The prevention of marine pollution from ships according to Annex IV to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 228-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pineschi
2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1559-1568
Author(s):  
Michael Short

ABSTRACT Through the Antarctic Treaty on Environmental Protection all of the Antarctic member nations are required to have in place contingency plans for oil spills including oiled wildlife response. The current risks for marine pollution incidents to the Antarctic environment include refuelling activities associated with Antarctic stations/bases; routine station/base activities; and shipping associated with stations/bases, tourism, commercial fishing and whaling. Between 1981 and 2011 there have been reported 33 spills or near spill incidents associated with the Antarctic marine environment. Wildlife at risk from oil spills include seabirds (flying birds and penguins), pinnipeds and cetaceans. Antarctic and polar environments both provide a number of logistical and practical complications given their climatic and geographic character. The key elements for response actions for Antarctic wildlife identified are divided amongst primary, secondary and tertiary oiled wildlife response activities. Primary activities identified include focussing containment and clean up efforts to protecting wildlife as a priority using tools such as sensitivity mapping, stochastic and real time modelling. Secondary activities specific to individual wildlife groups were identified and included specialised hazing, exclusion and pre-emptive capture mechanisms focussed to the Antarctic environment. Tertiary activities are considered with regards to the real capacity of Antarctic stations to respond, take and rehabilitate oiled wildlife given the Antarctic environment and its limitations. The paper identifies realistic mechanisms and systems considering the climatic, logistical and practical issues of the Antarctic environment. Although specific to Antarctic bases the paper outcomes can be equally applied to other polar environments.


Polar Record ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 34 (191) ◽  
pp. 305-316
Author(s):  
Donald R. Rothwell

AbstractIncreasing attention has been given to the protection of the polar marine environment throughout the 1990s. In the case of the Antarctic Treaty System, in addition to a number of recommendations and measures adopted at Antarctic Treaty Meetings, the 1991 Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty contains a number of measures that will enhance marine environmental protection in the Southern Ocean. In the case of the Arctic, the 1991 Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy identified marine pollution as being one of the major environmental issues in the Arctic, and a number of initiatives have since been developed to encourage the Arctic states to deal with the problem collectively and individually. However, while the collective responses of the polar states have been helpful in giving prominence to the importance of marine environmental protection in polar waters, it is the coastal states of the polar regions that need to take responsibility to give effect to these initiatives. Australia and Canada are two of the most prominent polar states in Antarctica and the Arctic, respectively. Both have large maritime claims and have also developed a range of domestic legal and policy responses to enhance marine environmental protection in the polar regions. A review is undertaken of the respective global and regional marine environmental protection regimes that apply in the polar regions, followed by a comparative analysis of the Australian and Canadian initiatives.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-131
Author(s):  
Xueping Li

In the name of environmental protection, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting seems to have borrowed the paradigm of international trusteeship of the United Nations for managing the Antarctic land-based protected areas. By comparing and analysing the critical questions highly concerned, this paper offers preliminary thoughts on the development and refinement of the conception of land-based protected areas as a déjà vu system of international trusteeship and its surrounding legal applications and implications in continental Antarctica, and challenges the direction followed by this system in protecting Antarctic intrinsic values in legal discourse.


1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Beth C. Marks ◽  
James N. Barnes

The continent of Antarctica holds immense value as a wilderness area and a repository of scientific knowledge. This report maintains that the Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty on Environmental Protection, signed in 1991, is a positive first step in ensuring that Antarctica preserves its status as a global scientific laboratory, wildlife refuge, and arena for international cooperation.


1991 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-231
Author(s):  
Richard Laws

The current political regime for the Antarctic stemmed from the activities of the non-governmental International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) in planning and implementing the IGY (1957–58); subsequently the Antarctic Treaty came into force in 1961. The Treaty promotes freedom of scientific research and international co-operation and in the first two decades of its existence this was an undisputed priority. SCAR, a committee of ICSU, is a non-political organization, which initiates, promotes and co-ordinates scientific research in the Antarctic. SCAR has always attached the highest importance to environmental protection and for over thirty years has readily accepted an advisory role in relation to the Treaty System. One Convention (CCAS on seals) has a built-in advisory role for SCAR - an unusual, probably unique function for an NGO. Another (CCAMLR on marine resources) often seeks advice from SCAR. The success of the Antarctic Treaty System owes much to SCAR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document