistics. However, ASOC suggests that the ATS should recognize that what was acceptable in the 1960s or 1980s may require additional justification in the 2000s concerning a proposed station’s objectives, necessity, desirability, and impacts. Just because new permanent stations can be built does not mean they should be built. All alternatives should be carefully considered before deciding to proceed with a new station.

It should be noted that even if the construction of a new station were regarded as the best possible alternative, in many instances its scientific objectives would be achieved after a certain period of time – years or decades. Excess capacity does not long go unused, and – barring its abandonment, “mothballing” or removal – supplying requirements of aging permanent infrastructure will only serve to encourage the creation of new activities and infrastructure to justify its existence. Consequently, stations should be designed and built with a view to remove them once their life cycle is complete and the scientific returns from being established in a given location begin to decrease. The Antarctic Treaty Parties should be wary of a new construction boom that may well turn into a long-term drain on resources and an unjustified impact on the Antarctic wilderness.

5