Implications of the entry into force of Annex V to the Environmental Protocol Working Paper Submitted by the United Kingdom Introduction. 1. Annex V to the Environmental Protocol entered into force on 24 May 2002 following approval of Recommendation XVI-10 by all Consultative Parties entitled to attend ATCM XVI. 2. The purpose of Annex V is to rationalise the Antarctic Protected Areas System. Its entry into force has a number of implications that the CEP will need to consider. These relate both to the international management of the protected areas system, through the CEP / ATCM, as well as to the actions that Parties individually may need to take in respect of their domestic legislation. 3. This paper attempts to clarify these implications, and makes suggestions as to what actions may need to be taken. General observations. 4. Firstly, entry into force of Annex V to the Protocol supersedes Article VIII of the 1964 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, under the terms of which all Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) had previously been held. Entry into force of Annex V also supersedes Recommendation VII-3 (1972), which introduced the category of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). 5. Indeed, the implication must be that the Protocol and its (now) five Annexes have superseded the whole of the 1964 Agreed Measures. As such Recommendation III - VIII, under which the Agreed Measures are held, may well be a candidate for repealing under the ATCM’s review of past decisions. 6. Secondly, Annex V identifies in its Article 2, that marine areas may also be designated as either Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) or Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of Annex V further reinforce the concept of marine protected areas, and Article 6(2) notes that no marine area shall be designated without the prior approval of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). 7. The UK would note that the issue of marine protected areas around Antarctica has yet fully to be addressed. No substantive marine areas have yet been designated. As such the CEP, in co-operation with the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR, may wish to give consideration to developing some guiding principles to assist with the selection and designation of a network of Antarctic marine protected areas. Specific Observations. 8. The more specific implications of the entry into force of Annex V are set out in the table below. Annex V Provisions: Implications: Article: 3(3) · SPAs and SSSIs automatically designated as · Renumbering was agreed by means of Resolution V ASPAs; (1996), but this needs to be updated (see below); · ASPAs must be renumbered accordingly · Parties may need to give effect to renaming and renumbering in domestic legis lation. 5(1) · Any Party, the CEP, SCAR or CCAMLR may · To note those eligible to submit ASPA and ASMA propose an area for designation as an ASPA or proposals. ASMA by submitting a proposed management plan to the ATCM 6(1) · Procedures for the submission and approval of · CEP has already established guidelines for its management plans consideration of draft management plans (paras 84 & 85 and Annex 4 of the Final Report of CEP III refer); · CEP has taken the view that SCAR’s participation in intersessional review of draft management plans would satisfy the requirements of Article 6(1) (para 64 of the Final Report of CEP IV refers); · Article 6(1) introduces a fast-track mechanism for the approval of management plans, i.e. 90 days after the closure of the meeting at which they were adopted; · Many management plans still need to be revised and updated in Annex V format (Resolution 1 (1998) refers). 6(2) · No marine area shall be designated without prior · Consideration needs to be given over the means by approval of CCAMLR which management plans with a marine component are referred to CCAMLR: should the proponent decide on referral or the CEP?; · Decision 4 (1998) sets out the criteria as to when such plans should be forwarded to CCAMLR. 6(3) · A review of management plans shall be initiated · CEP may wish to update the national responsibilities every five years for revising management plans appended to Resolution 1 (1998) and to prepare an agreed timetable for review of these plans. 6(6) · Upon approval management plans shall be · CEP may wish to consider developing a central web- circulated by the Depositary which shall also based archive for storing protected area information. maintain a record of approved plans 7(1) · Permitting provisions for entry into protected · Parties are required to establish an appropriate areas authority to issue permits to enter ASPAs; this may require action to be taken in domestic law. Annex V Provisions: Implications: Article: 7(2) · Permits may be issued to enter sites that do not · Only two ASPAs appear not to have management have management plans, for compelling plans: ASPA 104, Sabrina Island, and ASPA 113, scientific purposes Litchfield Island. Consideration should be given to addressing these sites with some priority. 8 · Historic Sites and Monuments can be designated · Previous list of HSMs held under Recommendation as ASPAs, ASMAs or simply listed; VII-9 is transferred (Rec. VII-9 now obsolete); · Procedures for adding new sites to the list of · Fast-track mechanism for the approval of new HSMs Historic Sites and Monuments; introduced, i.e. 90 days after the closure of the meeting at which they were adopted; · Depositary shall maintain the list of Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs) · CEP may wish to consider developing a central web- based archive for storing HSM information (NB; HSM review currently underway) 9 · Principles established for making publicly · Parties shall make available information on the location available, information on ASPAs, ASMAs and etc of protected areas to those intending to visit HSMs; Antarctica; to this end the CEP may wish to consider developing a central web-based archive for storing and · Provides also for the marking of site boundaries making available protected area information; where appropriate · Parties shall mark protected areas on maps and charts; · Parties should consider (where appropriate) marking sites with boundary markers. This may extend to, for example, establishing permanent signs. 10 · Procedures for exchanging information set out · Parties shall, before 30 November each year, inform each other and the CEP of: the number of ASPA permits issued, measures taken to implement Annex V and any protected area inspections / visits undertaken; · Parties shall include in the annual Treaty exchange of information summary descriptions of activities undertaken in ASPAs and ASMAs. 9. Of the implications set out in the above table, the UK would highlight the following in particular: Article 3(3). Article 3(3) of Annex V stipulates that all Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) designated as such by past Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings are hereby designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). As such, concurrent with the entry into force of Annex V on 24 May 2002, all SPAs and SSSIs automatically became ASPAs. This Article also requires ASPAs to be renumbered accordingly. By means of Resolution V (1996) the ATCM had agreed a system for renumbering the SPAs and SSSIs as ASPAs. However, this list should be updated to take account of those sites adopted since 1996. It is therefore proposed that the updated list that is appended to the draft Resolution attached to this paper, be adopted. Article 3(3) and Article 7. We note that Parties may need to consider changes to domestic law to account for the renaming and renumbering of ASPAs as well as in respect of establishing an appropriate authority to issue permits for entry into ASPAs. Article 6(3). By means of Resolution 1 (1998) Parties were allocated responsibility for revising certain management plans to meet the requirements of Annex V. Under the terms of Article 6(3) of Annex V a review of each management plan shall be initiated every five years. The CEP may therefore wish to update the table appended to Resolution 1 (1998) and to establish a rolling timetable for the review of management plans. It is noted however, that several sites still require management plans to be prepared in Annex V format. Articles 9 and 10. The CEP may wish to consider developing a central web-based repository of information on all protected areas and historic sites and monuments. Such a system would also assist with the requirement to make information about protected areas publicly available. Articles 6(1) and 8(2). We note that Annex V introduces a fast-track approval process for measures dealing with ASPA and ASMA management plans as well as for new HSMs. By this mechanism, and unless the measures specifies otherwise, it shall be deemed to have been approved 90 days after the closure of the ATCM at which the measure was adopted, unless one or more Parties notifies the Depositary (within 90 days) that it either wishes an extension to this deadline or that it is unable to approve the measure. Summary. 10. The CEP is invited to consider the issues raised in this paper, and in particular the attached draft Resolution, and recommend that action be taken where necessary. DRAFT Resolution … (2002) Naming and numbering system for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas The Representatives, Noting the entry into force of Annex V on 24 May 2002; Noting also the provision of Article 3(3) of Annex V that all SPAs and SSSIs designated as such by past Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings are hereby designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) on the entry into force of Annex V, and shall be renamed and renumbered accordingly; Recognising the naming and numbering system for ASPAs adopted by means of Resolution V (1996) and the need to update this system to include new protected areas adopted by subsequent ATCMs; Recommend that: 1.