27 



physical Year, and that group was the precursor to the Antarctic 

 Treaty group that came together in 1960-61. 



So that the scientific community has long been involved and 

 SCAR has been the link between the scientific community and the 

 Antarctic Treaty mechanism. 



The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is a non-govern- 

 mental body and it links the science programs not only into the 

 treaty mechanism but among countries, among all the countries in 

 Antarctica. It is the international organization that speaks for 

 science internationally. 



Here in the U.S., the Polar Research Board of the National Acad- 

 emy speaks, represents and serves as a U.S. National Committee, 

 and I'm the delegate from the U.S. to the Scientific Community on 

 Antarctic Research (SCAR). 



We've heard about a number of agreements and conventions that 

 exist at the present time, and I would simply point out to you that 

 in most, if not all of the cases, those kinds of agreements were pro- 

 mulgated either as a result of SCAR recommendations or they were 

 accompanied by corresponding advice from SCAR. 



So that the ecosystem approach embodied in CCAMLR which is 

 one of the conventions under the treaty, grew out of a conference 

 sponsored by SCAR in 1976. 



In 1984, SCAR gave scientific basis for the environmental impact 

 assessment and monitoring provisions that are found in environ- 

 mental protocol. 



And just recently completed is a second of two meetings spon- 

 sored by the Scientific Community on Antarctic Research and the 

 Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs dealing with 

 the whole question of monitoring, which is contained within the 

 Environmental Protocol. 



The Protocol provides a blueprint for conduct of science and 

 science support in the Antarctic. Of particular interest to the sci- 

 entific community are the annexes to the Protocol. 



The question has been raised or has been asked, what was the 

 involvement of the scientific community in writing the annexes. I 

 was privileged to be in Vina del Mar when those annexes were 

 written, and I can assure you that the voice of the scientist was 

 heard. 



The need for the U.S. to implement the Protocol is compelling. 

 We have long been a leader in science in Antarctica and in fact we 

 have long been a leader in the push for protection of the Antarctic 

 environment. We are now lagging behind. 



I can't emphasize enough how important the role of the U.S. in 

 the development of the conventions and agreements in the Ant- 

 arctic and the conduct of research there. 



Now one of the specific questions in your letter to me, Mr. Walk- 

 er, was what's the impact on the scientists. Let me answer that be- 

 cause I've been there recently and I can tell you. 



You've heard about the efforts that NSF has made to increase ef- 

 ficiencies and from the scientific standpoint, one of those has been 

 to a shifting of how they program people in and out of the Ant- 

 arctic, which has resulted in fewer people going to the Antarctic 

 under the U.S. program, but more scientists at the same time. 



