DOCSLIB.ORG

White Desert Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) Update Report 2020 July 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
White Desert Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) Update Report 2020 July 2020 White Desert Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) Update Report 2020 July 2020 For Submission to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office White Desert IEE Update Report 2020 Table of Contents White Desert IEE Update Report 2020 .................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of document ....................................................................................................................... 5 Preparation of document .................................................................................................................. 6 Overview of White Desert Activities ................................................................................................. 8 Membership of IAATO (International Association of Antarctica Tour Operator) .......................... 8 Environmental Management Systems, Certifications and Awards ............................................... 9 Scope of Environmental Assessment .............................................................................................. 11 Study Areas, Spatial and Temporal Scope ................................................................................... 11 Environmental Impact Approach and Methodology ....................................................................... 12 Overview of current and proposed operations ................................................................................... 13 Overview of numbers...................................................................................................................... 13 Logistics and Re-Supply Routes ....................................................................................................... 14 Traverse Routes .............................................................................................................................. 14 Overview of fuel and supplies ......................................................................................................... 15 White Desert Aviation ..................................................................................................................... 16 Aircraft use in Antarctica ............................................................................................................ 16 Intercontinental flights ............................................................................................................... 16 Plant, Equipment and Vehicles ................................................................................................... 17 Operational Environmental Measures ................................................................................................ 19 Climate Change and Antarctica ........................................................................................................... 19 Net Zero by 2050 and the Paris Agreement .................................................................................... 19 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 20 Establishment of Greenhouse Gas Reporting 2019-2020 Baseline ................................................. 20 Carbon and Fuel Use Management Plan ..................................................................................... 21 Existing Measures ........................................................................................................................... 22 Pathway to Net Zero Commitment as part of five year plan ........................................................... 22 Sustainable Aviation Strategy ..................................................................................................... 22 Pledge to Net Zero Commitment- Setting of Science Based Targets ........................................... 22 Carbon off-setting ....................................................................................................................... 23 White Desert Pathway to Net Zero by 2050 Policy .............................................................................. 24 Local air quality atmospheric emissions ............................................................................................. 25 White Desert IEE 2020 Report Final Environmental Baseline Air Quality in Antarctica ........................................................................... 25 Activities and potential impacts ...................................................................................................... 25 Local air quality and atmospheric pollutant .................................................................................... 26 Existing mitigation measures for local air quality impacts .............................................................. 26 Additional local air quality environmental measures ...................................................................... 27 Bio-Security and Non Native Species .................................................................................................. 29 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................................. 29 Activities and Potential impacts ...................................................................................................... 29 Pathways or vectors for transporting non native species include: .................................................. 29 Mitigation Measures: Summary of Bio Security Measures ............................................................. 30 Waste Management Plan.................................................................................................................... 32 Activities and Potential Impacts .................................................................................................. 32 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... 32 Environmental Emergency Preparedness and Response ................................................................ 40 Operational Assessment Tables ...................................................................................................... 41 Geographic Specific Environmental Measures .................................................................................... 45 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 45 Environmental Baseline and Activities ................................................................................................ 46 Wolf’s Fang Runway and Camp........................................................................................................... 46 Description of Activities .................................................................................................................. 46 Wolf’s Fang Blue-ice Runway ...................................................................................................... 46 Wolf’s Fang Camp ....................................................................................................................... 49 Changes in activities for five year period .................................................................................... 49 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................................. 51 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 51 Antarctic Heritage ....................................................................................................................... 51 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 51 Ablation ...................................................................................................................................... 52 Climate, Weather and Meteorological Data ............................................................................... 52 Ecology ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Whichaway Camp ............................................................................................................................... 57 Description of Activities .................................................................................................................. 57 Whichaway Camp ....................................................................................................................... 57 Whichaway Skiway ...................................................................................................................... 58 Client activities ............................................................................................................................ 58 2 | Page White Desert IEE 2020 Report Final Changes in activities for five year period .................................................................................... 58 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................................. 60 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute” Russian Antarctic Expedition
    FEDERAL SERVICE OF RUSSIA FOR HYDROMETEOROLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING State Institution “Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute” Russian Antarctic Expedition QUARTERLY BULLETIN ʋ2 (51) April - June 2010 STATE OF ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT Operational data of Russian Antarctic stations St. Petersburg 2010 FEDERAL SERVICE OF RUSSIA FOR HYDROMETEOROLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING State Institution “Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute” Russian Antarctic Expedition QUARTERLY BULLETIN ʋ2 (51) April - June 2010 STATE OF ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT Operational data of Russian Antarctic stations Edited by V.V. Lukin St. Petersburg 2010 Editor-in-Chief - M.O. Krichak (Russian Antarctic Expedition –RAE) Authors and contributors Section 1 M. O. Krichak (RAE), Section 2 Ye. I. Aleksandrov (Department of Meteorology) Section 3 G. Ye. Ryabkov (Department of Long-Range Weather Forecasting) Section 4 A. I. Korotkov (Department of Ice Regime and Forecasting) Section 5 Ye. Ye. Sibir (Department of Meteorology) Section 6 I. V. Moskvin, Yu.G.Turbin (Department of Geophysics) Section 7 V. V. Lukin (RAE) Section 8 B. R. Mavlyudov (RAS IG) Section 9 V. L. Martyanov (RAE) Translated by I.I. Solovieva http://www.aari.aq/, Antarctic Research and Russian Antarctic Expedition, Reports and Glossaries, Quarterly Bulletin. Acknowledgements: Russian Antarctic Expedition is grateful to all AARI staff for participation and help in preparing this Bulletin. For more information about the contents of this publication, please, contact Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute of Roshydromet Russian Antarctic Expedition Bering St., 38, St. Petersburg 199397 Russia Phone: (812) 352 15 41; 337 31 04 Fax: (812) 337 31 86 E-mail: [email protected] CONTENTS PREFACE……………………….…………………………………….………………………….1 1. DATA OF AEROMETEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AT THE RUSSIAN ANTARCTIC STATIONS…………………………………….…………………………3 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Wastewater Treatment in Antarctica
    Wastewater Treatment in Antarctica Sergey Tarasenko Supervisor: Neil Gilbert GCAS 2008/2009 Table of content Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................................3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................4 1 Basic principles of wastewater treatment for small objects .....................................................5 1.1 Domestic wastewater characteristics....................................................................................5 1.2 Characteristics of main methods of domestic wastewater treatment .............................5 1.3 Designing of treatment facilities for individual sewage disposal systems...................11 2 Wastewater treatment in Antarctica..........................................................................................13 2.1 Problems of transferring treatment technologies to Antarctica .....................................13 2.1.1 Requirements of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty / Wastewater quality standards ...................................................................................................13 2.1.2 Geographical situation......................................................................................................14 2.1.2.1 Climatic conditions....................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Polar Programs
    DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE TRAVERSE CAPABILITIES IN ANTARCTICA COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DRAFT (15 January 2004) FINAL (30 August 2004) National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE TRAVERSE CAPABILITIES IN ANTARCTICA FINAL COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) Process .......................................................1-1 1.3 Document Organization .............................................................................................................1-2 2.0 BACKGROUND OF SURFACE TRAVERSES IN ANTARCTICA..................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Re-supply Traverses...................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Scientific Traverses and Surface-Based Surveys .......................................................................2-5 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................3-1
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Peninsula
    Hucke-Gaete, R, Torres, D. & Vallejos, V. 1997c. Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, by marine debris at Cape Shirreff and San Telmo Islets, Livingston Island, Antarctica: 1998-1997. Serie Científica Instituto Antártico Chileno 47: 123-135. Hucke-Gaete, R., Osman, L.P., Moreno, C.A. & Torres, D. 2004. Examining natural population growth from near extinction: the case of the Antarctic fur seal at the South Shetlands, Antarctica. Polar Biology 27 (5): 304–311 Huckstadt, L., Costa, D. P., McDonald, B. I., Tremblay, Y., Crocker, D. E., Goebel, M. E. & Fedak, M. E. 2006. Habitat Selection and Foraging Behavior of Southern Elephant Seals in the Western Antarctic Peninsula. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #OS33A-1684. INACH (Instituto Antártico Chileno) 2010. Chilean Antarctic Program of Scientific Research 2009-2010. Chilean Antarctic Institute Research Projects Department. Santiago, Chile. Kawaguchi, S., Nicol, S., Taki, K. & Naganobu, M. 2006. Fishing ground selection in the Antarctic krill fishery: Trends in patterns across years, seasons and nations. CCAMLR Science, 13: 117–141. Krause, D. J., Goebel, M. E., Marshall, G. J., & Abernathy, K. (2015). Novel foraging strategies observed in a growing leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx) population at Livingston Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Animal Biotelemetry, 3:24. Krause, D.J., Goebel, M.E., Marshall. G.J. & Abernathy, K. In Press. Summer diving and haul-out behavior of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) near mesopredator breeding colonies at Livingston Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Marine Mammal Science.Leppe, M., Fernandoy, F., Palma-Heldt, S. & Moisan, P 2004. Flora mesozoica en los depósitos morrénicos de cabo Shirreff, isla Livingston, Shetland del Sur, Península Antártica, in Actas del 10º Congreso Geológico Chileno.
    [Show full text]
  • A NEWS BULLETIN Published Quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC)
    A NEWS BULLETIN published quarterly by the NEW ZEALAND ANTARCTIC SOCIETY (INC) An English-born Post Office technician, Robin Hodgson, wearing a borrowed kilt, plays his pipes to huskies on the sea ice below Scott Base. So far he has had a cool response to his music from his New Zealand colleagues, and a noisy reception f r o m a l l 2 0 h u s k i e s . , „ _ . Antarctic Division photo Registered at Post Ollice Headquarters. Wellington. New Zealand, as a magazine. II '1.7 ^ I -!^I*"JTr -.*><\\>! »7^7 mm SOUTH GEORGIA, SOUTH SANDWICH Is- . C I R C L E / SOUTH ORKNEY Is x \ /o Orcadas arg Sanae s a Noydiazarevskaya ussr FALKLAND Is /6Signyl.uK , .60"W / SOUTH AMERICA tf Borga / S A A - S O U T H « A WEDDELL SHETLAND^fU / I s / Halley Bav3 MINING MAU0 LAN0 ENOERBY J /SEA uk'/COATS Ld / LAND T> ANTARCTIC ••?l\W Dr^hnaya^^General Belgrano arg / V ^ M a w s o n \ MAC ROBERTSON LAND\ '■ aust \ /PENINSULA' *\4- (see map betowi jrV^ Sobldl ARG 90-w {■ — Siple USA j. Amundsen-Scott / queen MARY LAND {Mirny ELLSWORTH" LAND 1, 1 1 °Vostok ussr MARIE BYRD L LAND WILKES LAND ouiiiv_. , ROSS|NZJ Y/lnda^Z / SEA I#V/VICTORIA .TERRE , **•»./ LAND \ /"AOELIE-V Leningradskaya .V USSR,-'' \ --- — -"'BALLENYIj ANTARCTIC PENINSULA 1 Tenitnte Matianzo arg 2 Esptrarua arg 3 Almirarrta Brown arc 4PttrtlAHG 5 Otcipcion arg 6 Vtcecomodoro Marambio arg * ANTARCTICA 7 Arturo Prat chile 8 Bernardo O'Higgins chile 1000 Miles 9 Prasid«fTtB Frei chile s 1000 Kilometres 10 Stonington I.
    [Show full text]
  • Station Sharing in Antarctica
    IP 94 Agenda Item: ATCM 7, ATCM 10, ATCM 11, ATCM 14, CEP 5, CEP 6b, CEP 9 Presented by: ASOC Original: English Station Sharing in Antarctica 1 IP 94 Station Sharing in Antarctica Information Paper Submitted by ASOC to the XXIX ATCM (CEP Agenda Items 5, 6 and 9, ATCM Agenda Items 7, 10, 11 and 14) I. Introduction and overview As of 2005 there were at least 45 permanent stations in the Antarctic being operated by 18 countries, of which 37 were used as year-round stations.i Although there are a few examples of states sharing scientific facilities (see Appendix 1), for the most part the practice of individual states building and operating their own facilities, under their own flags, persists. This seems to be rooted in the idea that in order to become a full Antarctic Treaty Consultative Party (ATCP), one has to build a station to show seriousness of scientific purpose, although formally the ATCPs have clarified that this is not the case. The scientific mission and international scientific cooperation is nominally at the heart of the ATS,ii and through SCAR the region has a long-established scientific coordination body. It therefore seems surprising that half a century after the adoption of this remarkable Antarctic regime, we still see no truly international stations. The ‘national sovereign approach’ continues to be the principal driver of new stations. Because new stations are likely to involve relatively large impacts in areas that most likely to be near pristine, ASOC submits that this approach should be changed. In considering environmental impact analyses of proposed new station construction, the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP) presently does not have a mandate to take into account opportunities for sharing facilities (as an alternative that would reduce impacts).
    [Show full text]
  • Development Pressures on the Antarctic Wilderness
    XXVIII ATCM – IP May 2004 Original: English Agenda Items 3 (Operation of the CEP) and 4a (General Matters) DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ON THE ANTARCTIC WILDERNESS Submitted to the XXVIII ATCM by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ON THE ANTARCTIC WILDERNESS 1. Introduction In 2004 the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) tabled information paper ATCM XXVII IP 094 “Are new stations justified?”. The paper highlighted proposals for the construction of no less than five new Antarctic stations in the context of at least 73 established stations (whether full year or summer only), maintained by 26 States already operating in the Antarctic Treaty Area. The paper considered what was driving the new station activity in Antarctica, whether or not it was necessary or desirable, and what alternatives there might be to building yet more stations. Whilst IP 094 focused on new station proposals, it noted that there were other significant infrastructure projects underway in Antarctica, which included substantial upgrades of existing national stations, the development of air links to various locations in Antarctica and related runways, and an ice road to the South Pole. Since then, ASOC has become aware of additional proposals for infrastructure projects. This paper updates ASOC’s ATCM XXVII IP 094 to include most infrastructure projects planned or currently underway in Antarctica as of April 2005, and discusses their contribution to cumulative impacts. The criteria used to select these projects are: 1. The project’s environmental impact is potentially “more than minor or transitory”; 2. The project results in a development of infrastructure that is significant in the Antarctic context; 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Seabirds of Human Settlements in Antarctica: a Case Study of the Mirny Station
    CZECH POLAR REPORTS 11 (1): 98-113, 2021 Seabirds of human settlements in Antarctica: A case study of the Mirny Station Sergey Golubev Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Nekouzskii raion, Yaroslavl oblast, 152742, Russia Abstract Antarctica is free of urbanisation, however, 40 year-round and 32 seasonal Antarctic stations operate there. The effects of such human settlements on Antarctic wildlife are insufficiently studied. The main aim of this study was to determine the organization of the bird population of the Mirny Station. The birds were observed on the coast of the Davis Sea in the Mirny (East Antarctica) from January 8, 2012 to January 7, 2013 and from January 9, 2015 to January 9, 2016. The observations were carried out mainly on the Radio and Komsomolsky nunataks (an area of about 0.5 km²). The duration of observations varied from 1 to 8 hours per day. From 1956 to 2016, 13 non-breeding bird species (orders Sphenisciformes, Procellariiformes, Charadriiformes) were recorded in the Mirny. The South polar skuas (Catharacta maccormicki) and Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) form the basis of the bird population. South polar skuas are most frequently recorded at the station. Less common are Brown skuas (Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi) and Adélie penguins. Adélie penguins, Wilson's storm petrels (Oceanites oceanicus), South polar and Brown skuas are seasonal residents, the other species are visitors. Adélie penguins, Emperor (Aptenodytes forsteri), Macaroni (Eudyptes chrysolophus) and Chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarctica), Wilson's storm petrels, South polar and Brown skuas interacted with the station environment, using it for com- fortable behavior, feeding, molting, shelter from bad weather conditions, and possible breeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Nsf.Gov OPP: Report of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MORE AND BETTER SCIENCE IN ANTARCTICA THROUGH INCREASED A LOGISTICAL EFFECTIVENESS Report of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel Washington, D.C. July 23, 2012 This booklet summarizes the report of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel, More and Better Science in Antarctica Through Increased Logistical Effectiveness. The report was completed at the request of the White House office of science and Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation. Copies of the full report may be obtained from David Friscic at [email protected] (phone: 703-292-8030). An electronic copy of the report may be downloaded from http://www.nsf.gov/ od/opp/usap_special_review/usap_brp/rpt/index.jsp. Cover art by Zina Deretsky. Front and back inside covers showing McMurdo’s Dry Valleys in Antarctica provided by Craig Dorman. CONTENTS Introduction ............................................ 1 The Panel ............................................... 2 Overall Assessment ................................. 3 U.S. Facilities in Antarctica ....................... 4 The Environmental Challenge .................... 7 Uncertainties in Logistics Planning ............. 8 Activities of Other Nations ....................... 9 Economic Considerations ....................... 10 Major Issues ......................................... 11 Single-Point Failure Modes ..................... 17 Recommendations ................................. 18 Concluding Observations ....................... 21 U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM BLUE RIBBON PANEL WASHINGTON,
    [Show full text]
  • MEMBER COUNTRY: Russia National Report to SCAR for Year: 2008-09 Activity Contact Name Address Telephone Fax Email Web Site
    MEMBER COUNTRY: Russia National Report to SCAR for year: 2008-09 Activity Contact Name Address Telephone Fax Email web site National SCAR Committee SCAR Delegates Russian National Committee on Antarctic Research Institute of Geography, Staromonetny per.29, 1) Delegate V.M.Kotlyakov 109017 Moskow, Russia 74,959,590,032 74,959,590,033 [email protected] Russian National Committee on Antarctic Research Institute of Geography, Staromonetny per.29, 2) Alternate Delegate M.Yu.Moskalev-sky 109017 Moskow, Russia 74,959,590,032 74,959,590,033 [email protected] Standing Scientific Groups Life Sciences Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nakhimovsky prosp.36, Delegate Melnikov Igor 117852 Moscow, Russia 74951292018 74951245983 [email protected] www.paiceh.ru Geosciences VNIIOkeangeologia, Angliysky Ave, 1, Leitchenkov 190121 St.Petersburg, Delegate German Russia 78123123551 78127141470 [email protected] Physical Sciences Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute Ul.Beringa, 38, Klepikov 199226 St.Petersburg, 78123522827 Delegate Aleksander Russia 78123520226 78123522688 [email protected] www.aari.aq 1 Activity Contact Name Address Telephone Fax Email web site Scientific Research Program ACE None AGCS Delegate Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute Ul.Beringa, 38, Klepikov 199226 St.Petersburg, 1) Aleksander Russia 78123520226 78123522688 [email protected] www.aari.ru Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute Ul.Beringa, 38, 199226 St.Petersburg, 2) LagunVictor Russia 78123522950 78123522688 [email protected] www.aari.aq EBA None ICESTAR
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Airlift, 1968 Elsner and Gerald L
    olivine-rich intrusive is dominant in the westernmost part of the mountains. In the east, a small isolated outcrop consisted of sedimentary rocks in a sequence of about 50 m, containing a fossil Glosopteris flora of Permian age. All mountains were crossed by do- lerite sills and dykes. Astronomical observations of the sun and stars were made to get an exact location of the mountains; for elevation estimation, a series of pressure readings will be compared with contemporaneous ones from SANAE and Halley Bay. Measurements of the mag- netic field were also made. During work in the moun- tains, animal and plant life were observed, and some samples were taken. In January, the glaciologist travelled 70 km north to the ice shelf, where a snow pit was dug and core drillings were made in order to compare the condi- tions there to those at the main base. Facilitated by favorable conditions, the work was finished ahead of schedule. Owing to coarse sastrugi and soft snow, the LC-130 aircraft experienced difficulty in becoming airborne, but succeeded after climbing up a slope and taking off downhill. After a day at the South Pole Station, it arrived at McMurdo Station on January Kraul Mountains 20. Weddell seals being conducted by Drs. Robert W. Animal Airlift, 1968 Elsner and Gerald L. Kooyman at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and navigational studies on Adélie K. N. MOULTON penguins being conducted by Dr. Richard L. Penney of the New York Zoological Society. To utilize fully Office of Antarctic Programs the airlift capabilities of the C-141, the National National Science Foundation Science Foundation agreed to fulfill several requests from zoological parks and arrange for the return During the early morning hours of December 2, of Adélie and emperor penguins as well as south polar 1968, a (J-141 Starlifter, presently the largest trans- skuas for the Detroit, Cincinnati, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening the CEE Process
    IP 84 Agenda Item: ATCM 5 CEP 6(b) Presented by: ASOC Original: English Strengthening the CEE Process Attachments: 1 IP 84 Strengthening the CEE Process Information Paper Submitted by ASOC1 to ATCM XXX (CEP Agenda Items 3 & 6; ATCM Agenda Item 5) 1. Introduction The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty establishes generic obligations to prior Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). A three-level EIA regime is established under Protocol Article 8, hinging on the level of impact – less than minor or transitory; minor or transitory; more than minor or transitory. Annex I Environmental Impact Assessment, establishes standards and processes for the corresponding EIA levels: – Preliminary Stage - sometimes termed by Parties: Preliminary Assessment (PA) or Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEE); – Initial Environmental Assessment (IEE); and – Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE). Preliminary stage evaluations are left to appropriate national procedures2 and only limited guidance on scope and process is provided for IEEs, which are again left to national procedures3, excepting only that there is a duty to advise on procedures and that an IEE has been done, and any IEE shall be made available on request4. Only with CEEs are substantial obligations in relation to content and process specified; and critically, only with a draft CEE are there obligations to allow international scrutiny of EIA. The draft CEE must be circulated to Parties (who must make it publicly available) and to the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) within a timeframe established by the Protocol.5 A substantial case-history for IEE and CEE practice now exists. Through 2006, a total of 517 IEEs have been registered on the cumulative EIA list6 maintained by the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat.
    [Show full text]