sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mount Harding, Odell Glacier, Port Lockroy

IP 59

Agenda Item: ATCM 12, CEP 10 Presented by: UNEP, ASOC Original: English Submitted: 14/05/2012

Review of the Implementation of the Madrid Protocol: Inspections by Parties (Article 14)

1

IP 59

Review of the Implementation of the Madrid Protocol: Inspections by Parties (Article 14)

Information Paper submitted by UNEP and ASOC1

Summary This Information Paper reviews the practice of inspections undertaken by Parties carried out under Article 14 of the Madrid Protocol.

1. Introduction Over the last two decades, the deliberations of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings have increasingly focused on the protection of the Antarctic environment. Through the Protocol of Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol), the Parties committed themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and designated as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science. The Protocol entered into force on 14 January 1998 following the deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by all the states which were Consultative Parties on 4 October 1991 when the Protocol was signed. The Committee for Environmental Protection was established the same year in accordance with Article 11 of the Protocol. The success of the Antarctic Treaty in protecting the Antarctic environment hinges, inter alia, on the compliance of by Parties, both individually and collectively, with its environmental obligations, in particular the implementation of the Madrid Protocol. In order to assist Parties in furthering the protection of the Antarctic environment, in 2011 UNEP and ASOC initiated a review of the implementation of the Madrid Protocol. As a first step of this review process, UNEP and ASOC presented an Information Paper (XXXIV ATCM/IP 113) on the annual reporting duty set out in Article 17 of the Madrid Protocol in 2011. This year, UNEP and ASOC are pleased to present an analysis of the inspections by Parties in accordance with Article 14 of the Madrid Protocol. Usually, inspections are conducted to verify compliance with both the Protocol and with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty. This document, therefore, reviews the inspection practice undertaken under both instruments.

2. Overview of the inspection practice The inspection practice is a core component of the Antarctic Treaty and its Madrid Protocol. The practice is established under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty in order to “promote the objective and ensure the observance of the provisions of the […] Treaty” and under Article 14 of the Madrid Protocol in order to promote the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, and to ensure compliance with [the] Protocol”. In order to guide observers conducting inspections in Antarctica in accordance with the provisions of Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and Article 14 the Madrid Protocol, inspection checklists were adopted by Resolution 5 (1995). A revised check list “A” pertaining to Antarctic Stations and Subsidiary Installations was adopted by Resolution 3 (2010). There are currently checklists for Antarctic stations and subsidiary installations (Checklist A); vessels within the Antarctic Treaty Area (Checklist B); abandoned Antarctic stations and associated installations (Checklist C); waste

1 Lead authors: Christian Lambrecht (UNEP) (text and maps), and Lyn Goldsworthy (ASOC) and Dr. Ricardo Roura (ASOC) (data collection and review). 3 IP 59 disposal sites (Checklist D). In addition, there is a checklist to assist in the inspection of ASPAs and ASMAs. The development of a checklist for tourism has recently been discussed. In XXVI ATCM/ IP 118 rev.1, ASOC and UNEP reviewed the inspections carried out under the Treaty and the Protocol between 1959 and 2001. The review noted that:  There was an increase in official inspections and inspected facilities and sites during the 1959-2001 period;  The majority of the inspected facilities or sites were located in the (48.3 %), followed by (12.1 %), (9.1 %) and the (7.9 %);  Sixteen of the 27 Consultative Parties had conducted one or more inspections between 1959 and 2001;  Of the 73 stations that were on the COMNAP’s list at the time, and that were located within the Antarctic Treaty Area, 51 (70%) had been inspected and thus 22 (30%) had never been inspected;  Ten vessels were inspected in the 1959-2001 period, of which six were inspected after October 1991, and three after January 1998;  The inspection of commercial tourism activities had been limited to the inspection of tourist vessels;  All Parties other than Sweden had had at least one of their sites or facilities inspected;  The Parties that had most sites or facilities inspected were Argentina, Russia, United Kingdom, USA and Chile.

3. Methods and data sources

A) List of inspections

The analysis of inspections carried out since the entry into force of the Madrid Protocol is based on the inspections report available on the Secretariat website (Home > Antarctic Treaty > Peaceful use and Inspections > List of Inspections). Since the entry into force of the Protocol, 14 inspection reports have been submitted to the ATCM.

B) List of facilities and sites

The list of facilities, Historic Sites and Monuments (HSM), Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMA) used for the purpose of this paper derived from lists posted on the website of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) and the Secretariat (accessed April 2012).

COMNAP has posted on its web site a list of Antarctic Facilities at the following URL: https://www.comnap.aq/Members/Shared%20Documents/Antarctic_Facilities_List_1April2012.xls. It should be noted that different Parties use different criteria to list their facilities – for some Parties the listing is comprehensive while for others it includes only active stations but not abandoned stations or other facilities.

The lists of HSMs, ASPAs and ASMAs are posted on the Secretariat website (Home > Environment Protocol > Protected Areas > APA Database).

In addition, there are a number of other sites, some of which have been inspected on an ad hoc basis. These include temporary sites such as field camps; sites used for tourism purposes; and a limited number of NGO sites. There is no comprehensive list of these sites. More than 250 sites were used for tourism purposes between 1989–90 and 2007–08.2 At present, thirty two sites regularly used for tourism landings are subject

12 H.J. Lyncha, K. Crosbie, W.F. Fagana and R. Naveena (2010): Spatial patterns of tour ship traffic in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Antarctic Science 22:123-130 doi:10.1017/S0954102009990654

4 IP 59 to site specific guidelines that are listed on the Secretariat website at the following URL: http://www.ats.aq/e/ats_other_siteguidelines.htm

Resupply and tourism vessels, including both motor vessels and some yachts, have also been inspected. However, there is no complete list of the vessels operating in Antarctica currently available.

4. Summary findings

A) Total number of inspections and inspected sites or facilities

The total number of inspections conducted since the entry into force of the Madrid Protocol is 14. The total number of different facilities or sites inspected is 83 (see Table 1).

Table 1: Number of facilities and sites inspected, 1998-2011 Type of facility or site Number of facilities Number of different and sites inspected facilities and sites inspected Active Station 93 56 Former Station 2 2 Temporary Site 2 2 ASPA 6 6 ASMA 1 1 HSM 9 7 Ship 7 7 NGO/Tourism Site 2 2 Total 122 83

B) Frequency of inspections

Over the years, the frequency of inspections per year has increased. Prior to the entry into force of the Madrid Protocol, the yearly average number of inspections was 0.89 (33 inspections in 37 years). Since the entry into force of the Protocol, the yearly average increased to 1.17 (14 inspections in 12 years) (see Fig.1).

5 IP 59

Fig. 1 – Official inspections, 1959-2011

C) Geographical distribution of inspected facilities and sites

The geographical distribution of facilities, ASMAs, ASPAs and HSMs inspected is given in the maps at Annex I. D) Parties conducting inspections

Twelve of the 27 Consultative Parties have conducted one or more inspections between 1998 and 2011, namely: Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, , New Zealand, Peru, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America (see Table 2). Table 2: Inspecting countries, 1998-2011 Number of inspections in Inspecting which the Year of the inspection country country participated Australia 4 2005, 2005, 2010, 2011 UK 3 1999, 2005, 2005 USA 3 2001, 2005, 2006 France 2 1999, 2007 New Zealand 2 2005, 2007 Norway 2 2001, 2007 Belgium 1 1999 Finland 1 2004 Germany 1 1999 Japan 1 2010 Peru 1 2005 Sweden 1 2007

6 IP 59

D) Parties being inspected

27 of the 29 Consultative Parties had one or more of their facilities inspected during the period 1998-2011. None of the facilities of two Consultative Parties were inspected during the same period. These Parties are: Peru and Romania (see Table 3). Table 3: Inspected facilities by operating countries, 1998-2011

Number of Number of facilities Country facilities operated by the country inspected Chile 12 9 Russia 12 8 Argentina 13 7 Australia (*) 7 3 Germany 5 3 USA 6 3 Spain 2 2 United Kingdom 6 2 Uruguay 2 2 Belgium 1 1 Brazil 1 1 Bulgaria 1 1 China 3 1 Czech Republic 1 1 Ecuador 2 1 Finland 1 1 France (**) 3 1 India 2 1 Italy (**) 6 1 Japan 5 1 Korea 1 1 New Zealand 1 1 Norway 2 1 Poland 1 1 South Africa 1 1 Sweden 2 1 Ukraine 1 1 Peru 1 0 Romania (*) 1 0 (*) Includes a facility operated jointly by France and Italy (**) Includes a facility operated jointly by Australia and Romania

E) Inspection frequency at each facility

Of the 101 facilities in the COMNAP’s list, 56 (55%) have been inspected and 45 (45%) have never been inspected. The 45 sites and facilities that have not been inspected since 1998 are listed in Table 4. 7 IP 59

Table 4: Facilities not yet inspected since 1998 Country operating the First Facility Name of facility Status facility opened type Asuka Japan 1984 Station Seasonal Beaver Lake Australia Camp Belgrano II Argentina 1955 Station Year-round Bhatri India 2012 Station Year-round Italy 1997 Camp Seasonal Cámara Argentina 1953 Station Seasonal Cap Prud'homme France Camp Seasonal India 1983 Station Seasonal Dallman Lab at Base Jubany Germany 1994 Station Seasonal Dome Fuji Japan 1995 Station Seasonal Dumont d'Urville France 1956 Station Year-round Edgeworth-David Australia Camp Seasonal Enigma Lake Italy 2005 Camp Seasonal United Kingdom 1961 Camp Seasonal Guillermo Mann Chile 1991 Station Seasonal Kohnen Germany 2001 Station Seasonal Kunlun China 2009 Station Seasonal Law - Racovita – Negoita Australia & Romania 1987 Station Seasonal Lieutenant Arturo Parodi Chile 1999 Station Seasonal Macchu Picchu Peru 1989 Station Seasonal Heliport USA Camp Seasonal Mario Zucchelli Italy 1986 Station Seasonal Matienzo Argentina 1961 Station Seasonal Melchior Argentina 1947 Station Seasonal Mid Point Italy 1998 Camp Seasonal Mirny Russia 1956 Station Year-round Mizuho Japan 1970 Station Seasonal Molodezhnaya Airfield Russia Camp Seasonal Odell Glacier Camp USA Camp Seasonal Orcadas Argentina 1904 Station Year-round Primavera Argentina 1977 Station Seasonal Progress Russia 1989 Station Year-round Refugio Ecuador Ecuador 1990 Refuge Seasonal Ripamonti Chile Station Seasonal Rothera Skiway United Kingdom 1975 Camp Seasonal Russkaya Russia 1980 Station Seasonal S17 Japan 2005 Camp Seasonal Signy United Kingdom 1947 Station Seasonal USA Camp Seasonal Sitry Italy 2000 Camp Seasonal United Kingdom Camp Seasonal Svea Sweden Station Seasonal Norway 1985 Refuge Seasonal Wilkins Aerodrome Australia Camp Seasonal Zhongshan China 1989 Station Year-round

8 IP 59

26 facilities and 2 sites have been inspected two or more times since 1998 (see Table 5).

Table 5: Facilities and sites inspected more than once, 1998-2011 Type of facility Name of facility or site Number of or site inspections Station / Camp Bellingshausen 4 / Refuge Great Wall 4 Esperanza 3 Juan Carlos I 3 Ohridiski 3 Rothera 3 SANAE IV 3 3 Vernadsky 3 Antarctic Receiving Station (GARS) 2 Arctowski 2 Artigas 2 Bernardo O'Higgins Riquelme 2 Comandante Ferraz 2 Eduardo Frei Montalva 2 Gabriel de Castilla 2 Jubany 2 Julio Escudero 2 King Sejong 2 Lieutenant Rodolfo Marsh M. Aerodrome 2 Maitri 2 Neumayer III 2 Novolazarevskaya Airfield 2 2 Princess Elisabeth 2 Ruperto Elichiribehety 2 HSM HSM 61, Base A, Port Lockroy 2 HSM 62, Base F, Wordie House, Winter Islands 2

F) Inspections of ASMAs, ASPAs, HSMs, vessels and other sites

One ASMA, six ASPAs, and seven HSMs have also been inspected during the period 1998-2011 (see Table 6). This list does not include ASMAs that contain inspected sites or facilities, or HSMs or ASPAs located adjacent to inspected sites and facilities, and that were not specifically identified by observers as subject of their inspections.

9 IP 59

Table 6: Inspected ASMA, ASPA and HSM, 1998-2011 (*)

Name of Site Year of inspection ASMA 2: McMurdo Dry Valleys 2005 ASPA 116: Cape Bird, 2005 ASPA 122: 2005 ASPA 154: 2005 ASPA 157: 2005 ASPA 158: Hut Point 2005 ASPA 168: Mount Harding 2010 HSM 38, Swedish Hut, Snow Hill Is. 1999 HSM 55, Stonington - 2005 HSM 61, Base A, Port Lockroy 1999, 2005 HSM 62, Base F, Wordie House, Winter Islands 1999, 2005 HSM 63, Base Y, Horseshoe Island 2005 HSM 64, Base E, 2005 HSM 71, Whalers Bay, 1999

(*) Refers to sites identified by the observers conducting inspections as ASMAs, ASPAs, and HSMs.

In addition, seven vessels, of which six were tourist vessels, were also inspected during the same period (see Table 7).

Table 7: Ships inspected, 1998-2011 Year of Type of ship Name of ship inspection Tourist vessel M/S Explorer II – Abercrombie & Kent 2006 Tourist vessel M/S Lyubov Orlova – Quark Expeditions 2006 Tourist vessel M/S National Geographic Endeavour – Lindblad 2006 Expeditions Tourist vessel MV Professor Molchanov 2005 Tourist vessel MV Academic Loffe 1999 Tourist vessel MV Marco Polo 1999 National programme vessel RSV Aurora Australis (Australia) 1999

Other sites, including former facilities, temporary sites and land-based tourist sites were also visited (see Table 8).

10 IP 59

Table 8: Other sites inspected, 1998-2011 Year of Type of site Name of site inspection Temporary site Field camp at (monitoring 2006 tourism) Temporary site EPICA Drill Site 2001 Former site Forster 2001 Former site Wilkes 1999 NGO / Tourism site ALCI Airbase (tourism camp) 2009 NGO / Tourism site Eco-Nelson (Non-Governmental/private) 2005

5. Analysis As noted in ASOC and UNEP (2003), the inspection system is essential to the implementation of the Antarctic Treaty and its Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection. Inspections provide critical information on the level of compliance with the Treaty and the Protocol’s provisions and help identify issues that need further attention from the Parties. They are also learning experiences for both the inspected Parties and for the Parties conducting the inspection.

Based on the 2003 review, ASOC and UNEP recommended that future inspections could usefully focus on:  Stations that have never been inspected or not been inspected since the adoption of the Protocol;  Stations of Parties that have never or seldom had inspections to their facilities;  Inland stations;  Decommissioned, abandoned or infrequently used sites or facilities;  Stations that have been inspected and have shown repeatedly that some aspects of their operations are falling short of the Protocol’s requirements;  Other sites or facilities that are not stations (such as field huts, fuel depots, drilling sites);  Ships, including vessels engaged in tourism and other non-governmental activities; and,  Sites where tourism operations frequently take place.

The present review shows that since the entry into force of the Protocol progress has been made in terms of the number of inspections, the number of stations inspected, including stations that had not previously been inspected, and the number of inland facilities that were inspected. It must, however, be noted that while the number of inspections has increased, so has the number of sites facilities. There were a relatively limited number of inspections to facilities that are not active research stations, and to other kinds of sites. Tourism activities in all its dimensions – ships, sites, and onsite activities – have received few inspections, with the exception of six ships, a tourism monitoring camp, and one land based facility. This is surprising considering the expansion of tourism since 1998. The listing of facilities and sites in the Antarctic is comprehensive for research stations and, by and large, for sites used by tourism, but less comprehensive for other types of sites. In addition, there is no comprehensive listing of the vessels operating in the Antarctic Treaty Area that could be subject of inspection under the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol.

6. Closing remarks UNEP and ASOC commend the practice of inspections as an essential component to ensure the implementation of the Treaty and the Protocol, as they provide objective information on the level of implementation based on observations on the ground. The present analysis covers only some aspects related to the practice of inspections. It does not provide a review of the inspections’ findings. Based on the analysis it would appear that the coverage of active

11 IP 59 stations has been adequate. Some ASMAs, ASPAs and HSMs have been inspected, but many have not. Finally, the coverage has been less adequate for facilities and sites other than permanent research stations, such as vessels, and tourism sites and activities in particular.

-----

12 IP 59

ANNEX I

13 IP 59

14 IP 59

15 IP 59

16