Chapter IV — International 



The most contentious issue at the meeting was the 

 role of the Committee in providing advice on draft 

 comprehensive environmental evaluations. The issue 

 was precipitated by a draft environmental impact 

 statement concerning modernization of the U.S. South 

 Pole station forwarded by the State Department 

 through diplomatic channels to the Treaty Parties on 

 23 January 1998. During the meeting, it became 

 apparent that many individuals and organizations with 

 related interests and responsibilities in the various 

 countries had not received the document, or had 

 received it after the deadline for comments had 

 passed. Many also did not receive the accompanying 

 diplomatic note indicating that the document was a 

 draft comprehensive environmental evaluation being 

 circulated for comment in accordance with articles 

 3(3) and 3(4) of Protocol Annex I. 



Several delegations expressed the view that the 

 Protocol requires the Committee to consider and 

 provide advice on all such drafts and that providing 

 the draft to Parties did not satisfy the requirement that 

 it be forwarded to the Committee at the same time it 

 was provided to Parties. The U.S. representatives 

 noted that the Committee did not exist when the draft 

 was circulated for comment. They also pointed out 

 that the Committee is composed of representatives of 

 Parties and that it is reasonable to assume that, when 

 such documents are provided to the Parties, the 

 Parties will ensure that copies are provided to their 

 Committee representatives and others with related 

 interests and responsibilities. 



Most delegations believed that the Protocol re- 

 quires the Committee to consider and provide advice 

 on all draft comprehensive environmental evaluations 

 and that the activity for which the evaluation is done 

 should not be undertaken unless the Committee 

 reviews and advises the Treaty Parties of the merits of 

 both the activity and the environmental evaluation. 

 The United States pointed out that the purpose of the 

 environmental assessment is to ensure that the possible 

 environmental impacts of activities are identified 

 during the planning stages and that judgments con- 

 cerning the acceptability of possible environmental 

 impacts, and the decision whether or not to proceed 

 with a particular activity, are to be made by the Party 

 or Parties planning the activity, not by the Committee 

 or collectively by the Consultative Parties. 



During the negotiation of the Protocol, several of 

 the Treaty Parties and non-governmental organizations 

 advocated the creation of a scientific/technical body 

 that would decide whether the potential environmental 

 impacts of planned activities were acceptable. The 

 United States and most other Consultative Parties 

 believed it important to ensure that potential environ- 

 mental impacts are identified and considered in the 

 planning stages of activities that could have significant 

 environmental impacts, but that the decision whether 

 or not to proceed had to remain with the Party or 

 Parties responsible for the activity. This approach 

 tracks the provisions of the National Environmental 

 Policy Act and, in the view of the Commission and 

 other U.S. government agencies, is what the Protocol 

 requires. It appears, however, that some Parties 

 continue to believe that the Committee for Environ- 

 mental Protection and/or the Antarctic Treaty Parties, 

 collectively, should have a role in deciding what 

 activities can be carried out in Antarctica. As noted 

 in previous Commission reports, some Parties also 

 appear to believe that liability for damage to the 

 Antarctic environment should be linked to the envi- 

 ronmental impact assessment process. 



If the consensus of all Antarctic Treaty Consulta- 

 tive Parties is required before any Party or non- 

 governmental organization can undertake activities in 

 Antarctica, any Party or group of Parties would be 

 able to block consensus and prohibit scientific or other 

 activities, even if those activities would not have 

 environmental impacts inconsistent with the goals and 

 objectives of the Environmental Protocol. Such a 

 possibility would be inconsistent with the freedom of 

 access guaranteed by the Antarctic Treaty. The 

 Commission will continue to work with the Depart- 

 ment of State, the National Science Foundation, the 

 Environmental Protection Agency, other government 

 agencies, the Polar Research Board of the National 

 Academy of Sciences, and potentially affected private 

 sector organizations to ensure that provisions of the 

 Environmental Protocol on environmental impact 

 assessment are not used to block legitimate science or 

 other activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. 



Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings 



The 22nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting 

 took place in Troms0, Norway, from 25 May to 5 



139 



