Chapter 5

The Environmental Years (1988-97)

Yet more new members ments for Arctic collaboration. Canada and Norway quickly began talks with the During this decade the membership of Soviets that stimulated others to con- SCAR suddenly increased. Much of this sider how this could be broadened. The was linked to the enthusiasm of countries foundations of IASC began with discus- to become Consultative Treaty Parties so sions at the SCAR San Diego meeting in that they could take part in any minerals 1986 where Jim Zumberge, Odd Rogne development. The quest for consulta- and Fred Roots called a lunchtime meet- tive status required proof of significant ing about how to develop circum-arctic scientific research and how better to do research co-operation, and capitalize on this than through SCAR. Finland, Ecua- the cessation of the Cold War. Their con- dor, Colombia, Pakistan, Estonia, Canada, clusions were that this was an important Ukraine and Bulgaria all joined as Associ- opportunity and they should begin with ates whilst Sweden, Italy, Uruguay, Spain, the Arctic countries listed for bilaterals Netherlands, Korea (South), Finland, and with the Soviet Union as the core group. Ecuador all became Full Members. This Rogne already had experience of nego- not only had a major effect on the Del- tiating with the Russians and good high egates’ Meetings and the attendance at level connections in Moscow so he agreed the Working Groups but the extra sub- to organize the first planning meeting scriptions were a very welcome addition in Oslo in February 1987 which was at- to the SCAR finances. As always the tended by representatives of all the eight Secretariat was endlessly chasing some Arctic Rim countries (Canada, Denmark, countries for unpaid subscriptions and fi- nally, in the case of Colombia, it was rec- Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, USA, ognized that the funds would never be USSR). These representatives came paid and the country left SCAR, pleading from the principal polar organizations in lack of cash rather than lack of interest. each country. Political sensitivity slowed progress in some quarters but the initial It was during this period that the Interna- planning documents are believed to have tional Arctic Science Committee (IASC) provided a key initiative for the change in was established. For the first time there policy by the Soviet Union announced by was a potential counterpart for SCAR in Gorbachev in his speech in Murmansk on the Arctic, even though its original es- 1 October 1987 as parts of his speech tablishment came about in a quite differ- were identical to parts of the planning ent way and IASC was not part of ICSU. documents for IASC. By the time of the The changes in the geopolitics of the first meeting in Resolute Bay, Canada on Arctic engendered by President Mikhail 28 August 1990 a set of Founding Ar- Gorbachev began with the ideas of per- ticles had been agreed that satisfied the estroika and a new interest in the So- politicians of the Rim countries and would viet Union in establishing bilateral agree- allow scientists from countries other than Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

the original eight to take part. It began suaded Tony Rocha-Campos, the Brazil- work quickly with its secretariat estab- ian Delegate, to withdraw the objection lished in Oslo and the inclusion of non- as a personal favour to him because this Arctic countries like France, Germany, UK was of political importance for the United and Japan (as second tier members) in States. The managers and the Working its deliberations. Not surprisingly some Group met together under the chairman- of the same people were active in IASC ship of Jim Bleasel to develop their initia- as were active in SCAR and this infor- tive and tried to work out how the new mal conduit provided a linkage between relationship would work with SCAR. All the two organizations in the early years. 22 National Programmes were represent- IASC finally joined ICSU as an Associate ed. The Working Group considered the Member in 2005. By 2010 IASC had now reasons for establishing the Managers grown to include 18 countries Group were:

At XX SCAR in Hobart, Australia, during a. To exchange information on those September 1988, the Delegates took operational items or matters which two major decisions that were to affect have budgeting or operational sig- SCAR far into the future. The Working nificance and so to learn from the Group on Logistics would be closed and successes or failures of others. succeeded by a Standing Committee on b. To exchange information on, and re- Antarctic Logistics and Operations (SCA- solve, joint operational problems. LOP) under a Council of Managers of Na- tional Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) c. To participate, with appropriate sci- and the Sub-committee on Conservation entists, in discussions of proposed of the Working Group on Biology would scientific projects requiring major be replaced by a Group of Specialists on international collaboration or large- Environmental Affairs and Conservation. scale operational support so as to determine their nation’s resources The establishment of for such projects. COMNAP and SCALOP d. To establish personal contacts so that in the event of any emergency The ball was rolling rapidly towards an requiring it, international collabora- independent body for managers and lo- tion can be achieved more rapidly gisticians. and efficiently. David Drewry was able to attend the e. to facilitate responses to requests SCAR Executive in March 1988 to repre- from ATCMs directed to “national sent the managers and agreement was Antarctic operating agencies”. reached that a new Council of Operations Managers would replace the Logistics On the proposal to take this forward there WG, and that its chairman would become were no dissenting countries and COM- part of the Executive. There were even NAP was formally born on 15 September some very general draft Terms of Refer- 1988. The meeting then agreed unani- ence formulated. The SCAR Executive mously that Alfred N Fowler should be was thus able to recommend the es- appointed part time Executive Secretary tablishment of a Council of Operations to the new Council upon his retirement Managers, an announcement met with from the National Science Foundation, dismay by those who were not privy to with an office at the American Geophysi- the detailed discussions. The next meet- cal Union. Not surprisingly, in the light ing was held at XX SCAR in September of the efforts Wilkniss had put into this, 1988 in Hobart where Brazil circulated OPP agreed to fund this part-time posi- a document stating its objection to the tion during the early years of the Council. separation of the managers’ group from The Terms of Reference for the Council SCAR. In the event, Jim Zumberge per- of MNAPs were agreed (while noting that

92 Science in the Snow

the group cannot make decisions that are 3. To establish ad hoc groups of ex- binding on governments): perts to discuss and to foster ad- 1. To establish a Council of MNAPs, vances in technology. federated to SCAR. 4. To hold symposia and expositions to 2. To review, on a regular basis, op- inform of and review technological erational matters and to exchange advances. information. 5. To exchange timely information on 3. To examine, discuss and seek pos- Antarctic logistics and operations. sible solutions to common opera- One of the key elements here was de- tional problems. ciding who should be the first Chairs of 4. To provide a forum for discussion COMNAP and SCALOP. There was gener- in order to frame better, and in a al agreement that David Drewry from the timely, efficient and harmonious UK would make an excellent first Chair manner: but Argentina was unhappy. The way (i) national responses to common forward was found over a lunch called by issues directed to National Ant- Odd Rogne where Carlos Rinaldi and Dre- arctic Operators, wry agreed a way forward that would be acceptable to the Argentine politicians. (ii) appropriate input to SCAR re- sponses to questions involving Drewry was to be appointed for one year science and operations/logis- only. Much less contentious was the tics. election of Heinz Kohnen (Germany) as the Chairman of SCALOP. The relation- 5. To review, with appropriate SCAR ship with SCAR was solved by declaring WGs and Groups of Specialists, pro- that COMNAP was “federated to SCAR” jected programmes requiring major but without defining exactly what this international collaboration on oper- meant. The break had apparently been ations/logistics and to provide ap- amicable but would the new organization propriate advice to the SCAR Execu- really be more effective now that it was tive. outside SCAR? 6. To respond to requests by SCAR for information, advice and comment. The first formal meetings of COMNAP and SCALOP were held in Cambridge, UK, 7. To create sub-groups as necessary, 5–6 October 1989. David Drewry (then of which one will be a Standing Com- mittee on Antarctic Logistics and Operations (SCALOP) and which will replace the SCAR Logistics Working Group upon its termination. 8. Copies of all written outputs of the Council of MNAPs, and its sub- groups, to be passed to the SCAR Secretariat. The Terms of Reference for SCALOP were as follows: 1. To serve SCAR by providing advice on Antarctic operations and logis- tics. 2. To investigate and, if necessary, ar- range for research on operational problems identified by the Council of MNAPs or by SCAR and its Work- The COMNAP logo adopted by the Council of ing Groups. Managers of National Antarctic Programmes.

93 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

Director of the British Antarctic Survey) strongly held views on both sides. How chaired the meeting of COMNAP. Since then to achieve an amicable and workable at the meeting it was agreed that the relationship. The idea of “federation” elected Chairman should serve a two- or was Drewry’s, based on the fact that three-year term of office, despite res- many of the countries affiliated to SCAR ervations from Argentina, Drewry was were federal states and therefore under- re-elected to serve until the end of the stood the relationships, dependence and annual meeting in 1991. Other agenda dynamic between component states - or items discussed included: air operations; they thought they knew! That was the environmental protection and manage- trick and almost everybody could there- ment; tourism and non-governmental fore agree that “federation” had the right activities; forthcoming large-scale inter- blend of both independence and associa- national science programmes; telecom- tion. So it was put to both SCAR and munications and status of relevant ATCM to COMNAP by Drewry at their Executive Recommendations. SCALOP met in paral- meetings. Many Delegates within SCAR lel with COMNAP under the chairmanship expressed concern at this new develop- of Heinz Kohnen (Alfred-Wegener-Insti- ment but were clearly powerless to stop tut für Polar- und Meeresforschung) who it. had been elected Chairman for a 4-year term. Topics discussed included: avoid- There was also concern that, although ance of duplication between COMNAP COMNAP had no funds of its own at that and SCALOP; current engineering proj- point, the managers had access to millions ects; air operations; waste management of dollars whereas SCAR’s annual income and the environment. A sub-group was was about US $250,000. Perhaps, sug- formed to develop a standardized format gested some, this would allow COMNAP for waste management plans. The Chair- to directly compete with SCAR to pro- man of SCALOP reported on the meeting vide advice to the Treaty, being able to to the plenary session of COMNAP. fund crucial meetings or workshops more easily than SCAR. This could push SCAR to the sidelines and might then lead, in The relationship between SCAR and the turn, to future requests being directed emerging COMNAP was a source of con- to COMNAP rather than SCAR. However, cern and confusion at this time. There the die had been cast and the separation was a continuous worry in SCAR that was complete. COMNAP would go its own way and sideline SCAR. But clearly many manag- The SCAR Executive met in Zurich in ers reflected on what their role was - to June 1991 and felt that it was essential support science which was co-ordinated to strengthen the relationship between internationally through SCAR – so a mo- SCAR and the new COMNAP. They agreed dus vivendi was essential. How could an that the Chairman of COMNAP should amicable and meaningful articulation be be an ex-officio non-voting Delegate at achieved? The old Logistics WG had been SCAR’s biennial meetings. The Chairman a component of SCAR and many in SCAR of SCALOP would be accorded the same believed that COMNAP should be similarly status as Chief Officers. COMNAP had organized - ie. a large, influential body made reciprocal arrangements for the BUT within SCAR. But with Peter Wilkniss President of SCAR. and Jim Bleasel insisting that the man- agers could not be subordinate to SCAR During the early years of COMNAP the there appeared to be a stalemate. There relationship between SCAR and COMNAP were endless draft documents prepared was often, at best, wary and, at worst, - mainly organograms which attempted distrustful. In a way this was hardly sur- to create a relationship between the two prising. Most members of COMNAP were - but most were consigned to the waste government servants wholly employed paper basket as they failed to meet the in Antarctic programme management

94 Science in the Snow

whereas the majority of SCAR scientists Cambridge, United Kingdom, and COM- were based in universities or other non- NAP, previously in Hobart, Australia and Antarctic organizations who worked for now in Christchurch, New Zealand. SCAR in their own time or with the permis- sion of their superiors, a permission that Environmental initiatives was often given only grudgingly. As a result, COMNAP could gather information The Working Group on Biology had had and develop policy far faster than SCAR. a subcommittee on conservation almost Perhaps the real problem was that SCAR since the beginning of SCAR, and from perceived that the managers wanted to September 1974 it had been under the distance themselves from SCAR because chairmanship of Nigel Bonner. The grow- they wanted a power base from which to ing importance of conservation and en- operate, something they had never had vironmental management at the Treaty while they were a Working Group within had already been recognized by SCAR SCAR. The election of David Drewry as and, realizing that SCAR could contrib- the first chairman was considered to be ute a great deal more in these fields, it helpful in creating an appropriate and was agreed that a more focused group positive articulation between the two was needed to generate the expert ap- organizations; Drewry was well-known as proach needed. At the XX SCAR Meeting an Antarctic scientist, was serving as a in Hobart, Australia, September 1988, SCAR Alternate Delegate as well as being the Delegates agreed to establish the the head of a national programme. Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC). Its membership was agreed by the Execu- Over the years the relationship between tive in Siena in 1989: Nigel Bonner (chair- SCAR and COMNAP has improved to the man), Rudolph Bannasch, Peter J Barrett, point where they now generally work Krzysztof Birkenmajer, Pat Condy, Victor much better together, particularly in Gallardo, Marcello A Keller, Ronald I Lewis providing advice to the Antarctic Treaty Smith, Hugh F M Logan, Paul Trehen and where the demarcation of expertise and José Valencia. Its first meeting was held responsibilities is normally very clear. in Cambridge, United Kingdom, during COMNAP meets annually and its meetings September 1989. in even-numbered years are held during the first week of the biennial SCAR meet- The choice of a Group of Specialists, as ing thereby providing an opportunity for opposed to a new Working Group, had the two Executive Committees to hold a its advantages and disadvantages. The joint meeting. Initially, in the odd-num- principal advantage was that SCAR would bered years, the SCAR Executive Com- appoint the members and the member- mittee invited the Chairman of COMNAP ship could be restricted. However, the to attend the Executive meeting. Since latter advantage also meant that SCAR 1997, at the IX COMNAP meeting in Cape would have to pay the travel and subsis- Town, South Africa, the SCAR Executive tence costs for the members to attend Committee has held its meeting along- meetings, a substantial item in the SCAR side the COMNAP meeting in the odd- budget. Another advantage was that all numbered years that has also provided the members were appointed for their the opportunity for a joint meeting of expertise so that the group as a whole the Executive Committees. These joint could cover the range of topics required. meetings are invariably short, due to the If there were any gaps in expertise for the time constraints of the main meetings, agenda of a particular meeting the Con- and have not always been as productive venor could co-opt additional members as might be expected. However, away for that meeting. The fact that members from the meetings and at a practical were appointed as individual experts, not level, there is regular electronic contact as representatives of a national SCAR between the two secretariats, SCAR in member, meant that opinions could be

95 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

First meeting of the Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC) held at the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 11–14 September 1989. Stand- ing (left to right): Pat Richmond (SCAR Secretariat), Paul Trehen, Victor Gallardo, Marcello Keller, José Valencia, Pat Condy, Ron Lewis Smith. Seated (left to right): Rudolph Bannasch, Krzysztof Birkenmajer, Peter Clarkson (SCAR Executive Secretary), Nigel Bonner (Convenor), David Walton, Sherburne Abbott. expressed and decisions made on purely relation to matters put to SCAR by suc- scientific grounds without having to ac- cessive ATCMs. The only other long- commodate national stances, an impor- term Group of Specialists was the Group tant consideration in what was rapidly of Specialists on Seals whose remit in- becoming a contentious field. A Work- cluded providing scientific advice to the ing Group with national representatives Convention for the Conservation of Ant- could not have reached conclusions in arctic Seals (CCAS) under the Antarctic this way. In addition, if National Commit- Treaty. tees had appointed the representatives to the group it would have been highly GOSEAC proved to be controversial from unlikely that the required range of exper- the start. There was a great deal of tise would have been covered. business to be managed and on a strict timetable to allow SCAR to present the GOSEAC started as a Group of Specialists findings of the Group in papers to the with a difference. Most Groups of Spe- ATCM. Unlike some of the other groups cialists had a limited life, normally up to of specialists that welcomed anyone to 10 years, during which they would be ex- join them GOSEAC operated differently pected to address a particular scientific with closed meetings of the sort origi- problem. This usually meant co-ordinat- nally envisaged for such groups. The ex- ing a research programme to which many pertise on the Group was carefully select- SCAR scientists from several countries ed from a range of scientific disciplines would contribute. GOSEAC would have and included a member of SCALOP right no such research programme but would from the start, thus joining COMNAP to be developing advice to SCAR on various SCAR in these discussions. As members environmental and conservation matters. changed an environmental officer was This advice would then be passed on by added, linking GOSEAC to the Antarctic SCAR to the relevant organizations. In Environmental Officers Network (AEON), practice, most of the work undertaken and it was made very clear at all of its and advice provided by GOSEAC was in meetings that members were there ad

96 Science in the Snow

hominem, and national positions were not David Walton took over as Convenor in admissible. This approach was seen by 1993 from Nigel Bonner at the GOSEAC some as provocative and many attempts meeting in Gorizia, a move not universally were made to allow the size of the group welcomed as some other countries be- to be widened beyond the 10 agreed so lieved that a change in the nationality of that countries could appoint “national the convenor was required and had par- representatives”, a move determinedly ticular agendas they wished to push. resisted by the SCAR Executive. They GOSEAC set up a close link to IUCN did, however, agree that National Com- through Paul Dingwall in New Zealand mittees could appoint Corresponding which resulted in three co-sponsored Members to any Group of Specialists and workshops on Antarctic Protected Ar- that the Convenor could invite specific eas, Research and Management of the observers along as he saw fit. One of the Subantarctic Islands and Antarctic Envi- idiosyncrasies of GOSEAC, adopted from ronmental Education and Training. The the start, was that the members were workshop reports were published by IUCN expected to host meetings of the group and provided important syntheses for the in turn. This allowed the group to meet protected areas and subantarctic islands around the world without putting a par- whilst breaking new ground on education ticular burden on any one country. by developing this as an agenda item for discussion at the ATCM. GOSEAC provided a driving force for SCAR involvement in new conservation and Until the Protocol on Environmental management issues. The basic thesis was Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was that good environmental management ratified by all the Consultative Parties in could only be based on good science. 1998 none of its elements could be le- The range of subjects covered was very gally acted upon. Afraid that this would wide - from management plans for pro- set environmental management back by tected areas to the operation of incinera- years the Parties decided to establish tors, from the production of manuals for a “Transitional Environmental Working monitoring human impacts to a checklist Group (TEWG)” which, whilst it had no for environmental inspections, from the legal standing, could work to put in place toxicity of de-icer to marine acoustics the foundations for the Committee for and mammals. In many of these initia- Environmental Protection. From the start tives workshops were organized jointly many of the national delegations at the with COMNAP and the reports and papers TEWG were inadequately provided with experts yet major subjects were under were often also joint productions. The discussion and development. SCAR was impact of all this was considerable at an the only body with a sufficiently broad international level. expertise to provide the data for many of these discussions and GOSEAC found itself undertaking detailed work for the TEWG simply to ensure that the long term interests of science were protected.

One of the regular tasks for GOSEAC at its annual meetings was to review the draft management plans for protected areas in Antarctica that would be tabled at the ATCM for adoption as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) or Spe- Members of GOSEAC enjoying the mudflats cially Protected Areas (SPAs) and subse- of the Waddensee on an excursion during the quently as Antarctic Specially Protected GOSEAC IX meeting in Bremerhaven, Germany, Areas (ASPAs). Many of these draft July 1999. plans submitted by National Committees

97 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

had limited scientific arguments, were Gradually, as the ATCM increased the poorly constructed, poorly written and number and extent of requests to SCAR with inadequate maps. These were to be for advice on environmental matters, granted key status as international legal the GOSEAC workload grew and the an- documents with which all scientists would nual meetings became a week of fever- have to work. The group felt it essential ish activity to complete the agenda. At that they should meet not only all the sci- the same time, several Delegates began entific requirements but also those of us- to realize the amount of work that the ability in the field and would often spend group was doing on their behalf and their considerable efforts re-working a single disposition towards GOSEAC moderated. plan before returning it to the originator Eventually, the wheel turned full circle for final revision. GOSEAC members were and when the group was closed with the often very familiar with the areas to be implementation of the recommendations protected which made a considerable dif- of the SCAR Review one prominent Del- ference to the revisions. In later years, egate, who had been one of GOSEAC’s once the Committee for Environmental most vociferous critics, remarked that he Protection (CEP) was operational at the did not know what SCAR would do in the ATCM, SCAR was told to restrict its re- future without a group like GOSEAC. view of these plans to scientific matters only; the CEP would deal with all other At XVI ATCM in 1991 the Delegates pro- aspects. A lack of familiarity with the ar- posed to hold a First Meeting of Experts eas designated together with little time on Environmental Monitoring. In prepa- for revision in a lengthy agenda led to the ration for this the SCAR Executive con- adoption by the ATCM of a number of less vened an ad hoc Group on Environmental satisfactory management plans, although Monitoring that met in Cambridge, 24–26 they contained satisfactory science. February 1992. A paper was developed and the Executive Secretary took this to The Terms of Reference for GOSEAC a meeting of the COMNAP subgroup on were defined and redefined by the SCAR Environmental Monitoring in Washington Delegates but they still left room for in- DC, 2–5 March 1992. A separate COM- terpretation. As a result the Convenors, NAP paper was prepared. At the meeting first Nigel Bonner and subsequently Da- in Paimpont, France, 22–25 April 1992, vid Walton, would pick up various matters the two papers were amalgamated into a for discussion that some Delegates felt single document that was then approved were actually outside GOSEAC’s remit. by both Executive Committees for joint Such matters created critical discussions submission as a discussion document for among Delegates when the Convenor the Meeting of Experts, held in Buenos presented his report and gave rise to far Aires, 1–4 June 1992. R M Laws (Presi- more vituperative remarks in the corri- dent), W N Bonner (Convenor of GOSEAC) dors. However, these were matters of and the Executive Secretary represented importance to SCAR and, because they SCAR at the meeting. The document en- were not relevant to any other SCAR titled “A scientific framework for environ- groups, the GOSEAC Convenors felt justi- mental monitoring in Antarctica” was the fied in considering them. Some Delegates only paper tabled for the meeting! The were undoubtedly aggrieved by some of collective experience of the Antarctic en- the GOSEAC advice because it did not ac- vironment of the representatives around cord with their national positions. They the table was very largely vested in the felt that GOSEAC should be a Working SCAR delegation. After several hours Group so that their national positions of discussion, one national representa- could be aired and accommodated. De- tive proposed taking the document and spite these criticisms, GOSEAC continued re-working it to form the report of the with its work and survived attempts to meeting. This was strongly rebuffed by “clip its wings”. another representative who stressed that

98 Science in the Snow

this Meeting of Experts had to develop its because of the attendance of Jim Bleasel own advice to present to the next ATCM. (at the request of XIII ATCM) to address The resulting report was indeed devel- the specific topic of air safety. oped by the meeting but it was peppered with sentences and sections lifted from For the XV ATCM in Paris, France, October the SCAR/COMNAP document! 1989, Claude Lorius, as a leading figure in French Antarctic affairs, was closely in- volved with the French Government’s or- Relations with the Antarctic Treaty ganization of the Treaty Meeting. Lorius At XII ATCM there had been discussion felt the time had come to make a more of the value both of having non-consul- substantive mark for SCAR and suggest- tative Parties present at every meeting ed that he give an illustrated lecture to and inviting specific international organi- the plenary on SCAR science. Not only zations to attend where their expertise was this accepted and included in the would help the discussions. At XIII ATCM programme but its novelty for many of in 1985 this was developed further by a the Delegates, as well as the way Lorius resolution (XIII-2) that required reports delivered the talk, won plaudits all round. from SCAR and CCAMLR at the next The SCAR Executive had also agreed that, meeting, thus laying the basis for their given the increasing emphasis on environ- regular attendance. mental affairs, Lorius should be accompa- nied by a specialist in the field and Nigel At XIV ATCM the Rules of Procedure were Bonner, Convenor of GOSEAC, was asked revised and both the Commission for the to go. Both were listed for the first time Conservation of Antarctic Marine Liv- under SCAR as an official Observer del- ing Resources (CCAMLR) and SCAR were egation. SCAR had finally taken its place formally given the status of “Observ- at the Treaty Meetings after only 28 year ers”. This status entitled the Chairman but its members were still supposed to of CCAMLR and the President of SCAR, scurry back to their national delegations or their appointed representatives, to at- when not speaking on an agenda item! tend the meeting and to submit written papers to the meeting as Working and Many Antarctic scientists had had con- Information Papers. However, the Chair- siderable misgivings about the negotia- man of CCAMLR and the President of tions for a minerals regime in the Antarc- SCAR could apparently only speak from tic. The conclusion of the negotiations the CCAMLR and SCAR desks during the and the formal signing ceremony of the relevant agenda items; they would have Convention on the Regulation of Antarc- to spend the rest of the meeting with tic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) their national delegations, a ridiculous so- was in Wellington on 2 June 1988. ASOC lution. Other international organizations, and Greenpeace were bitterly opposed to initially the World Meteorological Organi- the Convention and had vowed to fight it zation (WMO) and the International Union tooth and nail from the start of the ne- for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) gotiations. SCAR was equivocal in that it were regarded as Experts and could be had provided several important reports to invited to send a representative to as- the Treaty dealing with mineral resources sist with discussions on specific agenda and their possible exploitation, and many items. Experts were allowed to submit of its scientists had been involved in Information Papers only. Both Observ- the negotiations as experts within their ers and Experts could be excluded from national delegations. The Delegates at the plenary if required. At this meeting XX SCAR had decided that SCAR should the Delegates agreed Rec XVI-2 on the seek Observer status on the Commis- need to develop environmental impact sion and on the Advisory Committee and assessment procedures for activities on recognized that implementation of the the continent. Confusingly SCAR was Convention would enhance the need for also listed as an Expert in the final report scientific research. The final text was

99 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

very strong on environmental constraints This was not, of course, the real reason. and, given that any Party could object to The Australian Mining Industry Council a development, it did seem unlikely that was ambivalent over Antarctic mining the agreement had opened the door to but tended towards the position that an exploitation bonanza as some had signing CRAMRA would help protect the claimed. Indeed some SCAR scientists, Australian national position. In this posi- like John Behrendt, claimed that CRAMRA tion it was supported by Australia’s envi- would have a positive effect both on en- ronment and foreign ministries who also vironmental protection and on scientific thought that it would protect the Antarc- research in general as any country wish- tic in general. Both the Australian Trea- ing to proceed beyond prospecting would sury and the Resources Ministry however have to demonstrate a clear understand- had a different view, claiming that signing ing of risks and mitigations. Politicians, would undermine Australia’s territorial such as Russell Marshall, New Zealand’s claim, generate little revenue for Australia Foreign Minister, praised CRAMRA for fill- if others exploited the resources and that ing a dangerous legal vacuum without exploitation might, in itself, allow unprof- which there would be no control over ex- itable mining that could undermine the ploitation or liability. Many conservation Australian mining industry. Hawke also and environmental groups strongly dis- saw that he could mollify the Green Party agreed with these views, since they felt in Tasmania, whose support he needed, that Antarctic mining should never be al- by withdrawing Australia from CRAMRA. lowed under any circumstances. On 22 May 1989 the Australian Cabinet decided not to ratify CRAMRA. Whilst the signatures in Wellington in- dicated agreement by the Parties rati- Jacques Cousteau, French inventor of fication by all the claimant states was the aqualung and fervid environmental required to bring the Convention into campaigner, had been active in France, force. The NGOs organized themselves claiming he achieved a million signatures to mobilize public opinion and lobby min- on a public petition against CRAMRA. isters in what were seen as the weakest Visiting his friend President François Mit- countries. terand, Cousteau persuaded him that France would gain politically from being Australia, the country with the largest seen to be environmentally conscious, it claim to Antarctic territory, was the first would mitigate the public relations disas- to withdraw and refuse to ratify the Con- ter of building the rock runway at Pointe vention. Australian Prime Minister Bob Géologie near to Dumont d’Urville Sta- Hawke explained his country’s rejection tion and the public would support non- of the treaty by saying ratification. Hawke capitalized on this during an overseas tour in June and the “First, the Antarctic environment is ex- French government formally allied itself tremely fragile and critically important with Australia. This attempt to occupy to the whole global ecosystem. Sec- the moral high ground was too much for ond, mining in Antarctica will always be some other countries. Belgium was the dangerous, and could be catastrophi- next to refuse to ratify, followed by India cally so ... we are convinced that the and Italy. New Zealand was in a difficult Minerals Convention is basically flawed. position as Chris Beeby, who had chaired It is based on the clearly incorrect as- the CRAMRA negotiations, was a New sumption that mining in the Antarctic Zealander. Initially New Zealand criticized could be consistent with the preserva- Australia for its position but soon pub- tion of the continent’s fragile environ- lic attitudes changed and the National ment. Any mining operation ... would Party, who had come out in favour of a have a lasting and major impact on the World Park, won the next election and area in which it takes place.” changed the country’s position in Febru-

100 Science in the Snow

ary 1989. Meanwhile the USA, UK and tive so the Executive Secretary attended. Japan all denounced Australia and France It was a frustrating two and a half days for wrecking this important new initiative with Sir Martin Holdgate, Director-General but they were soon facing a proposal, or- of IUCN, trying to reconcile the extreme chestrated by the Antarctic and South- views of “green” participants, who would ern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and others, have been quite happy to have seen all to move instead to a more comprehen- human activity in Antarctica cease, and sive form of environmental protection for the pragmatic views of the majority, who the continent, underpinning its role as a recognized the value of scientific re- place for peace and science. search in the region.

Where did this new proposal come from? The final session of the series which com- When Hawke was in Washington he gave prised this ATSCM was held in Madrid, a speech to the National Press Club in 3–4 October 1991 when the Protocol which he outlined an Antarctic Environ- on Environmental Protection to the Ant- ment Protection Convention. During a arctic Treaty, together with its first four visit from Prime Minister Michel Rocard Annexes, was adopted and signed on be- of France to Australia in August 1989 it half of the Parties. Although much of the was announced that France and Australia text of the Protocol could trace its origin would be promoting this joint initiative at to CRAMRA it was, nevertheless, a signifi- the XV ATCM in Paris. Indeed, their joint cant achievement on the part of the Par- working papers (XV ATCM WP2 & 3), sup- ties to have completed the instrument ported by others from New Zealand, Chile, in less than a year. It should be added USA and Sweden pushed the Parties into that the “Greens” were largely satisfied organizing a Special Consultative Meeting by Article 7 that prohibited all mineral re- immediately to agree on this new com- source activities for 50 years. Despite prehensive regime for the protection of the rapidity of drafting and adoption of the Antarctic environment. the Protocol it would prove to be almost seven years before it entered into force In November 1990 the Parties began the upon ratification by all the Consultative first session of XI ATSCM in Viña del Mar, Parties. Chile, to discuss comprehensive protec- tion of the Antarctic environment. These XVI ATCM in Bonn was a new experience Special Consultative Meetings are a de- for SCAR. This was the first ATCM at vice used to develop and negotiate par- which SCAR had formal independent rep- ticular arrangements outside the agenda resentation as an Observer and entitled and timing of the normal ATCMs but using to submit Working Papers and Informa- the same rules of procedure. They have tion Papers direct to the meeting Sec- been used for agreeing CCAS, CCAMLR retariat. Working Papers are translated and CRAMRA as well as the Protocol and into the four official languages (English, normally consist of a series of separate French, Russian and Spanish) and must be sessions at locations and times apart tabled for discussion; Information Papers from the annual Consultative Meeting. R are translated only if requested and need M Laws (President) and W N Bonner (Con- not be discussed although, in practice, venor of GOSEAC) represented SCAR and most are discussed. Nigel Bonner and explained that excessive legislation could Peter Clarkson represented SCAR speak- circumscribe scientific research, a point ing directly to the meeting rather than as that was not universally understood or previously when SCAR scientists included appreciated. A few days later The World in national delegations could speak only Conservation Union (IUCN) held its trien- through the heads of their delegations. nial General Assembly in Perth, Australia. It was an important meeting because the One of the workshops held during the As- Protocol on Environmental Protection to sembly was on mining in Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty, together with the SCAR was invited to send a representa- first four Annexes, had been adopted at XI

101 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

At the close of XVII ATCM in Venice a “poem”, purportedly written by an Italian lady called Anne Engio, received a strictly limited circulation. Further “poems” fol- lowed at subsequent Treaty meetings where they were eagerly awaited by some Delegates. The last of these “poems” appeared at XXVIII ATCM in Stockholm in 2005 which, by a curious coincidence, was the last ATCM attended by the Executive Secretary of SCAR before his retirement.

XVII ATCM

The diplomats all have their say, How to behave when once ashore They work here in the strangest way, In that land of ice and snow, Moving carefully around Where diplomats so rarely go. Each other to secure their ground Then finally, when all seems lost On which to move a little nearer And Delegates reflect the cost To that point at which it’s clearer To stay in Venice for the meeting That the item of discussion, To reach consensus all are seeking, By the Spaniard or the Russian, Suddenly, a word is changed, Is one on which they all agree, A sentence here is re-arranged; But each must feel completely free Delegates then all agree To offer up his own suggestion, That “This seems very good to me”. Even though it makes congestion And people ask “What was the trouble? For the progress of the meeting How did they get in such a muddle?” So that chances of completing The meeting’s over, they did well; A consensus on the item Once back home they have to tell That won’t worry, scare or frighten Those politicians that, of course, Politicians still at home These recs must enter into force. Who, because they could not come, And so it all begins again, Wait anxiously by fax and ’phone The next agenda’s set in train, To hear what Delegates have done And they will meet again next year And so what they will have to do To talk and talk ... Oh! Where’s the beer? To get each measure safely through Their parliaments to make it law Anne Engio Venice, 1992

ATSCM in Madrid, and at this meeting the sides had the same aim – to protect the fifth annex on “Area Protection and Man- Antarctic environment – their separate agement” was adopted. The protected approaches, perhaps not surprisingly, areas had always been a particular con- were very different; SCAR’s business was cern of SCAR and the new annex would scientific research whereas ASOC’s was mean revising all management plans for environmental campaigning. These infor- SPAs and SSSIs, a process that would mal meetings however became a regular provide a huge workload for GOSEAC in feature of succeeding Treaty meetings the coming years. Also present at the and, over time, they became less con- frontational until, eventually, ASOC was meeting as an Expert was a delegation quite supportive of SCAR on many envi- from the Antarctic and Southern Ocean ronmental matters. Coalition (ASOC), an environmental um- brella organization for about 200 “green” The recommendations from XIV ATCM organizations as diverse as Greenpeace and XV ATCM on environmental impact and the Worldwide Fund for Nature. The assessment had not gone unnoticed by SCAR delegation held an informal meet- the fledgling COMNAP who saw this as a ing with the ASOC delegation that proved major opportunity to provide direct input to be very confrontational. While both to the Treaty. Accordingly they organized

102 Science in the Snow

sion and better understanding of items of common interest between Britain and the US. Using a grand country house called Ditchley Park they have promoted around twelve conferences a year and the im- minence of the 30th anniversary of the Treaty in 1991 persuaded them that one on Antarctica was merited in December 1988. Chaired by Dick Laws the attend- ees also included SCAR scientists Bob Rutford and David Drewry as well as lead- ers of Treaty delegations like John Heap and Tucker Scully. The conclusions of the group were that a review of the Treaty in 1991 was unlikely; that a secretariat was needed both for co-ordination and infor- mation purposes; and that better co-or- dination of science was a key objective. In this they recognized SCAR’s role but noted that too often SCAR’s reports and suggestions were ignored by national sci- entific research authorities.

XX SCAR, Hobart, 1988 September 1988 saw SCAR assemble in Hobart for XX SCAR. For many it was their first experience of Australia and proved quite different to the normal im- Carlos Rinaldi (Argentina) and David Walton age of the continent – no deserts, no (SCAR) on a white-water excursion, Japanese coral reefs, but sheep, apple orchards, style, during XVIII ATCM, Kyoto, Japan, April convict settlements and a wonderfully 1994. temperate climate. a three day Antarctic Environmental Im- The welcome to Hobart for the Delegates pact Assessment Workshop in Bologna in was provided by a wine reception at Gov- June 1991 to develop the first practical ernment House hosted by the Governor guidelines. SCAR was invited to attend His Excellency General Sir Philip Bennett. along with a wide range of technical and The house was built in the mid-19th cen- legal experts. The resulting publication tury in the style of a Victorian country on practical guidelines was an important house and retains most of its original fea- development for the environmental offi- tures including beautifully panelled rooms, cers in national operators who would be a huon pine ballroom floor and extensive responsible for these assessments on all ornate gardens. Such surroundings to- science programmes. gether with the chance to meet many people from the Tasmanian capital made Quite separately there were several this a most memorable evening. The groups interested in what would happen SCAR banquet also proved a memorable to the Treaty as it approached the 30- evening not least because of the menu year point in 1991, when any Party could and the extremely drinkable Tasmanian ask for a review. One such group was wines. It was held in the Long Gallery at the Ditchley Foundation. The Ditchley Salamanca Place, a set of converted old Foundations were established in the UK warehouses on the waterfront at Hobart, and the USA in 1958 to promote discus- just a stones throw from where the Aus-

103 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

tralian Antarctic vessel Aurora Australis The membership of SCAR continued to would be berthed in future years. A spe- swell with Ecuador admitted to associate cial version of the SCAR song book was membership and Italy, Sweden and Uru- produced to include both new Australian guay upgraded to full members. The Ex- songs and ones from Japan, Germany and ecutive changed the format of the Dele- Russia. A good time was had by all! gates meeting, inviting the Chief Officers

104 Science in the Snow

Some photographs from the XX SCAR Meeting in Hobart, Australia, September 1966.

Claude Lorius (France), Tak Hirasawa (Japan) Jim Zumberge (playing the accordion), Claude and Sayed El-Sayed (USA) in conversation. Lorius and Pat Quilty after the Banquet. This was Jim’s last SCAR meeting and it was also the last rendering of the SCAR Marching Song.

Roland Schlich (France) and Carlos Rinaldi (Ar- The SCAR cake, showing several penguin spe- gentina) discussing a point in typically animat- cies undertaking various activities on the Ant- ed Latin style! arctic continental cake! along for the first two days and devot- a planning group was established under ing this time to discussing science, a wel- Hempel. come initiative for many and a direct re- sult of the President’s concerns that too Allied to this a discussion of SCAR strat- much time was spent on bureaucracy. egy, in the light of the Executive Commit- tee concerns and a paper submitted by Periodically the Executive had recognized the UK, resulted in some clear decisions that initiatives were needed to bring Ant- on two strategic goals and how to reach arctic science more clearly into the public them. The Delegates agreed that “SCAR consciousness. The growth of interna- must play an active role in world science” tional interest in global problems, epito- and that it should continue to be “re- mized by IGBP initiatives, had also shown sponsive to international events relevant that SCAR was still very much organized to Antarctica where SCAR expertise in along old fashioned disciplinary lines with science and operations can be mutually little opportunity for fostering interdisci- beneficial”. The first underlined the need plinary discussions. In 1987 the idea of for SCAR to become more involved in a holding an Open Science conference to variety of global programmes, whilst the address both these problems was first latter vindicated those who maintained raised in the SCAR Executive by Gotthilf that the interaction with the ATS was Hempel. Much time was taken in Hobart a vital component of SCAR’s role. The discussing the content and structure of way forward apparently consisted of a this proposed open science meeting and series of motherhood statements, none

105 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

of which were new and all of which would David Drewry also attended the meeting put even greater workloads on the Chief as the Chairman of COMNAP. The meet- Officers and the Secretariat. ing was held in the peaceful ambience of the Certosa di Pontignano, a former As far as the future of the Logistics Carthusian monastery now owned by the Working Group was concerned, at the be- University of Siena and located a short hest of the Executive and in the light of distance outside the city. Topics dis- the protracted discussions taking place cussed included SCAR’s participation in in Hobart amongst the managers, the the International Geosphere–Biosphere Delegates accepted the new terms of Programme; planning the Antarctic Sci- reference, agreed to the closure of the ence Conference; and establishing an ad Logistics WG and accepted that a “new hoc group on Antarctic scientific data. A relationship with mutual respect of each formal invitation from Argentina to host other’s responsibilities, and the desire of XXII SCAR in San Carlos de Bariloche was both groups to forge a lasting and use- gratefully accepted and Professor Re- ful relationship will work to the benefit of nato Funicello indicated Italy’s intention the advancement of scientific research in to host XXIII SCAR in Rome in 1994. For Antarctica”. It certainly was not the out- come that SCAR had wanted but there the Executive, the meeting was memo- was nothing else to be done other than rable for the opportunity to see Il Palio, move forward. the mad horse race around Il Piazza del Campo in Siena. This was followed by an invitation to join the open air banquet in The new Executive Secretary one of the Contrade, the competing dis- George Hemmen, who had served the tricts of Siena. Antarctic science community so well for so many years finally retired on 30 Sep- Meeting in Brazil in 1990 for XXI SCAR tember 1989 handing-over to the new, XXI SCAR was held in São Paulo, Brazil, full-time Executive Secretary, Peter Clark- during September 1990. Professor An- son, who had taken up the post on 1 May tonio Rocha-Campos, the Brazilian Dele- 1989. George had been running SCAR, with due respect to the Executive Com- gate and elected Secretary of SCAR, had mittee, for more than 27 years but the originally planned to host the meeting in new incumbent was an unknown quan- Brasilia but the chosen conference centre tity. Clarkson, previously a geologist at was under construction and he was con- BAS, now had to assume the mantle of cerned that it might not be completed in “Mr SCAR”, a formidable challenge. For- time. He decided it would be safer to tunately, SPRI continued to provide free relocate the meeting to São Paulo, his accommodation for the SCAR Office so home city, although the available venue the management costs for the organiza- would be less than ideal. His problems tion continued to remain remarkably low were compounded further when the re- given the range of disciplines and pro- organization of two government depart- grammes covered as well as the increas- ments had resulted in the money allo- ing number of SCAR countries. cated to the meeting disappearing from the relevant departmental budget. Even- Clarkson overlapped with Hemmen for a tually the funding was recovered and a probationary period of 5 months to learn successful meeting was held. This was the job, although in reality it took him an example of the problems that meeting many years to learn the complexities of organizers can face when relying on sup- the system that George had managed port over which they have no control. with such apparent ease. This meeting was also marked by a change During this time he attended, with Hem- in SCAR. It was the first meeting since men, the meeting of the Executive Com- VI SCAR in 1962 where George Hemmen mittee in Siena, Italy, 28–30 June 1989. was not present from the SCAR Secre-

106 Science in the Snow

Sherburne Abbott (USA) followed by Carlos Rinaldi (Argentina), Dick Laws (UK), Sayed El- Sayed (USA) and José Valencia (Chile) dancing the conga after the Banquet at XXI SCAR.

purchase a retirement present; a mantle clock with its face bearing the inscrip- tion Tempus fugit and its case set with polished Brazilian semi-precious stones. This was presented to George later at the George Hemmen at home in April 2009, hold- Scott Polar Research Institute, witnessed ing the clock presented to him by SCAR follow- by his former colleagues there including ing his retirement in 1989. Gordon Robin, an Honorary Member and tariat. Many Delegates spoke with deep former President of SCAR who,while he respect for the work that George had un- was the elected Secretary, had brought dertaken during those years; he had for- George into SCAR. gotten more about SCAR than most Del- egates ever knew but they were warmly After the official opening of the meet- welcoming to his successor. A collection ing and following brief presentations, the was made for George that was used to Delegates agreed unanimously to admit

Kris Birkenmajer (Poland), Sherburne Abbott (USA), Gotthilf Hempel (Germany), Bill Budd (Austra- lia), Gunter Weller (USA), Peter Clarkson (Executive Secretary) and Tak Hirasawa seated around the central table; Carlos Palomo, Josefína Castelví and Carlos Rinaldi (Argentina) are at the farther table during the Banquet at XXI SCAR in São Paulo.

107 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

Richard M Laws, President, 1990-94 Richard (Dick) Maitland Laws was born on 23 April 1926 and educated at Dame Allan’s School in Newcastle on Tyne. He went to St Catherine’s College, Univer- sity of Cambridge for both his bache- lor’s degree (1947) and his doctorate (1953). In 1947 he joined the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey and spent two years on Signy Island studying the life cycle of elephant seals. He was also Base Leader, magistrate and postmas- ter! His work later formed the basis for the management plan for sealing at South Georgia that he drew up in 1953. The 1953–54 season he spent as a whaling inspector aboard the Balaena re- turning to a research post in London at the National Institute of Oceanography. His work on marine mammals proved very important, allowing individuals to be aged for the first time leading to the development of species specific popula- tion models. Appointed Director of the Nuffield Unit of Tropical Animal Ecology Local Examination Syndicate. He began in Uganda in 1961 he began work on in SCAR in the Biology Working Group elephants and other large African ani- in 1972, becoming Chairman 1980-86. mals. In 1967 he moved to Director of As UK Delegate to SCAR 1984-1993 the Tsavo Research Project in Kenya be- he became President in 1990. After he fore returning the UK as a Leverhulme retired from BAS he was Master of St Research Fellow in 1969. At this point Edmund’s College, Cambridge for many he decided to return to Antarctic work years. For his many achievements Dick and joined BAS as Head of Life Sciences was awarded the Polar Medal and clasp, Division in 1969, becoming Director of the Bruce Medal of the Royal Society of BAS in 1973 on the retirement of Sir Edinburgh, an honorary doctorate from Vivian Fuchs. He remained Director until University of Bath (1991), made a Com- 1986 but also collected various other mander of the Order of the British Em- roles at the same time including Direc- pire (CBE) in 1983 and elected a Fellow tor of the Sea Mammal Research Unit of the Royal Society in 1980. His name (1977-87), Secretary of the Zoologi- is also commemorated in Laws Glacier cal Society of London (1984-88) and (60°38'S, 45°37'W) on Coronation Is- Chairman of the Cambridge University land in the South Orkney Islands.

Colombia to Associate Membership of den being placed on members of the Ex- SCAR and confirmed Finland, the Republic ecutive to represent SCAR at an increas- of Korea, The Netherlands and Spain as ing number of meetings”. In practice, the Full Members. This brought the member- members of the Executive Committee all ship to 24 Full Members and 4 Associ- remained as busy as ever and, recogniz- ate Members. Delegates also agreed to ing that they now had a full-time Execu- augment the Executive Committee with a tive Secretary, would frequently ask him third Vice-President to “spread the bur- to represent SCAR.

108 Science in the Snow

São Paulo was not at its best for the meeting. The pollution on some days was bad making it difficult for some Del- egates to breathe and there were many days on which it rained and the plight of the homeless in the city were a salutary reminder of how difficult it can be in many SCAR countries to justify the resources for Antarctic research against pressing national social needs. The facilities at the university however The introductory poster to the commissioned were excellent and the excursions includ- posters illustrating the science of the eight ed visits to the largest Japanese commu- Permanent Working Groups of SCAR at the nity outside Japan and to the coast at Antarctic Science Conference in Bremen, Ger- Santos. many, September 1991.

The SCAR Antarctic Science Conference Planning group, made a presentation to the Delegates who approved the follow- Hempel’s offer to host the open science ing programme: meeting at the conference centre in Bre- men, rather than a joint USA/NZ proposal a. The Antarctic in the Global Scene for the meeting to be in Christchurch, had b. Antarctic Research on Global been accepted by the Executive Commit- Change tee on the grounds that a European loca- c. Progress and Frontiers in Antarctic tion would attract greater public and me- Science dia interest. Entitled “Antarctic Science- Global Concerns” the four day meeting d. The Future of Antarctic Science was intended to both raise the public e. The Framework for Research in the profile of Antarctic science and foster Antarctic better interactions between scientists f. Open Lectures from different disciplines. The Science Conference Planning Group met with the g. Displays on National Operations Executive Committee and all SCAR Chief h. Commissioned Posters Officers to finalize the structure for the i. Contributed Posters Conference. Hempel, as Chairman of the The Conference was to be held in Bre- men, Germany, 23–28 September 1991, and would be surrounded by other Ant- arctic meetings: SCAR BIOMASS Collo- quium, Bremerhaven, 18–21 September 1991; SCAR IGBP Workshops, Bremer- haven, 18–21 September 1991; Antarc- tic Challenge IV, Bremen, 30 September – 2 October 1991; and XVI ATCM, Bonn, 7–18 October 1991. A small number of keynote addresses, a series of lectures on SCAR science and the importance of undertaking research in Antarctica and a major display of posters - 40 commis- sioned posters on SCAR science, 24 on national operations and nearly 200 sub- mitted posters from individual scientists Logo of the Antarctic Science Conference. in the atrium of the Marriott Hotel – pro-

109 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

vided a formidable overview of Antarctic for an Antarctic Global Change Pro- activities. As well as all this there were gramme in the “White Book”: panel discussions and even an Antarctic 1. The Antarctic Sea-ice Zone art exhibition. About 500 people attend- ed the meeting and Gotthilf Hempel made 2. Palaeoenvironmental records from great efforts to interest the media but, Antarctica outside of Germany, coverage was limited 3. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice even in Europe and there was little inter- sheet and sea level est shown from elsewhere. Equally un- 4. Stratospheric chemistry and biologi- fortunate was the lack of representatives cal effects from the key target audience of Treaty Delegates; SCAR was preaching largely 5. Biogeochemical cycles and exchang- to the converted. In retrospect, the tim- es in the atmosphere and ocean ing of the conference was less than ideal. 6. Detection and prediction of change. Several Treaty Delegates later expressed Each of the core programmes were to be their disappointment at being unable to developed by an international team of come but explained that they could not scientists at a planning workshop to be afford the time or the travel costs. How- held in Bremerhaven, 18–21 September ever, the mixing of different disciplines 1991. The workshops duly took place and the focus of the keynote talks on as planned and their reports provided global problems and their solutions was the basis of a new publication The Role more of a success and laid the founda- of the Antarctic in Global Change: An In- tions for the present biennial Open Sci- ternational Plan for a Regional Research ence meetings which have steadily grown Programme known as the “Black Book” in popularity. and subsequently published by SCAR in 1992. Gunter Weller, Chairman of the SCAR Steering Group for the IGBP, reported on The request from the United Nations the identification of six core programmes The inter-sessional meeting of the SCAR Executive Committee was held in Zürich, Switzerland, 6–9 June 1991 at the invita- tion of the Swiss Commission for Polar Re- search and took place in the Institute of Geography. Among the topics discussed was a letter from the United Nations re- questing SCAR to provide information on the Antarctic environment and advice on establishing an international Antarctic station. Dr S A Evteev, Assistant Secre- tary-General at the United Nations, was in Switzerland at the time and met with the Executive Committee and the Chairman of COMNAP. Prior to Dr Evteev’s visit, the Executive had expressed very strong reservations about the wisdom and the practicalities of an international station and was very concerned about how to dis- At a reception during the SCAR Global Change courage the UN. Dr Evteev made a short Workshops in Bremerhaven, Claude Lorius presentation of the station proposal by (Past President of SCAR) was seen assessing the UN causing further gloom amongst the effects of global climate warming on the those present. However, Dr Evteev went German grape harvest. on to explain that he understood about

110 Science in the Snow

living and conducting scientific research in Antarctica because he had worked at Mirny and later spent a year at McMur- do Station as a Soviet Exchange Scien- tist in 1959–60. Therefore, he was well aware of all the difficulties that would be involved with an international station and so he, personally, thought it was a very silly idea but “I have to present the proposal”. The tension of the meeting rapidly evaporated and was followed by an extremely useful discussion that as- sisted greatly with the preparation of a response to the UN regarding the pro- posed station. SCAR would restrict its reply to scientific advice while COMNAP would advise on operational matters. The logo for the XXII SCAR Meeting in San Car- XXII SCAR, San Carlos de Bariloche, los de Bariloche, Argentina, June 1992. June 1992 increasingly impacted by unwanted radio The Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts noise. This was brought to a head by the in Buenos Aires was followed, after the installation by Telecom New Zealand of weekend, by XXII SCAR held in San a satellite earth station at First Crater Carlos de Bariloche in the foothills of the (which some alleged infringed the SSSI Argentine Andes, 8–19 June 1992. The boundary) transmitting across the site at meeting had been timed to take place im- a low elevation. This was meant to be a mediately prior to the start of the skiing major step in improving communications season so that participants enjoyed a dai- for both New Zealand and the USA but ly fall of wet snow and slushy streets. All suddenly turned sour. the SCAR Working Groups met during the first week and a common theme in many SCAR first became involved when the of their recommendations concerned the issue was raised at the Solar-Terres- implementation of the Madrid Protocol. trial Astrophsyics Research (STAR) WG The geologists also pronounced on rock meeting at XXII SCAR by American scien- group nomenclature and the protection tists. Accusations that the earth station of geological specimens, the latter be- breached the boundary of the SSSI, that ing an issue for SCAR to raise at the next there had been no international consul- ATCM. tation on its position and output, that It was at this meeting in Bariloche that the environmental impact of the station the dispute between the USA and New had not been properly assessed and so Zealand over the use of Arrival Heights on, made it clear that this was an issue came up for public discussion. The Ar- that could not be easily progressed in rival Heights protected area was one of an open forum so a private meeting was the earliest designated (SSSI 2) in 1973 convened, chaired by the President, and and unique in that its purpose was to pro- involving Ted Rosenberg, Charlie Bentley, tect an area of very low radio noise for and Bob Rutford from the USA and David scientists carrying out radio research on Geddes, George Knox and Malcolm Mac- the Earth’s atmosphere and near space farlane from New Zealand together with environment. As activities at McMurdo John Dudeney as Chairman of STAR. As a and Scott Base grew ever more complex result of these discussions the SCAR Del- and electromagnetically noisy the instru- egates were faced with two resolutions ments installed at Arrival Heights were (one of which demanded the removal of

111 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

the earth station) but finally agreed on rival Heights but its origins appeared to a composite one requesting that both lie with activities at McMurdo and Scott sides confer under an independent chair- Base rather than with the earth station. man to see what could be done to solve It was not possible to say with any de- the problem. gree of certainty that the earth station had breached the boundaries of the site As Chairman of STAR John Dudeney was as they were so imprecisely described. charged with organizing and chairing a There was no reliable evidence that the resolution meeting in Cambridge after existing operation of the earth station appropriate preparations. Considerable had impacted the experiments then being work proved necessary and since this in- conducted. The recommendations for cluded radio noise surveys and detailed the direct management of the protected examination of the radio interference area were simply a re-iteration of what on the experiments at Arrival Heights it had been previously intended. What was took over 18 months before the meet- new was the proposal for an Antarctic ing could be convened. It was clear that Specially Managed Area (ASMA) centred there were two issues to be resolved on the site and with a radius of 100 km in – one was an ATCM political issue about which existing levels of electromagnetic the management plan for the SSSI and radiation would be reduced, electromag- the way New Zealand had approached netic compatibility would be an essential the construction of the station. The sec- part of planning for all new equipment ond was a scientific issue of establishing in this area and periodic noise surveys if the earth station was actually damag- would be conducted to determine how ing any of the existing experiments and these objectives were being achieved. if its bandwidth would preclude particular The ASMA was to be managed jointly by sorts of new experiments. This was an the two National Operators and its effec- issue for SCAR. tiveness reviewed annually by a panel of By now the problem had risen up the experts appointed by SCAR. political agenda with formal exchanges between the New Zealand and US gov- Various mitigation measures were taken ernments as well as articles in popular by both national operators, the fuss died science magazines like the New Scientist, down and the science continued. SCAR which quoted Louis Lanzerotti as saying submitted its recommendations to XIX “I am amazed at their audacity. It’s like ATCM as Information Paper 57 and the putting a nuclear power station in a pen- US and New Zealand also jointly submit- guin rookery” and letters to Science and ted Information Paper 86 thanking SCAR Eos. The newspapers in New Zealand not for its efforts in resolving the matter surprisingly also took a predictably parti- although noting that the recommenda- san view and there were wild accusations tion on the ASMA did not appear to be thrown around that this threatened the feasible. Indeed, the proposals for the very basis of Antarctic science. ASMA were never actioned, possibly be- cause of the need for a rotating “Man- Attending the 2-day meeting at BAS in ager” and the probable American objec- March 1994 were three New Zealand- tions to working under a New Zealand ers (Fred Davey, Gordon Keys and Ian manager. Whilst there were some initial Axford) together with three Americans efforts on noise surveys in the area it is (Louis Lanzerotti, Ted Rosenburg and not clear that they have continued. What Anthony Fraser-Smith). A consensus re- was clear from this incident was that the port was achieved in which some of the existing protected area legislation was original complaints were vindicated but never likely to be suitable for protecting others were shown to have little foun- scientific activities of this sort from in- dation. For instance, it was agreed that terference. An altogether different ap- there was an increased noise level at Ar- proach was needed but there was no po-

112 Science in the Snow

litical appetite at the Treaty for finding a In 1988 the Working Group on Human sensible solution and the protected area Biology and Medicine had established an continues just as before. ad hoc Group on Antarctic Space-Related Human Factors Research. The purpose of During the second week, the Delegates the Group was to consider aspects of liv- welcomed Pakistan and Estonia to As- ing and working in Antarctica could pro- sociate Membership and approved the vide guidance on conditions that might transfer of Ecuador to Full Membership. be encountered during long manned Following the global change workshops missions into space. The analogue fo- organized by Gunter Weller and the SCAR cused on the isolation of small human Steering Committee for the IGBP and the communities in the Antarctic for lengthy tabling of the draft report The role of Ant- periods. One aspect concerned medical arctica in global change: an international conditions, particularly in the field of mi- plan for a regional research programme, crobiology, and another concerned the the Delegates agreed to establish a new psychological effects. The timing of such Group of Specialists on Global Change and studies was important because the ac- the Antarctic. The group would provide cessibility of Antarctica, in terms of both links between SCAR groups and act as communications and physical contact, an information clearing house on global was changing rapidly as transport to and change research; provide liaison between from the continent improved, especially SCAR and other major international global with increasing use of aircraft. The group change programmes; plan and implement a regional programme of global change held two meetings, chaired by Des Lugg research in the Antarctic; and recom- and included representatives from the US mend a structure to implement the pro- National Aeronautical and Space Admin- gramme including an interface with COM- istration (NASA) and the European Space NAP. Professor Charlie Bentley would be Agency (ESA). The group was closed at the Convenor. XXIII SCAR in 1994. The Delegates also agreed to the pro- The SCAR Executive Committee met in posal to establish a SCAR–COMNAP ad Stockholm, Sweden, 13–16 April 1993. hoc planning group on Antarctic Data The ICSU review of SCAR had been re- Management. Membership of the group ceived and it was critical of many aspects would cover a number of nationalities and of SCAR. The Executive was unimpressed disciplines that would prepare a report on and regarded much of it as poorly in- the current status of Antarctic data and formed and inadequately argued. A pro- plan activities to provide a comprehen- posal that there should be a single com- sive framework for the management of mittee for the polar regions was regarded the data. The report should be complet- as unnecessary as the contrasting situa- ed in time for submission to XVII ATCM. tions of the Arctic and Antarctic would require two subcommittees that would The ad hoc Planning Group on Antarctic simply imply an extra level of bureau- Data Management reported to both the cracy. Nevertheless, it was agreed that COMNAP and SCAR Executive Commit- SCAR and IASC should maintain closer tees in 1992. The proposal identified contact. The review also criticized SCAR the need for an integrated directory of all for spending too much time attending to Antarctic data, agreed international stan- matters from the Antarctic Treaty, a crit- dards for data and an international data- icism that the Executive Committee re- base system. The first element was to jected outright on the grounds that it was be met by building an Antarctic node as important to protect scientific research. part of the Global Change Master Direc- In a subsequent discussion with the Ex- tory (GCMD) run by NASA and the esti- ecutive Director of ICSU, SCAR’s position mated cost for this was US $200,000 per as an independent scientific adviser to year. The Executives decided to think the Treaty was formally accepted, much about this a little further. as ICSU itself acted as the independent

113 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

scientific adviser to the United Nations. At a joint meeting with the COMNAP Ex- ecutive it was finally agreed that a new Antarctic Data Directory System should be established and the details were de- veloped later that year at a meeting in Boulder in September.

XXIII SCAR, Rome, September 1994

XXIII SCAR was in Rome, 4–9 September 1994, characterized for many by hordes of gypsy children molesting Delegates as they walked from their hotels to the meeting. It was very hot and the lack of air conditioning in the meeting rooms left everyone sweltering and, if they had eaten a truly Italian lunch, quietly sleep- The logo for the XXIII SCAR Meeting in Rome, ing in the afternoon. Mario Zucchelli was Italy, August – September 1994. the chairman of the local organizing com- of the hills overlooking Rome. The Villa is mittee and made the meeting memorable surrounded by its own park and the view for many with the social arrangements, from the terrace over Rome, sipping wine starting with a bus tour on the Sunday as the sun set, was an outstanding ex- of Roman sites including the Colosseum. perience. The welcome cocktail reception for the working group members was held at the Delegates welcomed Canada and Ukraine Accademia dei Lincei, founded in 1603 as new Associate Members and agreed and the oldest scientific academy in the that Bulgaria should also become an As- world with Galileo Galilei as one of its first sociate Member from 5 March 1995, af- members. In the second week the Del- ter the expiry of a six-month period of egates had cocktails in the Botanic Gar- formal notice. The SCAR Global Change dens and finished with a truly splendid Programme was discussed at length and evening banquet up at Villa Miani, on one there were widely differing views on

A plenary session at the XXIII SCAR Delegates’ Meeting in Rome, Italy, September 1994.

114 Science in the Snow

Antonio C Rocha-Campos, President, 1994-98 Professor Antonio (Tony) Rocha-Cam- pos graduated and got his PhD from the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. His research refers mainly to the geological record of past ice ages in Gondwana. As a geologist, Tony is a veteran of eleven scientific expeditions to West Antarctica where he is study- ing Cenozoic glacial sedimentary rocks. He started his participation in SCAR ac- tivities in 1984, during the XVIII SCAR Meeting in Bremerhaven, Germany, as Delegate of the Brazilian National Ant- arctic Committee. In the meeting, he successfully presented Brazil’s candida- cy as a new full member of the Commit- tee. Tony was a pioneer scientist in the Brazilian Antarctic Program (PROAN- TAR) in which he became involved from its inception in 1982. From 1984 to 2005 he was Scientific Coordinator of PROANTAR and member of all the other national Antarctic organizations. Tony has been a representative of the Brazil- ian Academy of Sciences at the National Council for Antarctic Affairs (Ministry mediate Past-President. At the XXVII of External Relations) and from 1984– SCAR meeting (Shanghai, 2002) he 2003 was an assessor of Brazilian del- was elected Honorary Member of SCAR. egations to Antarctic Treaty Consulta- Presently, he is Professor Emeritus of tive Meetings. At the XIX SCAR meeting the Institute of Geosciences, Universi- (San Diego, 1986), he was elected to ty of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, and the Executive Committee as Secretary continues his position as a member of of SCAR (1984–90), and became Presi- the National Committee on Antarctic dent of SCAR for the term 1994–98 at Research, as the Brazilian Delegate to the XXIII SCAR meeting in Rome. From SCAR and a member of the National 1998–2002 he still served SCAR as im- Council for Antarctic Affairs. where to go next. Some Delegates were views were expressed over the ICSU Re- concerned at the apparent proliferation view of SCAR which was thought to show of subgroups, others that the objectives little understanding of both current oper- were still too broad and in some cases ations and the relationship with the Trea- undertaking work that was being done ty. Recommendations from the meet- well elsewhere. Eventually an agreed re- ing included proposals for the operation structuring of the programme was tabled and management of activities in relation reducing the groups and their potential to SSSI No 2 at Arrival Heights on Ross cost, which in turn did away with the Island; for the management of Antarctic need to establish a special fund for GLO- scientific data; for the protection of the CHANT. The generous offer of Austra- newly discovered subglacial lake beneath lia to host a SCAR Global Change Project the Russian Vostok Station; and on the Office in Hobart was welcomed. Strong use and archiving of multi-channel seis-

115 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

XXIV SCAR, Cambridge, August 1996 It was the turn of the UK to host XXIV SCAR in 1996. Cambridge was a difficult place to organize large meetings as it had no conference hotels so the only option was to use the university colleges out of term time. The meeting was set for Au- gust on the assumption that the weather would be good and it used the very mod- ern facilities of Churchill College’s Møller Centre towards the outskirts of the town The SCAR Executive Committee during XXIII and close to the British Antarctic Sur- SCAR in Rome: Claude Lorius (Past President), vey. Carlos Rinaldi (Vice President), Peter Clarkson (Executive Secretary), Dick Laws (President), The British hosts had decided to try to Kris Birkenmajer (Secretary) and Zhaoqin Dong make this a memorable meeting in a num- (Vice President). ber of ways. Not content with a fly-past mic data within the Seismic Data Library of the BAS aircraft and a British military System (SDLS). band marching to and fro on the Churchill sports fields the British representatives Before the end of the meeting, Dick Laws on each working group also agreed to completed his term of office and Tony invite all their colleagues to an evening Rocha-Campos (Brazil) was elected Presi- reception at their homes, a feature that dent. proved to be a logistical nightmare but went off very well in the event. Dele- The Executive Committee was invited to gates were also offered the chance to hold its meeting in Siena, Italy, 16–20 try the traditional Cambridge pastime of September 1995. This was in the week punting on the River Cam; a new experi- th following the 6 International Symposium ence for many! on Antarctic Earth Sciences, a hectic time for the Italians. Professor Anders Kar- This meeting focused on the SCAR global lqvist, Chairman of COMNAP, and Roland change programme, the relationship with Schlich, Chairman of the SCAR Standing the ATCM and changes to the constitu- Finance Committee, also attended the tion, the last the result of consultations meeting. Discussions focused on the and redrafting by Bob Rutford over sev- Global Change and the Antarctic (GLO- eral years. Charlie Bentley, in presenting CHANT) programme where the Group of progress on global change made it clear Specialists was encouraged to develop just how complex the field was becoming, a science and implementation plan. The how the new Programme Co-ordinator Ian progress of the SCAR-COMNAP ad hoc Goodwin had built up connections with a Planning Group on Antarctic Data was wide range of other global change offices noted and it was agreed that the offer around the world and how the GLOCHANT from New Zealand to host the Antarc- group would serve as the START Regional tic Master Directory at the International Committee for the Antarctic. Delegates Centre for Antarctic Information and Re- spent some time discussing the ATCM, search (ICAIR) in Christchurch should be voicing concerns about the way in which accepted. The Executive Secretary re- SCAR observers had provided immedi- ported that half the SCAR National Com- ate responses to questions raised at the mittees had advised the Secretariat in Treaty meeting that had not been dis- which of the new contribution categories cussed with Delegates, chief officers and they had elected to contribute. Schlich the Executive, and how the content of also noted that expenditure on scientific the science papers should be thoroughly activities had increased whereas adminis- reviewed before submission so that they trative costs had decreased. were not open to question. Professor

116 Science in the Snow

SCAR Delegates and Chief Officers at XXIV SCAR Meeting in Cambridge, United Kingdom, August 1996. Rudiger Wulfrum attended the meeting to Biological Sciences brief attendees on the progress with the Liability Annex to the Madrid Protocol. During this decade the biological work in The Delegates finally approved a SCAR the Antarctic became even more preva- view on this as the basis for a paper to lent and wide ranging with most countries be presented to the Treaty Legal Expert now significantly involved in either marine Group in the autumn of 1996. Not ev- or terrestrial investigations. The BIOTAS eryone was happy about SCAR becoming programme aimed to implement an inter- involved in the legal discussions but it national terrestrial research programme was clear that the lawyers needed some across a disparate range of researchers. guidance with concepts such as impacts, As in BIOMASS there was the question repair, mitigation, damage and monitor- of standardized techniques, the estab- ing. lishment of a communications network through a newsletter and the selection of a number of key research sites in order In the review of Groups of Specialists three to characterize habitat diversity and to groups (Structure & Evolution of the Ant- study long-term change. Its outline pro- arctic Lithosphere, Cenozoic Palaeoenvi- gramme was accepted by the Biology WG ronments of Southern High Latitudes and at XX SCAR in Hobart and the first of a Southern Ocean Ecology) were all closed series of BIOTAS workshops began with and the Delegates complained yet again one on aerobiology and colonization at about the short time scale given to them BAS in 1989. by GOSEAC to examine papers destined for the Treaty, especially new manage- Despite the considerable efforts of sev- ment plans. Professor M Magnusson, the eral people BIOTAS never worked as well President of IASC, attended the meeting as BIOMASS. There are many possible ex- to stimulate discussion of bi-polar inter- planations but the lack of a clear political ests and promote the joint IASC/SCAR need of the sort that had driven BIOMASS, Tromsø symposium on “Polar aspects of the limited or non-existent support for Global Change” in August 1998. this type of science in many SCAR coun-

117 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

haven to edit the volume with Hempel who had agreed a contract with Springer to publish the volume. There were too many papers for a single volume and it was therefore decided just to include those directly relevant to the theme of The logo for the Fifth Symposium on Antarctic the meeting “Ecological change and the Biology held in Hobart, Australia, August–Sep- conservation of Antarctic ecosystems”. tember 1988. After much effort Kerry had collected tries, and the fragmented nature of the all the papers together and was ready to community were all contributing factors. leave for Germany. They were all in his The very general theme adopted at the car together with his computer when it start, chosen to allow the participation of was stolen. The thief was arrested an as many researchers as possible, proved hour later when he attempted to run a to be one of the principal weaknesses of road block set up to catch drunken driv- this programme. The critical mass was ers but neither the computer nor the always too small in each of the disparate manuscripts were in the car. Next morn- areas to make the progress needed for ing Kerry wrote to every author explain- the programme to become a convincing ing the problem and asking for copies to force. It formally ended in 1998 with be sent to him at AWI, packed his bags many of its participants helping to formu- and left for Germany. When Kerry finally late its replacement – Regional Sensitivity returned from Germany he had a phone to Climate Change in Antarctic Terrestrial call from a bush walker reporting that the Ecosystems (RiSCC). If BIOTAS was over manuscripts had been found, dumped ambitious in its original aims it did make near a creek not far from where they some progress in establishing the extent were stolen, but the computer was never of the community, organizing two inter- found. On the positive side the meeting national field seasons at Terra Nova Bay was extremely stimulating for biologists, and Rothera, two very successful work- and the field excursions to theEucalyptus shops and provided a major stimulus for forest and to the national park on Mount the production of bryophyte and lichen Field, with guided tours to the three veg- floras for the continent. The BIOTAS etation zones, were very exciting for bibliography of Antarctic terrestrial and those who had not seen a platypus or limnological publications incorporated a an echidna before as well as showing the great deal of material from outside the Gondwana linkages between Australian active groups in BIOTAS but gave a clear and South American vegetation. indication of the extent of the relevant research which proved to be much great- The WG meeting in Hobart in 1988 was of er than expected. considerable importance. Concerns about the introduction of non-indigenous biota The Fifth Symposium on Antarctic Biol- into the Antarctic were raised and an ad ogy was organized in Hobart, in the week hoc group was put together headed by preceding XX SCAR, by an International David Walton to report on the extent of Steering Committee chaired by Gotthilf this and its implications. Earlier Knowles Hempel with José Valencia, Roy Sieg- Kerry had realized in the 1980s that al- fried, Nigel Bonner and Knowles Kerry though several countries, including Aus- and a local committee run by Knowles tralia, already had ethical codes covering Kerry. Suggestions that Hobart was too animal experimentation, which they were far away to attract the community were applying to their activities in Antarctica, quickly allayed when 212 scientists from there was no generally agreed standard 30 countries registered and presented for all SCAR countries. Since animal ex- 80 oral papers and 93 posters. Kerry perimentation is a highly contentious is- was invited to work at AWI in Bremer- sue world wide any attempt to formulate

118 Science in the Snow

international standards was clearly go- (EASIZ) began in Trondheim, Norway in ing to be difficult but Kerry felt strongly 1990 and was further developed during that this was the sort of initiative that a meeting in Bremerhaven, Germany in SCAR should undertake. The Biology 1991. The aim was to understand the WG established an ad hoc group of four structure and dynamics of the Antarctic people (Knowles Kerry, Roy Siegfried, Coastal and Shelf Ecosystems (ACSE), John Croxall, with Arnoldus Blix as chair- the most productive areas of the Antarc- man) in 1988 to prepare a draft. The tic. The six key questions around which first draft immediately threw up problems all the work was structured were: as it included a section stipulating that a. What is the role of ice in the Antarc- undertaking a regulated procedure would tic coastal marine ecosystem? require a licence and proposed that SCAR should issue licences, something far be- b. How do communities of Antarctic yond the bounds of possibilities. It also marine organisms differ from those recognized that some countries appar- elsewhere? ently had no legislation covering ani- c. What physical, chemical, and bio- mal experimentation and might even be logical factors determine patterns averse to adopting a non-legally binding of production, sedimentation and code. After some difficulties an improved recycling, and the major elemental draft was adopted by SCAR in 1990 and budgets in ACSE? this was also accepted by the ATCM as a d. How are marine organisms adapted Code of Conduct and later used in man- to low temperature and seasonal agement plans for protected areas. changes in the physic-chemical parameters characteristic of the The need for a new type of Antarctic Pro- ACSE? tected Area was identified where multiple categories of use needed to be managed e. What is the nature and importance simultaneously. The WG identified sev- of the interaction between land (in- eral possible sites for its application – Ar- cluding shelf ice) and sea in the Ant- thur Harbour, Deception Island, Dry Val- arctic coastal zone? leys, Ross Island, Signy Island, Vestfold f. How are the biological communities Hills - and a new statement of objectives of the ACSE directly affected by hu- for Antarctic conservation was agreed. man activities? The BIOMASS Colloquium held at AWI in The programme proved to be very suc- Bremerhaven in September 1991 was cessful, running from 1994 to 2004 and the culmination of one of SCAR’s most involving more than 150 scientists and important and far reaching programmes. 17 countries. With a series of dedicated It was the first time that the scientific cruises beginning in 1996 on Polarstern community had attempted to provide in- and carefully planned workshops it was formation on multispecies management an exceptionally well prepared SCAR pro- before a marine ecosystem had been gramme. seriously degraded by commercial ex- ploitation, and it showed just how effec- Group of Specialists on Seals tive international collaboration could be in tackling these large scale questions. CCAS enshrined a special role for SCAR in Without the efforts of BIOMASS it is not advising Parties on how to manage seal clear on what data the CCAMLR Scientific stocks in the Antarctic. The first and Committee would have based their early only review meeting of this Convention models or calculated the Total Allowable was held in London in September 1988 Catches. and for that the Group provide a detailed report on permitting, sealing zones, ex- Planning for the new programme on the change of information and a definition of Ecology of the Antarctic Sea Ice Zone commercial sealing. As it turned out the

119 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

CCAS review was a rather damp squib thought to comprise up to 80% of the with little to decide since there were no global biomass of seals yet the popula- indications that commercial sealing was tion data were poor and for some spe- about to start. There have been no fur- cies, like Ross Seal, there was still a great ther review meetings of CCAS. deal to learn about its basic biology and life cycle. The Antarctic Pack Ice Seals At each of their meetings the Group con- programme was outlined in Argentina tinued to review the returns of Antarctic and at a workshop in St Paul (Minneapo- seal takes as required under CCAS but lis, United States) in 1993 a prospectus these were all at very low levels and ne- was drawn up outlining the scientific ob- cessitated no action. jectives. In May 1994 at Padua, Italy, the Meeting in 1990 in São Paulo the Group of next stage, an implementation plan, was Specialists on Seals continued to be con- developed describing the logistical re- cerned about the data for pack ice seals quirements for survey work and locating which suggested wide scale declines in the principal study areas for the proposed populations and they recognized a need five year programme as well as appoint- for an internationally supported and co- ing a Steering Committee of five chaired ordinated census. They also concluded by John Bengtson. The programme was that some nations were not meeting their very ambitious and required considerable CCAS requirements in reporting on seals ship and air time so that implementation killed or captured and without accurate was going to be a problem. At last, in census data they felt they would be un- 1993, the handbook on research meth- able to discharge the SCAR requirements ods Antarctic seals: research methods under CCAS. and techniques, edited by Dick Laws, was finally published by Cambridge University The Group also noted that there was evi- Press after many years in gestation. dence of antibodies to canine and pho- cine distemper viruses in crabeater and Human Biology and Medicine leopard seals around the Antarctic Pen- insula. Phocine distemper had become a After two years of discussion in 1989 in major problem for seals in the North At- Aberdeen a new ad hoc Group on Space- lantic in the late 1980s with many thou- related Human Factors Research had its sands of common and grey seals dying. first meeting. With representatives of The fact that antibodies had been found both ESA and NASA present the empha- in Antarctic seals, together with the sug- sis was on looking for research on Antarc- gestion that canine distemper could jump tic analogues that would help inform the the species barrier, meant that sledge management of astronauts in the new dogs would be discussed as a potential space station. There were some very threat to Antarctic seals in general when interesting ideas put forward – such as the Protocol was being negotiated. the proposal to build an Antarctic Plan- Of more concern, following a review of etary Test-bed – but in the end a much all available data, was the unexplained more modest pilot study on microbiology declines in elephant seal populations at was agreed. Even this proved difficult Kerguelen and Macquarie islands. This to organize and in the end only France, stimulated the Group to organize a meet- Australia and the UK took part in a co- ing in May 1991 at the Monterey Bay ordinated protocol. Claude Bachelard Aquarium, Santa Cruz, California, USA, to from France promoted a study on psy- review the situation and suggest key re- chological assessment in which different search requirements for the future. countries would use standard psychologi- cal tests to determine the suitability of When the Group met at Bariloche in applicants for overwintering and their 1992 a major new programme was de- performance in Antarctica whilst Nelson vised. The Antarctic pack ice seals were Norman from the UK suggested telemedi-

120 Science in the Snow

cine developments to improve diagnosis. parallel sessions thereafter. It had been Whilst some of these were partially real- decided in the Working Groups that, in or- ized in other ways, as with most ideas der to speed publication, a volume of ex- put forward in this WG the impetus slowly tended abstracts, mostly about six pages died partly because most SCAR nations long, would form the official symposium declined to appoint doctors to the Group publication. This would allow authors to but also because of the very few coun- publish their contributions separately in tries that were prepared to fund human international journals. Nevertheless, in biology research. Of all the WGs this was addition the Japanese organizing com- always the one with the fewest nations mittee selected 100 of the contributed represented. papers and published these in a hard- bound volume the following year, a com- Geological Sciences mendable effort. The geoscientists continued to feel that The 7th Symposium on Antarctic Earth the periodic symposia on Antarctic Earth Sciences were a most valuable way of Sciences was hosted by the Italians at keeping the community informed of de- the Università di Siena, 10–15 Septem- velopments and they were always well at- ber 1995. This was an even larger sym- tended. The 6th symposium was held in posium than that in Japan with more 1991 at the National Women’s Education than 400 participants from 26 countries. Centre in Ranzan, Saitama Prefecture, Ja- There were more than 400 paper and pan, 9–13 September 1991. Despite poster presentations and, of these, 162 clashing with the SCAR Open Science Con- were accepted, following peer-review, for ference in Bremen, 237 scientists from publication in the symposium volume of 20 countries participated in the sympo- 1200 pages. Many people thought that sium and presented 163 papers and 101 geological research in Antarctica would posters, making it the largest Antarctic be in decline, following the adoption of Earth Science Symposium to date. Two the Protocol on Environmental Protec- 5-day pre-symposium field excursions tion to the Antarctic Treaty because of were held viewing the metamorphic ter- Article 7 prohibiting mineral resource ac- rain of the Abukuma Plateau and the ac- tivities. However, Tony Rocha-Campos, tive crustal movements in the Izu Pen- President of SCAR and himself a geolo- insula – Mount Fuji – Kofu Basin region. gist, when addressing the closing session There was also a 7-day post-symposium took great pleasure in pointing out that excursion to the Hokkaido Hidaka-Kamui- the attendance and contributions to the kotan metamorphic belts. Papers were symposium showed that earth science presented in three parallel sessions on research in Antarctica, far from dying, the first two and a half days and in two was thriving as never before.

Participants at the VI International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences at Ranzan, Japan, September 1991.

121 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

In 1992 Mike Thomson (UK) Chief Officer Geoscience Transects Project as part of of the WG on Geology, floated the idea for the Inter-Union Commission on the Litho- the establishment of an informal group sphere. These transects were intended to co-ordinate geological research in the to provide data in a common format so South Shetland Islands. There was a de- that crustal details could be compared gree of enthusiasm for this and the project from anywhere in the world. In the end became known as “Collaborative Geosci- twenty transects were compiled and ence in the South Shetland Islands” with many were displayed as posters at AGU the acronym COGS. This seemed an ap- meetings. Out of this grew the realization propriate acronym for a group that would that in explaining these data international mesh together the geological research efforts should be channelled through a interests of several countries. Several new project – the Antarctic International meetings of interested parties were held Lithosphere Project (ANTALITH) – which in the margins of SCAR geoscience sym- would focus on five key areas: the Byrd posia. Key problems were discussed with Subglacial Basin, the Pensacola Moun- the aim of agreeing a preferred interpre- tains, the Gamburtsev Mountains, the tation of the islands’ complex geology to Lambert-Amery Drift and the margin of gain a better understanding of their geo- the East Antarctic craton. logical history. Plans were drafted for an international geological excursion to the Group of Specialists on the Evolution islands to visit a number of key exposures of Cenozoic Palaeoenvironments of the where those geologists present could Southern High Latitudes (GOSC) form an international consensus on the interpretation of the outcrop’s geology. Established in 1986 this Group was ac- Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in tive over a ten-year period. Alan Cooper SCAR, the enthusiasm of the scientists at and Peter Webb, decided that a new ini- tiative was necessary to provide for bet- a meeting was not matched by those at ter international access to seismic data. home who hold the purse strings and the Accordingly they organized a SCAR/NSF/ whole enterprise failed, largely for lack of USGS workshop in June 1990 in Califor- logistic support. On the other hand, the nia to develop the idea of a new seismic initiative was not entirely lost and many library project called ANTOSTRAT (Ant- years later SCAR formed the King George arctic Offshore Seismic Stratigraphy). Island Science Co-ordination Group as a This clearly struck a chord in the com- cross-SSG initiative to oversee co-ordina- munity as the project was agreed at XXI tion of all scientific activities in the South SCAR the following month and the follow- Shetland Islands where there is currently ing year two workshops were organized a plethora of summer and winter stations by the ANTOSTRAT Steering Committee that is resulting in a great deal of duplica- in Oslo and Tokyo to assess the extent of tion of effort. the data available in twelve countries and design the library format. It was seen Group of Specialists on the Structure and as an intermediate state between a na- Evolution of the Antarctic Lithosphere tional or institutional data collection and the existing World Data Centres. Despite This Group had been established in 1986 some problems with initial funding the and lasted for ten years. In 1989, with project gained momentum, thanks princi- the support of NSF and co-sponsored by pally to the efforts of Cooper and Webb the Geology WG, they organized an inter- who also found time to establish ANTO- national field trip to study the tectonics STRAT News as an information focus for of the Scotia Arc led by their Convenor, the community. In response to the SCAR Ian Dalziel. However, the major contribu- paper on the Seismic Data Library at XVII tion of the Group proved to be organizing ATCM, Rec 12 put forward by the USA the Antarctic component of the Global gave the Treaty’s seal of approval to this

122 Science in the Snow

new venture, publicly suggesting for the would result in a lack of coherence in dis- first time that data should be made gen- cussions and planning. This position was erally available through the library only taken forward by the US Delegates to the four years after collection. One of the next SCAR meeting in Brazil. funding problems was solved when USGS offered in 1993 to underwrite the costs At XXI SCAR in São Paulo the Atmo- of initial CD-ROM production for distribu- spheric Science WG held a symposium tion to the eleven centres worldwide that and three workshops as well as making agreed to host the library. Amazingly, a visit to the Brazilian Space Research In- this Recommendation is still not in force stitute. It was at this meeting that John after almost twenty years as Ecuador, Ja- Lynch proposed a new international sta- pan and Korea have still to ratify it, but tion on the plateau which would be ideal this has proved little disincentive to the for a wave injection facility and for high other SCAR countries that have actively latitude geomagnetic studies but despite developed the library’s facilities. forwarding a recommendation to the Del- egates the idea failed to make progress. At the business meeting the members Physical Sciences heard the arguments, agreed the remit In 1987 the IAGA General Assembly de- for the group was too large and asked to cided to disband many of its Interdivision- be split up into two new working groups: al Commissions and replace them with Working Group on Physics and Chemistry working groups. Thus the Interdivisional of the Atmosphere (PACA) chaired by Da- Working Group for Antarctic Research vid Bromwich and Working Group on So- was formed with many elements of its re- lar-Terrestrial and Astrophysical research mit rather close to those of the existing (STAR) chaired by Louis Lanzerotti. SCAR WG on Upper Atmosphere Physics. A proposal to merge the two was accept- In 1992 the International Astronomical ed by SCAR Executive in 1988. Union established an Antarctic Astrono- my Working Group and the STAR WG saw At XX SCAR in Hobart the Group again it as important that SCAR developed a spent most of their time on a symposium complementary approach. By XXIII SCAR with 45 papers covering a very wide range the STAR group, which had previously of topics. The Delegates meeting agreed sponsored a symposium on Antarctic as- that the WG remit should be broadened to tronomy, drew attention to the interest include all areas of atmospheric sciences developing in the USA, Australia and Italy and formally changed its name to WG on by sending a recommendation forward to Atmospheric Sciences. A concomitant of the Delegates. this was a need to broaden the member- ship of the group to include specialists in Geodesy and Cartography the lower atmosphere. The 5th edition of “Antarctica: a cata- Thus SCAR Executive agreed a new com- logue of maps and charts” was published bined WG on Atmospheric Sciences, ap- by SCAR in 1988 in a loose-leaf format. parently at the behest of all national With 1400 entries from 17 countries it members. However in the USA the Terms had grown considerably since the 4th edi- of Reference and membership were dis- tion in 1976. Sadly, despite the consid- puted by the Polar Research Board at its erable efforts in compilation it was heav- meeting 1–3 April 1990. This position ily criticized. The immediate response resulted directly from a memo and peti- of the WG was to write to all the con- tion signed by 21 scientists at an ear- tributors requesting checks on what was lier meeting in Palo Alto in March 1990. included and updates on recent publica- They considered the field to be covered tions as well as identification of typo- was too extensive for a single WG and graphical errors.

123 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

On 9 May 1991 the Antarctic Digital Data- BAS server via the web-site. It proved base project (ADD) project was launched an immediate success with the Antarc- at the Royal Geographical Society in tic community and soon other organiza- London. Its aim was to provide a single, tions were buying it for both academic comprehensive geographic framework for and commercial use. The funds received the continent and its surrounding islands from these sales were ploughed back into all available on a CD-ROM. Getting to this further work on the databases and the point had been a lengthy activity with a development of new products. need to bring together a range of orga- nizations both to collect the necessary Group of Specialists on Global Change data as well as funding the production of and the Antarctic (GLOCHANT) the CD-ROM itself. The initiative for the project came from the WG on Geodesy The international science interest in and Cartographic Information and used global change was steadily growing in the material provided by eleven nations (Ar- 1980s as IGBP programmes rolled for- gentina, Australia, China, Germany, Ja- ward. SCAR needed to connect more di- pan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Rus- rectly with this and the Executive estab- sia, United Kingdom and USA). BAS, SPRI lished a SCAR-IGBP Steering Committee and World Conservation Monitoring Cen- to develop outline proposals for the next tre (WCMC) collaborated in its production SCAR Meeting in 1988. A major achieve- with significant funding from a grant pro- ment of this Steering Committee was vided by British Petroleum. Actually col- the drafting of “The Role of Antarctica lating the various data sets into a single in Global Change”, first submitted to the framework proved complicated and time Scientific Advisory Committee of IGBP in consuming, underlining the lack of con- October 1988 and then revised and pub- sistency in Antarctic mapping that the lished in October 1989. At the Bariloche WG had been trying to address for many meeting in 1990 the Steering Group years. After the publication of version 1 established the six principal themes for in 1993 BAS undertook to maintain the global change. files and update them as new informa- In 1992 at XXII SCAR in Bariloche the tion became available, allowing new edi- Delegates, recognizing its importance tions to be launched in later years. In for the Antarctic, agreed to establish a 1999 version 2 became available on the new group of specialists to replace the SCAR-IGBP group. Charlie Bentley was the first Convenor of the Group of Spe- cialists on Global Change and the Antarc- tic (GLOCHANT). The original remit for this group was very wide requiring not only that they provide linkages and co- ordination between relevant national and international programmes but that they also plan and implement a regional pro- gramme of global change research. The disciplinary remit that they tried to cover was also very wide from the mass bal- ance of ice sheets to oceanography and from numerical modelling to stratospheric chemistry. The original group consisted of Ian Allison, Gerd Hubold, Arne Foldvik, Dominique Raynaud, Paulo Artaxo, Paul The cover of the SCAR Antarctic Digital Data- Treguer, Fumihiko Nishio, Mark Thorley base on CD-ROM. and Howard Cattle with Mario Zucchelli

124 Science in the Snow

as a link to COMNAP. The first meeting ITASE (SCAR GLOCHANT-PAGES) - re- in February 1993 was held at BAS and cent history of climate change made great efforts to encompass the PICE (SCAR GLOCHANT-PAGES) - long- rapidly changing and very diverse fields term climate change records in ice by allotting responsibilities to individuals cores for oversight and co-ordination and es- tablishing seven subgroups on particular Mass-balance of the Antarctic ice-sheet, topics. They decided that a formal link and its consequences for global sea-level should be developed to the System for change Analysis Research and Training (START) ISMASS (SCAR WG-Glaciology - potential which was sponsored by IGBP, WCRP and WCRP-CLIC) - ice-sheet mass-bal- Human Dimensions of the Global Change ance Programme (HDGCP). It followed from that model that a SCAR START network Southern Ocean processes and climate would need to establish a Regional Re- ASPeCt (SCAR GLOCHANT - potential search Centre for Global Change with a WCRP-CLIC) - sea-ice physics and member of staff to co-ordinate national climate contributions and a Special Fund to meet SO-JGOFS (IGBP, SCOR) - ocean biogeo- the extra costs. A Call for Proposals chemistry to house this activity resulted in an of- fer from Australia to house it in Hobart. Ecosystem dynamics and response to cli- Advertising the job of Co-ordinator pro- mate change duced a gratifying response of 13 ap- RiSCC (SCAR WG-Biology - potential plications from around the world and Ian GCTE) - terrestrial and limnetic ecol- Goodwin was appointed. The proposal ogy for the Special GLOCHANT Fund met with SO-GLOBEC (IGBP, SCOR, IOC) - marine a positive response from SCAR and COM- plankton dynamics NAP but translating this into substantial cash flow proved to be more difficult. This list does not represent the totality of global change science in Antarctica. The development of the GLOCHANT ac- Projects in some SCAR Working Groups tivities in the six themes gave rise to a (especially WG-PACA and WG-Glaciology) host of different groups which can be also contributed directly to an under- linked under four broad headings: standing of global climatic change, and there were also several large projects that Palaeoenvironmental change sat completely outside SCAR but were of ANTIME (SCAR GLOCHANT-PAGES) - relevance to the Antarctic (for example history of the Antarctic continental two major developments in WCRP - CLIC margin and CLIVAR).

125 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

Above: Deploying Current, Temperature and Depth (CTD) bottles during the Oden Southern Ocean Cruise in the 2008–09 southern summer season, part of a long-term research programme. Photograph: Swedish Polar Research Secretariat.

Below: Mayo Clinic graduate student Maile Ceridon, left, fitting Steven Slay with a LifeShirt that he will wear in bed at McMurdo and later at South Pole to compare various details of his sleep patterns at different altitudes. Photograph: Peter Rejcek / NSF.

126 Science in the Snow

Above: Rob VanTreese collecting water from Don Juan Pond, Wright Valley, in a study of the sea- sonal transition to test the hypothesis that the onset of darkness induces physiological changes in microplankton. Photograph: John Priscu / NSF.

Below: The recompression chamber at the Bonner Laboratory diving facility, Rothera Research Station. A chamber is a necessary precaution against incidence of decompression sickness (the bends) when diving. Photographer: Pete Bucktrout / BAS.

127 Chapter 5. The Environmental Years (1988-97)

Above: The ‘birders’ (from left Donna Patterson-Fraser, Rick Smaniotto, Kirstie Yeager, and Jen Blum) at Palmer Station analyzing giant petrel diet samples as a part of the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) programme. Photograph: Peter Rejcek / NSF.

Below: The first Antarctic cruise of the Korean Icebreaker Araon. Photograph: Korean Oceanic and Polar Research Institute.

128