30 



(Environmental Protocol) to the Antarctic Treaty was recommended to governments 

 for ratification. 



All of these agreements were promulgated either as a result of a SCAR rec- 

 ommendation or they were accompanied by corresponding advice from SCAR. The 

 ecosystem approach embodied in CCAMLR had its beginning in a conference spon- 

 sored by SCAil in 1976. A 1984 report by SCAR gave a scientific basis for the envi- 

 ronmental impact assessment and monitoring provisions in the Environmental Pro- 

 tocol. Just completed in College Station, Texas, was the second of two meetings 

 jointly sponsored by SCAR and the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Pro- 

 grams (COMNAP) dealing with the question how best to carry out the monitoring 

 called for in the Environmental Protocol. 



The Environmental Protocol provides a blueprint for the conduct of science and 

 science support in the Antarctic. Of particular interest to the scientific community 

 are the Annexes to the Protocol. It is here that the details of the procedures that 

 might impact upon the conduct of science are found, and it is in the Annexes where 

 there was considerable input from a broad segment of the Antarctic science commu- 

 nity. I was privileged to participate in the Special Consultative meeting in Vina del 

 Mar, Chile, where the major drafting effort for the Protocol was completed, and I 

 can assure you that the voice of the scientists was heard. 



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

 ways been a leader in the implementation of Treaty recommendations, and in those 

 instances where there was some delay in ratification, the U.S. has set in motion the 

 rules and regulations that would place it in compliance even before the particular 

 recommendation had been ratified. The U.S. must continue its leadership role in 

 science and in the conservation and protection of the Antarctic environment. I can- 

 not emphasize enough how important that role has been to the development of all 

 of the environmental Conventions and agreements in the Antarctic and to the con- 

 duct of high quality research in Antarctica. 



The question has been raised regarding the impact of the Protocol on U.S. re- 

 searchers in the field. I can comment directly on that point from personal experi- 

 ence. Let me introduce my comments with a few facts about recent actions in Ant- 

 arctica to implement the provisions of the Protocol. 



The NSF has made a concerted effort to reduce the number of people going to Ant- 

 arctica. A careful look at work schedules led to the decision to make changes in the 

 scheduling of certain activities, shifting them from the busy summer months to the 

 winter months. The result of this effort has been a decrease of about 200 persons 

 during the summer maximum, but with an increase by about 65% in the number 

 of scientists and support technicians doing research. 



Energy conservation efforts have reduced fuel costs by over $1.8 million, or in 

 other terms, by 1.5 million gallons. The reduction in consumption has been accom- 

 panied by a corresponding reduction in the emission of atmospheric pollutants. 



The concept of "take out what you bring in" has led to the retrograde of over 5 

 million pounds of waste each year. Seventy percent of the waste is recycled — com- 

 pare this with the U.S. domestic average of 22%! Whatever the increased costs, they 

 have been offset by efficiencies in other areas. 



There are a dozen trained Antarctic Environmental Officers available within the 

 NSF system. They have various areas of responsibility within the U.S. Antarctic 

 Program and in addition they are responsible for the enforcement of the Antarctic 

 Conservation Act that this bill will amend. 



Now to how all of this impacts on the scientists. We are all briefed on environ- 

 mental issues within the first 24 hours of arrival at McMurdo. For those of us who 

 are old-timers, we can attest to the major clean-up that has taken place at McMurdo 

 over the years. This effort started slowly during the 1970's and 1980's but the spe- 

 cial funds that Congress provided to NSF made what looked like an impossible task, 

 possible, and what you see at McMurdo and other U.S. stations today is something 

 that we can all take pride in. 



In anticipation of the implementation of the Environmental Protocol the U.S. Ant- 

 arctic program has implemented many of the provisions of the annexes to that docu- 

 ment. The scientists who go in the field now return ALL waste, including human 

 waste, from land and ablation areas. Does this cause problems? Certainly, for a few 

 hours, until people get into the swing of it. Then it soon becomes an effort to see 

 how much can actually be returned. Old camp sites that are visited are cleaned up, 

 flares that are used to mark landing sites are carefully recovered, and other items 

 that may have been left in the past are marked for future pick-up. I think that I 

 can honestly say that any extra time required to accomplish the waste management 

 effort in the field is minimal and insignificant. The scientific community has bought 

 into the Environmental Protocol in a meaningful way. 



