Martin Pratt, an expert on maritime boundaries at Durham University in England, says that the only environmental protection afforded under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relates to so-called Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in waters within a territory extending 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from a country's coastline. "In Antarctica," he says, "there's this problem where states have claims, but those claims are frozen and the question is whether establishing an EEZ represents a violation of the treaty."
The current debate about the treaty's stability began in October 2007 when the U.K. announced that it would file a claim under the Law of the Sea extending the seabed boundaries of their Antarctic territory based on the extent of the continental shelf. The British claim already overlaps with Argentina and Chile, heightening the potential for a territorial dispute.
Argentineans are still fuming over their defeat in 1982 when they tried to reclaim South Georgia Island and the Falkland Islands from the U.K.—the closest thing we've had to an Antarctic war. Although Britain insists it will not contravene restrictions against oil, gas and mineral exploration in Antarctica, Robin Churchill, an expert in international law at the University of Dundee in England, says the move has the potential to be "quite destabilizing." That would be shame, he says, because "the Treaty has promoted scientific research by opening Antarctica up for any scientist to go anywhere, fostering a spirit of cooperation."
In February, Australia—with U.N. approval—expanded its seabed borders along the Kerguelen Plateau around Heard and McDonald islands, pushing into the Antarctic Treaty jurisdiction. Although Australia says that mineral and petroleum exploration is out of the question, some fear that this move could open the door to trawling on the seabed and bioprospecting in the region.
"Legally, it may be defensible," says Alan Hemmings, a specialist on Antarctic governance at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. "Politically, it's more problematic."
Ironically, Australia's move may serve to strengthen rather than weaken environmental protection. Back in 2002, an Australian research boat sent a Japanese whaling vessel scurrying back to its mother ship after it was spotted inside Australia's EEZ near Prydz Bay. Last December, Australia sent the Ocean Viking to monitor Japan's whaling fleet in Antarctica and by late January, an Australian federal court had ruled that it was illegal for Japanese to whale within 200 nautical (230 statute) miles of their Antarctic territory. Pratt says it is still a "tricky legal problem" and "an issue [that will] presumably [be] tested in court somewhere, sometime."
Farther north, in the southern Indian Ocean, Australia runs regular patrols around Heard Island, France patrols the Kerguelen Islands, and South Africa has a marine-protected area around its Prince Edward Islands, which are right along the northern boundary of the treaty area. Ainley says that patrolling these sovereign territories—which partially overlap with the treaty regime—is the only enforcement of fishing regulations in the region.
The Antarctic Treaty has provided a model for conservation of the terrestrial environment, but biologists agree that the marine environment has suffered under Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).
The Commission (created by the CCAMLR) provides licenses to vessels fishing in the Southern Ocean and requires licensed boats to have an observer on board to monitor catch levels. It also has the ability to set up marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean, such as one proposed for the Ross Sea. But it has yet to do so and, in general, adoption of fishing regulations proposed in the Commission's scientific working groups has moved at a glacial pace in the face of opposition from the powerful fishing industry.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentDear Brendan Borrell,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter 13 years of experience in the US Antarctic Program, I read your editorial with great interest. However, I found your argument without merit. Let's take a closer look:
&more than two dozen "concerned Ross Sea researchers" joined Ainley and Devries in a formal letter demanding a moratorium on fishing over the Ross Sea continental shelf and a reduction in quotas along the continental slope. The Commission, scientists complain, has failed to live up to its name.
First off, CCALMR is *not* the same thing as the Antarctic Treaty. As you point out, the treaty itself has been a model for international cooperation. Nobody is exploiting minerals or any other prohibited action. There is no indication that they will be anytime soon, either. And as you know, the treaty has recently been renewed for another 50 years. The Antarctic Treaty does not address fishing rights; that is the role of the CCAMLR convention. If CCAMLR is not working, then perhaps the deficiency is there, not in the Antarctic Treaty.
I have worked with David Ainley, Hugh Ducklow, and Art Devires while on "the Ice". I wonder, did you actually ask them if the Antarctic Treaty should be dumped?
Late last year, Britain and Australia submitted extensions to their claims of the seabed around Antarctic territoriesreasserting their rights&
Yes, but under the treaty all claims are held in abeyance. I am not so naive to think that countries aren't eying the continent for exploitation, but is getting rid of the Antarctic Treaty a way to prevent that?
But would the demise of the Treaty really be such a bad thing for environmental conservation in Antarctica? The Commission has proved toothless
Here again you're changing the topic mid-sentence. The treaty is not the same thing as CCAMLR.
&establishing national ownership of Antarctic waters may be a better
route to engender sustainability.
Then every country would be free to exploit the continent at will. And there is a large wedge of the continent that remains unclaimed; how long do you think it would be before it became the Republic of Exxon?
Argentineans are still fuming over their defeat in ... the Falkland Islands ... the closest thing we've had to an Antarctic war.
Yes, but the Falklands are not in Antarctic territory and not covered by the treaty, so this is not really a valid point, is it? If anything, the bloody Falklands war is an excellent reason to keep the treaty in effect, lest countries with overlapping territorial claims decide to assert them.
The treaty works.
It has begun! Every country wants part of the arctic, for oil,gas,fish and "land" yes land! I wish we had the equal response from these nations about "saving" the arctics, no way, they are waiting for the ice to melt so they can have a free for all and "tear the continent all up"! I have noticed that when you "tell the world their running out of somthing they will want it more". If petrolium were 10 dollars a barrel and natural gas were 1 cent a pound and the fish were gone i bet nobody would drill nor dig nor fish there again. we need to research EVERYTHING in the arctics now before it melts and before we loose whats left of "History of the Arctics" that is part of ice and earth. as ice melts away it reaveals the state and condition of the land, we need to research this quickely for even this washes away and dries up very rapidly. The ground under this growth then begins to evaporate the moisture within (one or both these evaporations may/may not be leading to the massive increase in influenza in humans in regions surrounding these ice caps after they melt) and changes in texture and color take place as the soil dries. Hurry,Hurry,Hurry .. clock is ticking!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrection, we the scientific community and anthropologists would be digging, gently for research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince I was quoted in this essay, and was asked by one of the commentors about my opinion, I feel compelled to respond!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe degree to which Brendan Borrells use of the shock factor is effective in getting peoples attention remains to be seen: Abolish the Antarctic Treaty! He certainly got mine but also added a perspective to my thinking. I believe the Antarctic Treaty, especially with its Madrid Protocols for Environmental Protection, has been marvelously effective in protecting the Antarctic continent, and especially the 3% of it that is ice free (thats where humans spend most of their time). There are many dozens of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) and more recently a couple of very large Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMA). Plus, at least of the national programs of which I am familiar, Environmental Impact Assessments are now the standard before any new activity happens; moreover national programs&again the ones Im familiar with (USA, NZ, Italy) are trying actively to reduce their past foot prints and consolidate their present ones. So, Id have to disagree with Brendan on that score.
On the other hand, Brendan was right-on with respect to the Southern Ocean. The Treaty Powers have abdicated their responsibility for invoking the same standard as that applied to the Antarctic land to the surrounding ocean to CCAMLR and IWC. So far, the result has not been good, as he pointed out. Brendans point that Australia, France, South Africa, and the UK have declared, and are now policing, EEZs on the continental and insular shelves around their (supposedly suspended) territorial claims speaks volumes about these countrys respective views of the effectiveness of CCAMLR and IWC. NZ spends $millions patrolling, by air, its suspended claims to the Ross Sea. Most of these countries participate whole-heartedly in the Ecosystem Monitoring and Management Program (CEMP), which was to be the (yet to be tested) corner stone of ecosystem management of CCAMLR, but apparently, they, too, are suspicious about how effective CEMP will be in controlling the extraction of living marine resources. The recent direct action by Australia toward Japan with respect to whaling speaks to that countrys view of the effectiveness of the IWC.
Brendan mentions the tourism industry. So far, at least from my experience, these folks have religiously obeyed the environmental protocols and measures established for the Antarctic continent. This is good because the Antarctic, and Southern Ocean, needs a public and the public is being educated about these measures as well as the value of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean components. Certainly it was mostly public pressure that caused Japan to forego its whaling on humpbacks recently, and not the IWC. The Antarctic needs more public involvement! That being said, its interesting that while the tourism industry respects Antarctic Treaty measures, Japans whaling industry ignores the IWC invoked Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, and no industrial fishing nation has yet conducted an EIR (required for the land under the Antarctic Treaty) for the results of fish extraction on the ecosystem, at least to my knowledge. These actions, then, are consistent with the Law of the Commons attitude that pervades ocean management, everyone for him/herself in other words, but which somehow has been well managed for the continent. I think I would caution Brendan that declaring EEZs all around the continent to manage and conserve ocean resources would be effective, because none of the countries involved have done very well in preventing the total disruption of the marine food webs around their respective shores. Why would they behave any differently in the Antarctic?
The IUCN has declared a goal of setting aside 5% of the Worlds oceans as Marine Protected Areas by 2012. So far, theyve been able to encourage governments to set aside only 0.65% so far, and thus the pressure is on to achieve that goal. CCAMLRs performance in this is even more dismal, with <0.01% protected of the Southern Ocean (that part under the Antarctic Treaty), even though the establishment of MPAs was written into the CCMALR charter 25 years ago. Unfortunately those EEZs and fishery surveillance measures I mentioned above have been enacted only to preserve the fish for the respective countys fishing industry, not to preserve the Southern Ocean in a way comparable to what has been so marvelously achieved for the continent itself.
David Ainley
I support 60 Souths comments. The treaty is still one of or the only way to keep countries from accessing resources for their own gain in the antarctic. Unfortunately I cannot trust all countires anymore to look after ecosystems or resources as much as the benchmark limit of zero would prescribe. You only need one rogue politician to open the can of worms by starting to mine or rape the antarctic. More will follow if there won't be stricter control around all the antarctic. Keep the treaty, but maybe prescribe in the treaty if it is not done already, how toursit boats, scientist and everybody who visits the place must conduct themselves properly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDrill baby, drill!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDare I mention that many of the World's ills stem from there not being an 'International Policeman'? Perhaps the UN will one day be taken seriously by rogue states that literally get away with anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Scientist/Environmentalist-whacko types: Die. Seriously. Nobody cares about your "research" on the indigenous Spotted Roach Fly or whatever lame stuff you might be "researching" down there. We want the minerals, and the resources. Yeah, we like modern convienience. We're bad people. Oh well. You prefer the 19th century? Great...Live in Colonial Williamsburg.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSTOP SCREWING WITH HUMANITY. WE LIKE DRIVING CARS, WE LIKE HAVING DISEASE FREE FOOD. STOP TRYING TO HAVE EVERYONE LIVE THE CRAPPY EXISTENCE, UNDER THE AUSPICES YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE BY. HUMANS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN BLOCKS OF ICE, OR PENGUINS. DEAL WITH THAT.
You want pristine? Go to Venus. Take all of academia with you.
First, minerals and resources...ya need science to find and refine !second,modern items.....ya need plastic and technology science again!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThird, disease free food.....ya need science again!
Fourth, blocks of ice ....ya science has proven the need for polar areas and the affects on the planet without those "blocks of ice"!
Fifth, when "not if" the ..it hits the fan, i want to be around as many scientists,chemists,physicist,bioligist,engineers etc as i possably can for i know we will all prevail! Mceltix2000, one day you will understand my child...mabey