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 Antarctica 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 Antarctic Peninsula (48.3 %), followed by East Antarctica (12.1 %), Queen Maud Land (9.1 %) and the Ross Sea (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, Norway, 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.