Antarctic Treaty

ANTARCTIC TREATY

REPORT OF THE NORWEGIAN ANTARCTIC INSPECTION UNDER ARTICLE VII OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY

FEBRUARY 2009

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty ...... 2 1.2 Past inspections under the Antarctic Treaty ...... 2 1.3 The 2009 Norwegian Inspection...... 3 2. Summary of findings ...... 6 2.1 General ...... 6 2.2 Operations...... 7 2.3 Scientific research ...... 7 2.4 Environment ...... 8 2.5 Military activities ...... 8 2.6 Tourism ...... 8 2.7 Permitting ...... 9 2.8 Safety ...... 9 2.9 Concluding remarks ...... 9 3. PRINCESS ELISABETH ...... 10 3.1 About the inspection ...... 10 3.2 Description of facility and operations ...... 11 3. 3 Operator ...... 12 3.4 Scientific research ...... 13 3.5 Environment ...... 14 3.6 Military activity ...... 15 3.7 Safety and emergencies ...... 15 3.8 Tourism ...... 16 3.9 Concluding remarks ...... 16 4. HALLEY ...... 17 4.1 General ...... 17 4.2 Description of facility and operations ...... 17 4.3 Operator ...... 20 4.4 Scientific research ...... 20 4.5 Environment ...... 20 4.6 Military activity ...... 22 4.7 Safety and emergencies ...... 22 4.8 Tourism ...... 23 4.9 Concluding remarks ...... 23 5. NOVO RUNWAY AND ALCI AIRBASE ...... 25 5.1 About the inspection ...... 25 5.2 Description of facility and operations ...... 25 5.3 Operator ...... 28 5.4 Scientific research ...... 29 5.5 Environment ...... 29 5.6 Military activity ...... 31 5.7 Safety and emergencies ...... 31 5.8 Tourism ...... 33 5.9 Concluding remarks ...... 34

1. Introduction

1.1 Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty entitles each Consultative Party to designate observers who shall have the right to carry out unannounced on-spot inspections. The purpose of these inspections is to promote the objectives of and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty and the measures adopted under it. The observers shall be accorded complete freedom of access at any time to all areas of Antarctica, including all stations within those areas, as well as vessels and aircrafts at points of embarkation and disembarkation.

Article 14 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty commit the Consultative Parties to undertake inspections under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty in order to promote the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, and to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protocol.

1.2 Past inspections under the Antarctic Treaty Inspections have been carried out on a regular basis in Antarctica since the inception of the Treaty. All in all around 40 inspections have been conducted during the first 50 years of the Treaty’s existence. Most inspections have been geographically focused on the Antarctic Peninsula area. In the early days of the Treaty focus of inspections was on nuclear and military matters. Nowadays inspections also include many aspects of environmental protection, as well as operational matters. In recent years, many inspections have been cooperative undertakings carried out by several countries. An overview of inspections at current stations and installations is given in Appendix #1.

Inspections have been undertaken by Norway in January 1990, December 1996 and January 2001. The fourth inspection was carried out during the period 19-21 February 2009 and is covered in this report. An overview of the Norwegian inspections is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Overview of Norwegian inspections in Antarctica

Station 1990 1996 2001 2009 Epica Drillsite/Kohnen Station (Germany) X Georg Forster (Germany) X Georg von Neumayer I (Germany) X Halley IV (UK) X Halley V (UK) X Maitri (India) X X Neumayer II (Germany) X Novo Airbase (ALCI/Russia) X Novolazarevskaya (Russia) X X Princess Elisabeth Antarctica (Belgium) X SANAE III (South Africa) X X X SANAE IV (South Africa) X X

1.3 The 2009 Norwegian Inspection

Inspection Team The 2009 Norwegian inspection team consisted of the following six Norwegian nationals designated by the Norwegian Government in accordance with Article VII of the Treaty:

Ambassador Karsten Klepsvik, Special Adviser for Polar Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ms. Inger Holten, Senior Adviser, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ms. Kjerstin Askholt, Director General, Polar Department, Ministry of Justice Ms. Marie Helene Korsvoll, Adviser, Ministry of Environment Dr. Jan-Gunnar Winther, Director, Norwegian Polar Institute Ms. Birgit Njåstad, Head of Section, Norwegian Polar Institute

The names of the Norwegian observers were communicated to all Contracting Parties to the Treaty by diplomatic note of 6 February 2009 (Appendix #2).

Picture 1: The 2009 Norwegian Inspection Team

Photo: Inger Holten

From left: Karsten Klepsvik, Kjerstin Askholt, Marie Helene Korsvoll, Inger Holten, Birgit Njåstad and Jan- Gunnar Winther.

Logistical Framework The logistics supporting the inspections were arranged within the framework of the Norwegian Polar Institute. The inspection team travelled by air from Cape Town to Novo Airbase, within the DROMLAN flight framework. A Twin Otter (operated by Kenn Borek Air of Canada, chartered by ALCI) was used to reach the 3 stations and installations

where inspections were carried out. The inspection team returned by air from Novo Airbase to Cape Town on 23 February, after also having spent two nights at the Norwegian research station Troll due to bad weather conditions at Novo Airbase.

Stations and installations inspected The 2009 Norwegian inspection covered 3 stations and installations in Dronning Maud Land and Coats Land:

Princess Elisabeth Antarctica (Belgium) Halley (United Kingdom) Novo Runway and ALCI Airbase (Russia1 and ALCI2)

Map 1 shows the locations of the stations/installations.

Map 1: Stations and installations inspected

One station was just recently opened and still under construction (Princess Elisabeth Antarctica), while one was operating at the end of its lifecycle (Halley V). Two of the operations were scientific research stations (Halley V and Princess Elisabeth Antarctica),

1 Technical operation of runway and flights 2 Operation of camp associated with airbase, and administrative operation of flights

while one installation provides support functions to inter alia national Antarctic programs (Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase). Neither Princess Elisabeth nor Novo Runway/ ALCI Airbase had been inspected previously. Halley was last inspected in 1993/94 (Sweden), the only time the current station complex at Halley (Halley V) has been inspected earlier.

Stations to be inspected were given notice in advance of the inspection team’s departure from Cape Town, as well as through communication along the way. On arrival, team members presented their credentials to the station commander.

English was used as means of communication during the inspections. No significant problems of interpretation occurred at the stations visited.

Limitations There is always a risk in planning an activity in Antarctica during the period of the year in which the inspection took place. The Antarctic autumn and winter are just around the corner, and the weather and light conditions increasingly unstable. The 2009 Norwegian inspection maintained flexibility with regard to adjustments of plans on this basis.

Initially the plans for the inspection included two stations and facilities around the eastern parts of Dronning Maud Land which had rarely been inspected, and not since the coming into force of the Environmental Protocol. These included Syowa (Japan) and Molodezhnaya (Russia). However, due to the rapidly deteriorating weather in this area during the inspection period and complex logistics involved, it was not considered advisable to carry this part of the plan through. Adjustments to the schedule were made accordingly, and on this basis Halley V (UK), located much further west, was added to the agenda. The inspection team also contacted the Argentine station Belgrano with the view to conduct an inspection. However, the airstrip at this station was already closed for the season, and as two days were needed to clear the airstrip, the inspection team did not see it as advisable to carry through an inspection of this station considering the time available.

Furthermore, as the bad weather seemingly followed in the wake of the inspection team, time available for the inspection team at the various stations/installations was limited. The inspection team therefore maintained focus on an overarching, rather on a detailed level during the inspection.

Acknowledgements The Norwegian team would like to extend its warm appreciation to all the personnel at each station visited for their friendliness, hospitality, openness and co-operation.

The team would also like to thank the pilots of the Twin Otter for their professional skills and valuable assistance. Approximately 3700 km was covered in less than two days, and at all times a high level of comfort was maintained over the ice-covered expanses of Antarctica.

Reporting The following report seeks to summarize and emphasize the bigger issues identified by the team during the inspection. Although it would have been desirable to be able to report on some of the very many fascinating details observed, the inspection team has purposefully avoided such details as it then would be inevitable that many important details were left out or erroneously reported on.

The operators of the respective installations/stations, as well as some affected Parties, have been provided the opportunity to comment a draft version of the report in order to avoid any factual mistakes. Comments received from British Antarctic Survey, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Russian Antarctic Expeditions, South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Antarctic Logistics Centre International (ALCI) have been incorporated into the text as appropriate. The inspection team is grateful for these comments which have ensured that mistakes and misunderstandings have been corrected. Both views are expressed where there are substantial discrepancies between the inspection team’s observations/impressions and the operators view of the situation (as reflected in their comments to the draft report). No comments were received from Belgian authorities/operators.

It is inevitable that errors and misunderstandings nevertheless may have occurred. The observers regret any such errors.

2. Summary of findings

2.1 General The 2009 Norwegian Antarctic inspection team used as a starting point the checklist for permanent Antarctic stations and associated installations annexed to the Final Report of the XVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting as guidelines for items to be covered at each visited station. While use of these checklists is neither a compulsory nor a prejudicial procedure of conducting inspections under the Antarctic Treaty, the check lists are highly useful and make the inspections more consistent and possible to compare.

The inspection team did find it very useful when they at their arrival at Halley (UK) were presented with an already filled-out inspection checklist along with other relevant material about the station, its operations and science activities. The usefulness of receiving such a succinct package of information cannot be overestimated, and also this inspection team, in line with earlier inspections, would recommend that all stations and installations have relevant information available in such a format both for the purposes of inspections and other instances where such information could be useful.

2.2 Operations It was noted during the inspection, and in considering relevant material following the inspection, that there seemingly is a potential shift occurring with respect to ownership, financing and objectives associated with Antarctic science operations and related activities. Up till now science operations have mostly been a purely national responsibility, with clear national structures and organizations behind the Antarctic operations, and clear priorities with regard to the scientific activities. Today there seems to be more private interests involved, both with regard to logistics (station construction/operation, transport, etc) and science priorities. In itself this does not necessarily lessen the quality and priorities of the activities, but it does raise questions with respect to inter alia liability and safety issues, scientific objectives, safeguarding of scientific continuity and issues related to cooperation (inter alia between operations and science, between various operators, between operator and COMNAP, and between operator and national authorities). These are issues that the Antarctic Treaty system might want to consider further in order to ensure the most appropriate governance of Antarctic activities within the framework of the objectives of the Antarctic Treaty.

Furthermore, the new complex ownership structures, encountered by the inspection team both at Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase and at Princess Elisabeth posed new challenges in getting the necessary and correct understanding of which entities were responsible with respect to various provisions of the Antarctic Treaty (such as notification requirements, EIA procedures, etc). The traditional national government structure, encountered by the inspection team at Halley, was in this respect much easier to get a clear understanding of.

2.3 Scientific research The 2009 Norwegian Inspection Team was impressed by the commitment at Halley with respect to maintaining the station as a platform for long-term monitoring and research. The station is obviously a resource intensive station to maintain, both with respect to financial and human resources, and also made obvious by the fact that the sixth station in succession is about to be constructed at the site. The importance of maintaining long- term data series has been made obvious by inter alia the discovery of the ozone hole. The team would like to emphasize the advantages of maintaining such long-term strategic scientific priorities at stations.

In parallel with a changing focus with respect to ownership, financing and objectives associated with Antarctic science operations, there may be reason to consider closely

the implications this may have for strategic research planning in Antarctica. It may be appropriate to consider what driving forces define the research planned for new research stations, ie. whether there is a long term, coordinated and unique, scientific motive behind, or whether other forces dominate. More private interests involved in Antarctic research and operations may provide for other incentives with regard to scientific priorities. The 2009 Norwegian Inspection Team does not necessarily see this as a significant issue, but notes that changes seem to occur, and that the Antarctic Treaty Parties may want to consider implications at an early stage.

The inspection team also notes that the number of scientists at the two inspected research stations was low compared to number of people present. Although this can be easily explained for both stations since they were in a period of heavy construction, the inspection team nevertheless perceives that this is a general tendency more often seen in today’s Antarctic operations. Stations are becoming quite resource intensive to operate (also with respect to human capacity), while more and more of the scientific activity is based on remote access to data. Again, this is not seen as a significant issue, but the 2009 Norwegian Inspection Team would like to draw the Parties attention to this perceived general tendency.

2.4 Environment The 2009 Norwegian inspection team wants to draw particular attention to the innovative, creative and cutting edge profile of the new Belgian Antarctic station. The effort and thought that has gone into the process of planning and designing a modern environmentally conscious station in Antarctica lacks precedence as far as the team can see. The Princess Elisabeth Antarctica is truly a research project in itself, and should if it lives up to expectations stand as a model for other national programs. Princess Elisabeth Antarctica paves the way for new thinking and approaches, and moves away from the “business as usual” concept that one sees more often than not in Antarctic operations. The inspection team notes that energy efficiency also has been a priority in the design of the new Halley VI which soon will replace the current Halley V.

2.5 Military activities No activities of a military nature, or any evidence of such activities were observed by the inspection team. There were no indications of nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes or activities linked to these issues. The observance of the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty reserving Antarctica exclusively for peaceful purposes was fully demonstrated. The personnel at the stations visited were civilians.

2.6 Tourism The two scientific stations visited are too remote to immediately be significantly affected by tourism. However, it was noted that the approach and attitude towards potential tourism at the sites were quite different, with one station/program (Halley V) having a clear tourism policy associated with its operations, while the other (Princess Elisabeth Antarctica) did not yet have a written policy despite the fact that the station in reality

will be quite accessible. It seems to the inspection team that it would be a clear advantage for stations and national programs if they were to have clearly stated policies with respect to the level of availability of infrastructure and personnel to cater for tourism activities.

The 2009 Norwegian inspection team notes that the operations at Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase provide a platform for unregulated tourism to Dronning Maud Land. This seems to be a potential effect when private operators are given the responsibility for transport services for national operators. Clearly providing for such side services strengthens the financial outcomes of such marginal operations as well as lessens the burden on the national programs, and there are reasonable explanations for it occurring. The inspection team does, however, note the significant potential for this situation catering for tourism activities that can only take place as a result of the national (and international) science operations in Antarctica. The Treaty Parties might want to consider these aspects further.

2.7 Permitting As far as the inspection team could discern no authorities seem to have notified the activities at the ALCI Airbase as activity organized out from their country in accordance with current exchange of information requirements under the Antarctic Treaty. This goes for both the national program support activities and the tourist related activities. There seems to be an undefined responsibility relating to permitting and notification of the activities at ALCI Airbase in accordance with Antarctic Treaty obligations. The inspection team would recommend that all involved parties clarify their responsibilities and obligations.

2.8 Safety Safety must be a central issue in Antarctica due to the special circumstances governing activities there. The inspection team did not have sufficient time or appropriate knowledge to consider the element of safety sufficiently during the inspection. However, considering the importance of safety in the context of large scale flight operations, the inspection team did find that it could be useful if DROMLAN, through COMNAP, could report to the ATCM on safety management procedures at Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase. The inspection team would like to underline the need for strict communication practices between the various air facility operations in the area, to ensure that the back- up airstrip control always is available and sufficiently prepared when specifically international flight operations are taking place. The back up operations between Novo and Troll should be reflected in written agreements, including exchange of information between Novo and Troll in connection with actual flights.

2.9 Concluding remarks The observers were impressed by the spirit of commitment and dedication encountered at all the stations that were visited, and by the openness and friendliness shown by everyone at the bases inspected. Antarctica remains a special place and the scientists

and support personnel working there treat it as such. The observers see this as a clear evidence of the spirit of co-operation that prevails within the Antarctic Treaty System and of the transparency of that System.

3. PRINCESS ELISABETH

3.1 About the inspection The inspection team arrived at Princess Elisabeth by Twin Otter on 19 February 2009 at 1600 local time (GMT). The team was met by the expedition leader and several other members of the personnel at the station. The station was informed about the inspection by e-mail before departure from Cape Town. The inspection lasted 2 hours.

Princess Elisabeth was opened on 15 February, just 4 days before the arrival of the inspection team, and had consequently never previously been inspected.

Map 2: Lay-out of Princess Elisabeth

3.2 Description of facility and operations

Location Princess Elisabeth is located at 71°57’S 023°20’E on the Utsteinen Nunatak in the Sør Rondane Mountains in Dronning Maud Land. The station is currently a summer only station, but is built to enable year-round operations.

The Utsteinen nunatak consists of two granite peaks which culminate at an elevation of 1564 m. The station is located on a ridge which is oriented in a north-south direction and is 700 m long. A number of blue ice fields occur to the south-west, as do a few summer melt water lakes in the wind scoop of Utsteinen. The station is located about 190 km from Crown Bay (70°S 23°E), the site on the Dronning Maud Land Coast which the Belgian program uses for loading and unloading operations from the supply ship.

Picture 2: Princess Elisabeth at Utsteinen nunatak

Photo: Inger Holten

The station facilities Princess Elisabeth Antarctica is constructed as a compact station. The main building is located above ground-level and anchored onto snow-free rock area, while there is a garage and storage building constructed under the snow in the lee side of the ridge. There are a few satellite units (containers) located nearby the station, providing shelter for eg. scientific equipment.

The station is designed for optimal use by 12 people (minimum 8) with a surface area (living, technical, research, storage) of 900 m². An annex to the station provides room for around 30 additional beds and people.

The station plans to and is built to utilize renewable energy as the primary energy source with the minimum use of fossil fuels (see pt. 3.5).

At the time of inspection there was a relatively large tent camp at the site supporting ongoing construction work at the station. The plan was to move into the station the day after the inspection, and that the station building would from then on would constitute the basis for Belgian operations in Antarctica.

Picture 3: Princess Elisabeth Antarctica

Photo: Inger Holten

Personnel At the time of the inspection around 30 people were still at the station. However, at the peak of the season approximately 50 persons had been present. The personnel still present at the station at the time of the inspection were mainly IPF expedition personnel and construction/technical/support personnel. In total sixteen scientists had been present at the station during the season.

3. 3 Operator Princess Elisabeth is the only Belgian station in Antarctica. On basis of information collected during the inspection of the station the ownership and responsibility for the station was not made entirely clear to the inspection team, and a number of questions related to the formalities around station operations remained unanswered. On basis of information obtained in the aftermath of the inspection the following has been made clear:

The private International Polar Foundation (IPF)3 initiated and implemented the construction of the Princess Elisabeth research station. Two thirds of the construction costs were donations from private interests, while one third were public funds. At the time of the inspection IPF was the owner of the Princess Elisabeth research station, but transfer to the federal State was planned in the in the convention concluded in 2007 between the Federal Sate and the IPF. The timing of the official transfer from the IPF to the Belgian State (Federal Science Policy Office) was to be specified in a partnership agreement to be concluded between the IPF and the Federal Science Policy Office in the course of 2009. After the transfer, there will be a nearly 100% public ownership, with a symbolic ownership by the IPF of one-thousandth. The Polar Secretariat, a governmental body with independent management established under the Federal Science Policy Office, will be responsible for the financial and material management of the station. The Polar Secretariat establishes a legal basis for management of the polar station, the conduct of research (in partnership with the Belgian Science Policy Office) and the promotion of scientific findings related to research carried out there. The strategic council of the secretariat will be composed of 6 representatives of the Federal State, 1 representative from IPF and 5 other private sector representatives. The revenue of the Polar Secretariat will consist mainly of donations from the Federal State. The structure of the Secretariat, however, enables the use of external (public/private) funds.

3.4 Scientific research The following information has been obtained through the inspection and queries in the aftermath with regard to scientific plans for the station:

Princess Elisabeth research station will be offered in the most flexible way to the national and international community for (collaborative) research activities. International researchers interested in developing research projects in and around the new station, will be able to use the station as a base for monitoring projects or as a hub for field exploration. Already at this stage a high interest from the international research community has been noted, and there is inter alia an agreement with the Japanese Antarctic program with respect to specific projects. The Minister of Science Policy is in the process of establishing a multi-annual financial plan for the operation and management of the station as well as for the scientific research related to the station, to be presented to the Council of Ministers. The inspection team welcomes such plans, and look forward to seeing the outcome of the process.

3 The International Polar Foundation (IPF) was established as a charitable non-profit organization in 2002. The IPF is a private foundation of public utility, set up under Royal Statute.

It was noted that with more substantive logistical support, to be developed in the coming years, and in strategic terms one can envision Princess Elisabeth research station as a hub for field exploration in the 20-30 degrees East sector of Antarctica. The station location gives easy access to a wide range of scientifically interesting environments, inter alia coastal polynia, fast ice, ice shelf, coastal ice rises, ice sheet, mountain range, dry valleys, and polar plateau.

3.5 Environment In planning for and construction of the Princess Elisabeth research station environmental aspects had clearly been given high priority, inter alia through energy efficiency, zero emission policy, etc. The station can in many ways be considered a research and development project in itself. Both the building and the technology utilized seem to be cutting edge in a global context, and clearly so in the Antarctic setting. The station has, however, not been run over time yet, so that it still remains to see how the various technologies and innovations will function in the given environment. Although much of the components of the technical platform are standard components, the full set- up of the station seems to be relatively complex. If, however, all runs successfully and without complications this inspection team believes that this station will be a model station in the Antarctic context.

Some aspects of the operations that the inspection team was introduced to and which are worth mentioning are:

Energy production: The station was equipped with 9 wind turbines, with a capacity of 54 kW. In addition solar photovoltaic panels (9 kW, 90 m2) and solar thermal panels (20 kW, 200 m2) had been installed. The photovoltaic system will in principle be capable of providing up to 10% of the electrical load and thereby reducing the number of batteries required. The system had recently been run successfully for the first time at the time of the inspection. Energy consumption: The station has a comprehensive energy management regime. An ingenious energy monitoring and control system which steers the different processes in the building according to demand, and keeps energy use coordinated to energy supply has been installed. In addition technologies reducing consumption are present, such as use of low energy-use equipment, “presence detector” systems for unoccupied rooms, etc. Information about energy availability and use were readily available on screens in common rooms for everybody to see, thereby providing a basis for enhanced understanding and commitment to an energy consciousness operation. Heating and water production and storage: The station has solar thermal panels installed which are used to heat the thermal buffer. The excess heat is used to melt snow and heat sanitary water. Zero emission policy: The systems described above allow the station to be close to a zero emission station. However, back-up generators have been installed to ensure a constant energy supply. It is currently expected that the generators will be used maximum 200 hours per season. However, fuel will be used for vehicles and transport, and the estimated fuel consumption (polar diesel, petrol, Jet A-1)

per season is at approx 400 drums. All fuel is currently stored in 200 liter drums. It was noted that transport and production was not accounted for in this zero emission framework, but that the daily operation of the station would entail near zero emission. Waste management: Water is recycled several times before the treated water finally is discharged into a nearby ice pit. All other waste is sorted, stored in a shipping container and returned to Cape Town for recycling and proper disposal.

Picture 4: Details from Princess Elisabeth research station

Photo: Birgit Njåstad Photo: Birgit Njåstad The wind turbines The battery room.

3.6 Military activity No weapons, military activity or nuclear disposal sites were observed during the inspection at Princess Elisabeth station. It was noted that an army contingent had provided assistance in the management of logistics and vehicles and the base camp, construction site and during unloading and loading operations of the ship during the season, and that an army doctor was present to support the team.

3.7 Safety and emergencies The inspection team did not observe any aspects of the operations that gave rise to serious concerns as to risks and safety management. However, it was noted that the communication system at the station was relatively weak, and that communication failures had been registered during the season. The inspection team found it a bit surprising that a station that is so modern in all other respects lacks in communication technologies.

Belgium is re-engaging in active Antarctic research after a long hiatus and it is appreciated that some time will be needed to build up the internal competence again. The inspection team notes that it is of particular importance to focus on issues related to safety and self-reliance in this initial phase.

3.8 Tourism Princess Elisabeth Antarctica is located relatively far from any access point to Antarctica, and the personnel at site noted that tourist activity was neither likely, nor welcome as the station is established for scientific purposes. However, as it was understood, no strategy or regulations relating to potential visitors had been drawn up, and there was uncertainty as to how one could hinder tourists landing at the station in the future, and potentially become a reality that the station needs to take heed of.

3.9 Concluding remarks To sum up, the inspection team would like to highlight the following from the inspection of Princess Elisabeth research station:

The inspection team is impressed by the innovative approach in the design and construction of the Princess Elisabeth station and believes that this station will be a model station in the Antarctic context with respect to efficient and environmentally sensitive operations. Although the inspection team has received satisfactory answers to questions and concerns raised with respect to ownership and research platform, it nevertheless seems appropriate to flag the potential uncertainties that appear when private interests are involved in Antarctic national science operations, both with regard to logistics, science priorities and funding. In itself such private interests does not necessarily lessen the quality and priorities of the activities, but it does raise questions with respect to inter alia liability and safety issues, scientific objectives, safeguarding of scientific continuity and issues related to cooperation (inter alia between operations and science, between various operators, between operator and COMNAP, and between operator and national authorities).

4. HALLEY

4.1 General The inspection team arrived at Halley by Twin Otter on 20 February 2009 at 11:00 local time (GMT). The team was met by both the summer station leader, winter station leader and several other members of the personnel at the station.

The station was informed about the inspection by e-mail several days in advance, and also on the evening before the arrival of the team. However, due to weather situation and the need to change the flight itinerary the inspection team did arrive earlier in the day than expected by the station personnel. The personnel took this in graceful stride, and did its utmost to accommodate the needs of the inspection team regardless.

The inspection lasted 2.5 hours.

Halley was last inspected in 1993/94 (Sweden), the only time the current station complex Halley V has been inspected earlier.

4.2 Description of facility and operations

Location Halley is an all-year research station located on the Brunt Ice Shelf in Coats Land (75⁰S, 26⁰W), approximately 12 km from the seaward edge of the ice shelf where supply ship docks. The specific landing spot on Brunt Ice Shelf coasts varies from year to year.

Map 3: Lay-out of Halley V

The station facilities The original Halley I station was established in 1956 and has been followed by the establishment of four consecutive replacement stations. The construction of the existing Halley V station was completed in 1992. It is due to be decommissioned and removed in 2012, at this time being replaced by Halley VI.

Halley V consists of 6 buildings plus 20 temporary accommodation cabooses and storage containers covering an area of approximately 5 km circumference.

The buildings are all located on platforms on steel legs and are jacked up annually to keep them clear of accumulating snow. One summer accommodation building and the garage have been constructed as self contained structures mounted on skis so that they can be towed out of accumulating snow each year. These structures will be moved to Halley VI when it is commissioned. The 20 temporary accommodation cabooses (plus two ablution containers) are currently on site to support the construction work.

Picture 5: Halley V

Photo: Inger Holten

The station is built to accommodate 74 during the summer season and an over- wintering team of 11. Currently there are 130 bed spaces in order to also accommodate the Halley VI construction personnel.

A Clean Air Sector Laboratory is 1 km away from the rest of the station in order to prevent contamination from the main base. It is currently not operational, but will be moved to Halley VI and set in operation again there.

There is one communication array, as well as fuel, waste and supply dumps and storage containers around the station. A designated waste sledge is also on site consisting of the incinerator, waste container, compactor and oil spill response equipment.

At the time of the inspection the structural framework for most of the new buildings for Halley VI had been completed and was located at Halley V. These elements would be moved to and incorporated into the new station by 2012.

A summer only ski-way has been established for small aircraft operations. An emergency landing area is also marked out as and when necessary using empty drums.

Picture 6: A module of the new Halley VI station

Photo: Marie Korsvoll

Picture 7: The designated waste sledge at Halley V

Photo: Birgit Njåstad

Personnel During the 2008-09 summer season a total of 50 people had been present at the station, with 44 being the maximum at any one time. At the time of the inspection 37 people were present. The station was in the middle of turnover operations, and summer personnel were to move to the supply vessel within a day or so after the inspection for transport out of Antarctica. 4 scientists had been present during the summer season.

In addition to the logistical and scientific staff, there was during the summer season an artist present at the station as part of the BAS artist and writers program. The inspection team found this aspect of the operations of interest, and notes the role such programs can play in the context of Antarctica as a continent for peace.

4.3 Operator The Halley research station is one of several stations operating within the framework of the national Antarctic program of the United Kingdom. The responsible operating agency is the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), a component research institute of the UK Natural Environmental Research Council.

4.4 Scientific research The primary aim of Halley V is to accommodate for scientific activities, primarily atmospheric sciences, but also survey, geology, glaciology and climatology.

Studies at Halley are crucial for a global perspective on ozone reduction, atmospheric pollution, sea level rise, and climate change. Halley, lying within the auroral zone, is ideally situated for geospace research.

Due to construction work (Halley VI) a number of the scientific facilities at Halley V had been downscaled, closed or removed at the time of the inspection, and the focus was only on having the capacity required to maintain the key long term scientific monitoring experiments. The number of scientists at the station was therefore relatively low at the time of the inspection.

Normally a minimum of one exchange scientist would be present at the station each summer season, although none were present during the season of the inspection due to construction priorities.

4.5 Environment The current Halley V was planned for and constructed in 1992, and is as such a relatively conventional station with respect to environmental innovation. It was noted that although basic structures and technology were quite conventional there were nevertheless good procedures and practices in place to ensure environmentally well founded operations. Some aspects of the operations that the inspection team was introduced to and which are worth mentioning are:

Fuel storage: The primary fuel used at the station is AVTUR (aircraft) fuel, with some amount of petrol in addition. Fuel is transferred from the supply ship to transit tanks at the ice-edge and towed to the station where they are decanted into storage tanks. Fuel is stored in ten 20 000 liter double-bunded steel tanks and two 20 000 liter bunded flubbers (and in addition there are approximately 2000 205 liter drums with fuel present during construction period). High quality containers have been selected for storage and Avery Hardall dry-break valves are fitted to refueling hoses to eliminate any spillage during fuel transfer. Regular (monthly) checks are made on all fuel storage vessels and pipes. Daily spot checks of in use supplies are also carried out. Normal annual fuel consumption is approximately 240 m3. Most wintering personnel take part in a one day Oil Spill Response course. Selected staff attends a longer 3 day course. Spill exercises are carried out twice a year. Waste management: Waste at Halley is handled and separated in accordance with BAS’ waste management strategy. One Base General Assistant is employed during the summer to deal with waste management issues under supervision. All personnel are briefed at UK conference and on their initial arrival on base in waste management issues. Publicly displayed notices regarding waste management is widely distributed around base next to the recycling points, compactor and shredder. Approximately 5.5 m3 of waste, including grey water is produced at the station per day, depending on number of people at station and operations. Organic wastes are incinerated in summer and bagged and buried in winter. Grey water is macerated and discharged into snow pits. Remaining waste is removed from Antarctica. Various recycling schemes have been introduced: aluminum cans, paper, glass, batteries, fluorescent tubes, photochemicals, printer toner cartridges, 205 liter drums, plastics, tetra packs, cardboard, timber. Even during the major rebuild of the station, waste recycling rates were high, with over 56% of general waste being recycled. The incinerator at the station satisfies UK emission standards, although emissions are not currently monitored. Monitoring: records of waste generation, fuel consumption and fuel spills are kept. New station: Halley VI has been designed to deliver significant energy savings, enabling a 15% energy saving per unit area in comparison with Halley V. Energy savings are from passive, design and operational techniques. In addition, alternative energy production (wind) is being considered, although there are engineering issues to address before implementation, and conventional technology with active controls will be used until proven renewable energy systems can be installed for year round use. Station personnel indicated during the inspection that due to financial constraints some of the alternative energy production systems would not receive first priority from start at the new station, although technologically the station will be ready for such additions in the future.

Picture 8: Fuel storage at Halley V

Photo: Birgit Njåstad

4.6 Military activity No weapons, military activity or nuclear disposal sites were observed during the inspection at Halley station. During the summer of the inspection two Royal Air Force personnel were deployed to Halley for the summer specifically to assist with maintenance of communication masts and aerials, mast rescue training and work involving the use of harnesses in the tunnel shafts.

4.7 Safety and emergencies As far as the inspection team was informed the safety and emergency procedures and facilities at Halley V seemed to be sufficient: Search and rescue: all wintering personnel and field scientist receive field training before departure to Antarctica. All field teams are deployed with a field assistant that has more technical knowledge of rescue techniques. SAR training takes place at least once a year. Fire emergency: Fire emergency plans are in place and detectors and alarms are located in all buildings and are controlled by the local building alarm panel. The main building is divided into 3 sections with separating walls designed to provide 60 minutes of fire protection. A select number of personnel (incl. all wintering personnel) receive fire-fighting training in the UK before departure. Regular fire drills are carried out on a monthly basis in winter and at least once during summer. There are three field huts in the area. They are part of the emergency evacuation procedure. It was noted that the huts are now in poor condition and need to be replaced. BAS notes that the purpose and continued use of the three field huts will be reviewed once Halley VI station is finished. Communication: The extensive set of communication facilities were in good working order.

4.8 Tourism Not many tourist operations come in the vicinity of Halley due to its relatively inaccessible location. Only passengers from one cruise ship (icebreaker) has ever visited the station.

BAS has, however, a clear policy with regard to stations visits: BAS welcomes a small number of visits to its stations from IAATO affiliated companies during the austral summer. Small groups are given a guided tour of the facilities, where they have the opportunity to learn about the world-class science undertaken by BAS, and the logistics that support it. Any planned visit to Halley would be considered on a case by case basis. Bids to visit BAS stations are coordinated by IAATO and submitted en-bloc to the Environmental Manager, BAS Cambridge, UK by the end of June each year.

4.9 Concluding remarks To sum up, the inspection team would like to highlight the following from the inspection of Halley V research station:

The inspection team was and is very impressed with the scientific knowledge that has been and is still being gained on basis of the activities taking place at Halley. The inspection team noted however with interest that there was a relatively low number of scientists present at the station during the season, especially compared to the number of operational staff, despite the high scientific productivity of the station. The inspection team notes that this discrepancy to a large degree was a result of the present high intensity construction phase (Halley VI), although the team also was under the impression that Halley V is a relatively resource intensive station to operate during normal operations, requiring a comparatively high number of support personnel. The inspection team notes, however, that the importance of the long-term observations and science conducted at Halley specifically does provide a good argument for continued operations at this resource intensive location. The inspection team was furthermore informed that Halley VI will be able to host nearly double the science staff compliment over Halley V in the summer season at the same time as the summer support staff will be significantly reduced compared to operation of Halley V, as the new station requires much less maintenance activity. The ratio of science staff to support staff during winter may become lower at Halley VI than Halley V, this due to automation of research instrumentation and satellite communication links. The inspection team noted that Halley operates quite to standard with respect to environmental aspects of the operations. The inspection team notes that more innovate energy efficient thinking has been put into the design of the new Halley VI station, but notes also that until practical and financial constraints have been overcome a seemingly relatively high degree of conventional technology will be utilized for energy production at the new station,. The inspection team did find it very useful when they at their arrival at Halley were presented with an already filled-out inspection checklist along with other relevant material about the station, its operations and science activities. The

usefulness of receiving such a succinct package of information cannot be overestimated, and also this inspection team, in line with earlier inspections, would recommend that all stations and installations have relevant information available in such a format both for the purposes of inspections and other instances where such information could be useful.

Picture 9: The inspection team and Halley station leaders at the Halley airport

Photo: Inger Holten

5. NOVO RUNWAY AND ALCI AIRBASE

5.1 About the inspection The inspection team4 arrived at Novo Runway and ALCI Airbase at 1500 GMT on 22 February 2009 by Twin Otter from Troll. The airbase, as well as the nearby Russian research station Novolazarevskaya, was notified by e-mail and direct communication before departure from Cape Town, and by phone a few hours before arrival. The team was welcomed by the base commander (ALCI Airbase) and the station leader at the neighboring Russian station Novolazarevskaya. The inspection lasted 2 hours. The installation and operations have never previously been formally inspected.

A major storm had just passed through the area, influencing the facilities and operations at the time of the inspection.

5.2 Description of facility and operations Two separate facilities are present at the site and were subject to the inspection. Novo Runway consists of the ice runway itself and the technical operations associated with the flights in and out of the runway. ALCI Airbase consists of passenger support facilities associated with the activities at the runway.

Location Novo Runway is situated on the blue ice at 70°49.52'S, 11°37.68'E about 17 km southwest of the Russian research station Novolazarevskaya and the Indian research station Maitri (see Map 1 for location of Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase and surrounding areas).

Map 4: Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase and surrounding stations

4 During this last inspection the inspection team consisted of five members: Mr. Karsten Klepsvik, Ms. Kjerstin Askholt, Ms. Inger Holten, Ms. Marie Korsvoll and Ms. Birgit Njåstad.

Picture 10: Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase

Photo: Birgit Njåstad

Novo Runway: The airfield and technical operations There has been a runway in the area associated with the Russian Antarctic Expedition since the early 1960s, and there has been a runway at the current location since 1979. The current operational modus was established in 2001 in order to provide as a logistical hub for the DROMLAN cooperation5.

Novo Runway is a 3000 m long prepared strip on the blue ice. The runway is marked with markers throughout the entire length of the runway, supplemented with landing lights, mostly at the end of the season.

In addition to the ice runway itself Novo Runway consists of radio room and accommodation associated with these operations, located primarily in buildings still standing from the earlier days of operation at the airbase. Some vehicles were also associated with the technical operations, ie. for removal of snow from runway, aircraft fuelling etc. The technical facilities (buildings and vehicles) seemed to be of some age. However, the inspection team has after the inspection been informed by ALCI that these buildings are gradually being phased out and will be replaced by new modules placed on skis, allowing them to be moved when necessary to avoid snow accumulation.

5 DROMLAN is an air network which facilitates communication and the transportation of scientists and equipment between Cape Town and Dronning Maud Land, and between the scientific stations and field locations within Dronning Maud Land. It is supported by a consortium of the national programmes that have stations or operations in or around Dronning Maud.

Picture 11: Preparing the airstrip after the storm

Photo: Inger Holten

ALCI Airbase: The passenger terminal Associated with the flight operations a “passenger terminal” (ALCI Airbase) has been established at Novo Runway, consisting of a number of tents and other structures (sleeping tents, mess tent, accommodation containers for base personnel, toilet facilities, etc.) which accommodate stop-over passengers while they wait for further flights. The overnight capacity of the passenger terminal is approx. 50.

The passenger terminal is a temporary facility in so far that all tents and similar facilities are packed up every winter and stored in the associated container units until next season. It was noted, during inspection, that considerations are being given to substitute the current tents with more stable container units (for sleeping purposes). ALCI notes that the tents are gradually being replaced by mobile living modules placed on skis. ALCI has also after the conclusion of the inspection stated that it considers the current facilities as temporary, since they can be easily removed and dismantled if necessary. To the inspection team it seemed clear, both from current status and potential future changes as described, that the facilities and the operations associated with them should be considered permanent or semi-permanent.

The inspection team has been informed by ALCI that DROMLAN members contribute with equipment at the airbase (such as various vehicles, portable lightning system, portable firefighting system, etc.) which is used and maintained by ALCI for the DROMLAN operations at the location.

5.3 Operator On basis of information collected during the inspection of the facilities the ownership and responsibility for the operation of the facilities was not made entirely clear to the inspection team, and a number of questions related to the formalities around facility operations remained unanswered. On basis of information obtained during and in the aftermath of the inspection the following should be noted:

Novo Runway, ie. the ice runway itself and the technical air field facilities (radio room and accommodation associated with these operations) are part of the Russian Novolazarevskaya research station and belong to the Russian Antarctic Expedition (RAE), which has the technology and specialists at its disposal for preparation and maintenance of the air strip. RAE also provides the fuel for the runway activity. These activities associated with Novo Runway are permitted through the Russian Antarctic permitting system in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protocol. Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Ltd. (ALCI)6 is responsible for administrating the operation of the flights in and out at Novo Airbase. For providing the intercontinental flights from South Africa to Antarctica the ALCI Company charters airplanes IL-76TD with qualified Russian air crews. The internal flights in Antarctica are conducted by smaller aircraft (Twin Otter and Basler). Both aircraft and pilots/mechanics were at the time of the inspection chartered from Kenn Borek Air (Canada). ALCI also provides personnel and equipment (skidoo's, sledges, containers, mess room, kitchen etc.) to run the passenger/cargo terminal. ALCI is registered in South Africa and has its main office in Cape Town (and a smaller office in St Petersburg, Russia). ALCI has after the inspection informed the inspection team that it is working closely with the Department of Environmental Affairs in South Africa and the South African Antarctic Programme, noting however that the permitting system in South Africa unfortunately is not yet in place and that this is the reason official permits have not been obtained. ALCI note that they are ready to submit applications as soon as it will be possible. Representatives from the Department of Environmental

6 The Antarctic Logistics Centre International is a logistics service provider with the following mission and objectives: ALCI has been established to provide a logistic tool for regular intercontinental flights from Cape Town into Antarctica and to perform aircraft missions for logistic and science in Antarctica. ALCI is a logistic coordinator and operator for a great part of activities performed by the Russian Antarctic Expedition. ALCI provides support to national Antarctic programs and international projects. The structure has been developed as an operator and logistic coordinator for aircraft missions within the DROMLAN project. The first priority is support of scientific activities of national Antarctic programs of the DROMLAN community. Furthermore scientific activities of the RAE and also other national programs are also supported. These are scientific programs of National Antarctic Programs who are not members of DROMLAN such as China, Italy, Argentina. Scientific programs conducted by different organisations using private funds working under the permits of their countries of origin. Private expeditions who has relevant permits from their countries of origin.

Affairs in South Africa that the inspection team met during the inspection indicate that they have no formal communication or agreements with ALCI. South Africa has also later confirmed that the South African Regulations are still not in place, and that they are currently resting with the Cabinet/Parliament. ALCI also noted that it is RAE (Russia) who is fully responsible for the EIA and permits for the activity at Novo Runway, and notes that the EIA for the activity can be obtained from RAE. Representatives from RAE noted in advance of the inspection that the activity of the ALCI Company is carried out beyond the legal framework which applies to RAE, and that RAE does not bear any responsibility for non-observance of requirements. As far as the inspection team can discern, neither Russian nor South African authorities have notified the ALCI-activity as activity organized out from their country in accordance with current exchange of information requirements under the Antarctic Treaty. ALCI notes, however, that several of the national Antarctic programs utilizing the services of ALCI do make note of this through their annual information exchanges.

Picture 12: The mess tent/departure lounge at ALCI Airbase

Photo: Marie Korsvoll

5.4 Scientific research No scientific activity takes place at the ALCI Airbase. The facilities and operations based at the facilities provide a logistical platform for a number of national and international research programs in the Dronning Maud Land region. ALCI informed the inspection team that the German research aircraft Polar 5 is regularly based at Novo Airbase to perform air-borne geophysical and glaciological survey missions every season.

5.5 Environment Some aspects of the operations that the inspection team was introduced to and which are worth mentioning are:

Waste management: According to information given waste is handled within a recycling (separation) framework and returned to Cape Town for proper disposal, although due to the storm such schemes were not functional at the time of the inspection. The team also noted that waste was poorly secured outside the mess tent, quite susceptible to wind and bad weather, as well as accessible to birds. During the recent storm waste stored outdoors had been dispersed by wind and away from the station area. It had not been considered useful to attempt recollection of this waste.

Picture 13: Waste storage outside the mess tent at ALCI Airbase

Photo: Birgit Njåstad

Waste water: Toilet and kitchen waste water is disposed of in an ice pit near the station, in line with requirements specified in the Environmental Protocol (cf. Article 4 of Annex III). There is no treatment of the water before disposal. Energy production and fuel storage: The energy production at the station is by conventional fossil fuel generators. Fuel for this energy production, as well as for flight operations, is stored in a large number of tanks and drums of varying sizes and qualities. Water production: Water is produced by using a heater system to melt ice which is then pumped up to the surface for storage and use.

Picture 14: Water source at ALCI Airbase

Photo: Marie Korsvoll

Picture 15: South Polar Skua at ALCI Airbase

Photo: Marie Korsvoll

Training and education: Before departure to Antarctica ALCI provides a briefing to all passengers that fly with them. This briefing also contains some elementary information about environmental conduct at the ALCI Airbase. The inspection team did not during the inspection get an impression of whether the facility staff was given any particular and more in-depth training before their deployment in Antarctica. According to information received from ALCI after the inspection such training is provided, but it was also accepted that improvements in this training might be required. Wildlife: There seemed to be an attraction of South Polar Skua around the facilities. There were indications that this was due to a combination of active feeding by visitors and limitations in the waste management control. Environmental impact assessment: During the inspection ALCI did not provide the inspection team with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the operations at ALCI Airbase. The inspection team was informed that this could be obtained at RAE, although RAE had provided the information that the operations of the passenger facilities were not part of their responsibilities. In the aftermath of the inspection the inspection team was provided with a copy of the IEE for Novo Runway – Ice Runway in the area of Novolazarevskaya Station – also submitted by Russia as WP 15 at ATCM XXV. The components covered by this IEE are the runway itself, the access road to Novolazarevskaya Station, the original runway structures (for operations) and fuel storage/use. The passenger facilities and operations (currently being provided by ALCI) are not considered in this assessment.

5.6 Military activity No weapons, military activity or nuclear disposal sites were observed during the inspection at Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase.

5.7 Safety and emergencies The inspection team noted a number of issues related to the operation of the facilities and flights that gave cause for safety concern. The following is in particular noted:

The basic passenger facilities at Novo Airbase are likely sufficiently safe and comfortable during normal operations when transit passengers are only in for a few hours or a night at the most. However, as the inspection took place right after a quite large storm, a number of observations were of interest. Some of the staff barracks were covered by snow to the degree that it had become difficult to get out of them after the storm. The heaters in the passenger sleep over tents can run only for a day before refueling is necessary, while refueling is difficult during heavy winds. It was also noted that there were cause for concern regarding safety of access to key facilities (mess tent, toilets, etc) during heavy winds and white out conditions as these facilities are located a bit apart. The inspection team has been informed that facilities are available at Novolazarevskaya if there is a chance that passengers may spend a longer period at the airbase due to weather situation. However, the Russian station is located several (~12) kilometers away from the airbase, and safe relocation could be difficult in quickly changing weather conditions. ALCI notes, however, that all operations at ALCI Airbase are planned based on the weather forecasts, which have proved to be reliable, and all necessary measures are taken to ensure safe conditions for the personnel and visitors before a storm. The ongoing process of replacing tents with more comfortable modules with all required facilities inside is also a step in the direction of improving safety. There is good cause to commend the operation of the runway at Novo and the opportunities this provides for national science programs that have activities in the Dronning Maud area. However, several observations made by the inspection team during transport and inspection could have safety implications: o Due to bad landing conditions Troll Runway had been considered for landing one hour before landing at Novo Runway, although during their visit at Troll the inspection team was informed that personnel at Troll were not informed about such a potential non-scheduled landing. However, according to information received from ALCI after the inspection there is an agreed procedure that ensures that the secondary runway (Troll or Novo depending on which is the primary target) is in stand-by modus during scheduled flights, and that changes in schedules are communicated accordingly. ALCI notes, however, that some miscommunication can happen. o Snow removal after snow storm was only done partially, ie. not the entire width or length of the runway was prepared before departure of flight, although according to ALCI the take-off was implemented inside the regulatory framework and on basis of the chief pilots safety considerations. o Unavailability of information related to contingency plan/preparedness system in case of a major aircraft incident. ALCI has later informed the inspection team that a contingency plan in case of a major aircraft incident has been developed, but that it has never been formalized into a structured document. ALCI has accepted that it would be appropriate to prepare a formalized contingency plan as soon as possible.

5.8 Tourism The inspection team was in advance of the inspection aware of a relatively high level of non-governmental activity taking place with Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase as starting point, although very little information is available with regard to these activities. The inspection team therefore spent some time trying to analyze this situation. The following elements are worth pointing to in this regard:

ALCI informed the inspection team that ALCI does not operate any dedicated non-governmental flights between Cape Town and Novo Airbase. There are, however, some mixed flights having both scientific (DROMLAN) and non- governmental passengers, and during the inspection season 8 out of 15 IL-76 flights had non-governmental passengers on board. A number of the internal flights in Antarctica are, however, dedicated non-governmental flights, in the 2008-09 season twelve such flights took place. During the last seasons the number of non-governmental persons coming through ALCI Airbase has increased, there being 28 passengers in 2006/07, 39 in 2007/08 and 56 in the 2008/09 season, now constituting around 5-7% of the total activity. While ALCI's main task is to be the official service provider for the DROMLAN community, it also provides logistic support to non-governmental expedition organized and operated by ALCI’s sister company The Antarctic Company (TAC). To avoid any negative effects on the logistics of governmental parties these always take priority over non-governmental clients. The non-governmental clients pay a higher price for the flights and that this money is invested in facilities and on this way indirectly benefits governmental activities. According to ALCI is TAC responsible for all safety and environmental matters of the non- governmental expeditions utilizing ALCI logistics. TAC is also registered in South Africa, with its main office in Cape Town. As far as the inspection team can discern TAC has not notified its activity and/or submitted an environmental impact assessment according to the provisions of the Environmental Protocol to South-African authorities. ALCI also informed the inspection team that TAC is waiting for a South African permitting system to be in place in order to apply and comply with all rules and regulations. The inspection team was informed by ALCI that TAC meanwhile requires and ensures that all non-governmental expeditions obtain permits for their activities in Antarctica from their respective authorities, and that none of the non- governmental clients go to Antarctica under the cover of TAC or ALCI permits. However, there are indications that authorities from countries where the non- governmental activities are organized have been notified by the companies involved that they were included in the TAC/ALCI permits7. It seems that responsibilities with respect to permitting/assessment of non- governmental activities in this area to a large degree are unclear and need to be dealt with in an appropriate manner between those involved.

7 An example to this end was at the time of the inspection the UK based company White Desert, which arranges/promotes expeditions on the TAC platform.

5.9 Concluding remarks To sum up, the inspection team would like to highlight the following from the inspection of Novo Airbase:

The inspection team sees clear merit in having airstrips and associated facilities available for scientific support in Dronning Maud Land, and the availability of such infrastructure at both Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase and Troll Airfield has clearly improved the opportunities for the national programs operating in the area. ALCIs operations are invaluable in this regard. This noted, the inspection team notes that it seems like the responsibility to make sure permitting and notification of the activities at Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase are in accordance with Antarctic Treaty obligations, is unclear. The inspection team would recommend that all involved parties clarify their responsibilities and obligations. The same need for clarification relates to the non-governmental activities that use the ALCI/Novo platform as their basis. Furthermore, the inspection team notes that there may be issues related to safety management that merit further consideration. The operations at Novo Runway/ALCI Airbase are growing and more and more people move through the facilities. Safety and contingency must be on the front burner at all times. The inspection team would in particular like to underline the need for strict communication practices between the various air facility operations in the area, to ensure that the back-up airstrip always is available and prepared in a suitable manner during flights. The inspection team would encourage ALCI, RAE and others involved to ensure proper routines and safety standards related to flight operations on the ground.

Appendix #1: Overview of inspections of current facilities in Antarctica (1961- 2008)8

Station # inspections Last inspected Aboa, Finland 2 2003-04 Amundsen-Scott, USA 1 2006-07 Arctowski, Poland 8 2000-01 Argtigas, Uruguay 5 2000-01 Arturo Prat, Chile 2 2004-05 Belgrano II, Argentina 1 1982-83 Bellingshausen, Russia 10 2006-07 Casey, Australia 3 1998-99 Comandante Ferraz, Brazil 6 2004-05 Concordia, France/Italy 1 2006-07 Davis, Australia 3 1998-99 Dome Fuji, Japan 0 Druzhnaya, Russia 1 1976-77 Dumont d'Urville, France 7 1994-95 Escudero, Chile 2 2000-01 Esperanza, Argentina 6 2006-07 Frei, Chile 5 2000-01 Gabriel de Castilla, Spain 3 2004-05 Great Wall, China 8 2006-07 Halley, United Kingdom 4 2008-09 Juan Carlos I, Spain 5 2004-05 Jubany, Argentina 4 2000-01 King Sejong, Korea 5 2004-05 Kohnen, Germany 1 2000-01 Law – Racovita, Romania* 0 Macchu Picchu, Peru 0 Maitri, Inda 3 2000-01 Maldonado, Ecuador 2 2004-05 Marambio, Argentina 3 2004-05 Mario Zucchelli/Terra Nova Bay, 1 1988-89 Italy Mawson, Australia 4 1998-99 McMurdo, United States 2 2004-05 Mirny, Russia 5 1994-95 Molodezhnaya, Russia 2 1982-83 Neumayer, Germany 6 2003-04 Novolazarevskaya, Russia 4 2000-01 O'Higgins, Chile 1 1998-99 Ohridiski, Bulgaria 1 2004-05 Orcadas, Argentina 3 1994-95

8 Does not include inspections carried through by the 2009 Norwegian inspection. List is based on information provided at http://www.ats.aq/e/ats_governance_listinspections.htm.

Station (cont.) # inspections Last inspected Palmer, United States 4 2006-07 Progress II, Russia 0 Rothera, United Kingdom 7 2006-07 San Martin, Argentina 2 1992-93 SANAE IV** 4 2003-04 Scott Base, New Zealand 5 2004-05 Signy, United Kingdom 4 1994-95 Syowa, Japan 3 1994-95 Troll, Norway 2 2003-04 Vernadsky, Ukraine*** 11 2004-05 Vicente, Ecuador 1 2004-05 Vostok, Russia 1 1963-64 Wasa, Sweden 1 2003-04 Zhongshan, China 2 1994-95

Year-round Seasonal No inspections

* Former Law station (Australia) ** Former SANAE stations have been inspected, but as the location is quite different from the present one these inspections are not counted in this overview. *** Former Faraday station (UK). Inspections of Faraday counted in this overview.

Appendix #2