New Trends in the Protection of the Antarctic Environment: The 1991 Madrid Protocol

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 377-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. N. Blay
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment

In June 1991, the Antarctic Treaty states, meeting in Madrid, Spain, approved the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol). The Protocol was adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and opened for signature on October 4, 1991. Negotiated over a three-year period, the Protocol, together with its annexes, is the most comprehensive multilateral document ever adopted on the international protection of the environment. It promises to be a significant blueprint for preserving the Antarctic. An ironic feature of the Protocol is that, while it bans mining in Antarctica, it had its origins in the 1988 Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA), which permitted mining.

Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: a major addition to the Antarctic Treaty System

Polar Record ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (152) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

AbstractIn June 1988, at the final session of the Fourth Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) was adopted, bringing to a successful conclusion six years of negotiations. Christopher Beeby, chairman of the discussions, presented the convention as the most important political development affecting Antarctica since the 1959 treaty, especially as it established the ability of the Antarctic Treaty System to reach an internal accommodation even upon matters raising serious political, legal, environmental and other issues. There remain uncertainties regarding the future development of the Antarctic minerals question; for example, when will the minerals convention and the proposed institutional framework come into effect, will its ratification encourage mining, can the fragile Antarctic environment be adequately protected against mining, how will certain key terms and concepts be defined, and will the regime's operation bring latent tensions to the surface? It is also difficult to predict how other governments will react to the convention, in the light of recent UN resolutions on Antarctica. The convention is perceived within the Antarctic Treaty system as a significant development, but it will be some time before a considered evaluation of the Antarctic Minerals Regime can be conducted.

The practicalities of domestic legislation to prohibit mining activity in Antarctica: a comment on the Australian perspective

Polar Record ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (172) ◽  
pp. 23-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Blay ◽  
Julia Green
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Human Activity ◽  
Mining Activity ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
General Objection ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Antarctic Environment

AbstractAfter its rejection of the Minerals Convention adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) in 1988, Australia took a major step in its domestic law by enacting the Antarctic Mining Prohibition Act of 1991 (AMPA), to reinforce its general objection to mineral resource activities in Antarctica and its commitment to the protection ofthe Antarctic environment. With the adoption of the Protocol on Environmental Protectionto the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol) – which required the parties to take steps to implement its provisions, including the enactment of domestic legislation – Australia enacted the Antarctic Treaty (Environmental Protection) Act (ATEPA). The ATEPA is meant to replace the AMPA once the Madrid Protocol comes into force. The Protocol bans mineral resource activities in Antarctica and adopts a comprehensive regime toregulate all human activity in Antarctica in an effort to protect the region's environment. As legislation to implement the Protocol, the principal objectives of the ATEPAare to prohibit mineral resource activities in the Australian Antarctic Territory and toregulate all human activity that may have a direct impact on the environment in the area. It also prohibits Australian nationals from engaging in mineral resource activities elsewhere in Antarctica. Like Australia, a number of ATCPs have either adopted legislationor are developing legislation in their domestic legal systems to implement the Protocol.It is one thing for the Protocol to demand the adoption of domestic legislation to ensure compliance with its provisions, including the ban on mining; it is quite another thingto develop effective domestic legislation on the issue. Given the absence of any knowncommercially exploitable deposits of minerals in Antarctica, the likelihood of any mineralresource activity in the region is very remote. But should mining activity occur in Antarctica in breach of the Protocol, the enforcement of the ban could be fraught with practical, legal, and policy difficulties. This paper examines the domestic legislative efforts by Australia as a leading ATCP to ban mining activity in Antarctica. Even though the discussion focuses on Australia by examining its legislation, the problems and the issues raised in the Australian context are also relevant to other ATCPs generally and to claimants in particular.

The 1991 UN session: the environmental protocol fails to satisfy the Antarctic Treaty System's critics

Polar Record ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 28 (167) ◽  
pp. 307-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
South African ◽  
The State ◽  
Research Station ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Apartheid Regime ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment

ABSTRACT1991 saw the ninth successive United Nations (UN) discussion on the ‘Question of Antarctica.’ The adoption of two more resolutions critical of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), including South African participation therein, reaffirmed the unchanging nature of the UN episode and the lack of consensus on the management of Antarctica. Key developments affecting Antarctica continue to occur away from New York: during 1990—91 the negotiations conducted at Vifia del Mar and Madrid for the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PREP) and the measures agreed at the Bonn Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting proved the point. The critics of the ATS were appeased by neither PREP and its mining prohibition nor the recent dismantling of the apartheid regime in South Africa.Two UN reports were published on the state of the Antarctic environment as well as the proposed establishment of a UNsponsored research station in Antarctica. One resolution adopted in December 1991 called for annual UN reports on the Antarctic environment, although fiscal and other considerations meant that the research station proposal was effectively shelved. Another resolution urged South African exclusion from ATS meetings. The tenth annual UN discussion on Antarctica is scheduled for the close of 1992. There exists growing evidence that the critical campaign is losing momentum, although it seems premature to anticipate Antarctica's imminent demise as an UN agenda topic.

The Antarctic Treaty System: Future Mining Faces Many Mathematical Challenges

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 623-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
AJ Tony Press
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Short Paper ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

This short paper examines how the Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol on Environmental Protection deal with mineral resource activities and the steps that would be required to lift the current ban on mining in the Antarctic.

Oiled wildlife response for Antarctica: Practical and realistic solutions

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1559-1568
Author(s):  
Michael Short
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Marine Pollution ◽  
Commercial Fishing ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
Antarctic Marine ◽  
Station Base ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment

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.

The Antarctic Committee for Environmental Protection: past, present, and future

Polar Record ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Andrés Sánchez ◽  
Ewan McIvor
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
Future Scenarios ◽  
New Era ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment

ABSTRACTThe Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) was established under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty to advise the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) on matters relating to protection of the Antarctic environment. After almost a decade of work, the committee has consolidated itself as a highly relevant and important component of the Antarctic Treaty system. Through a detailed analysis of meeting reports, as well as first-hand information and experience, this study describes the activities of the CEP during its first nine years of operation, provides likely explanations for some trends observed and proposes future scenarios by highlighting major challenges and opportunities. In particular, the instigation of strategic planning shows potential for launching a new era of CEP activities focused on the environmental issues requiring the greatest attention. This overview will assist readers to understand the role of the CEP as the main environmental advisor to the ATCM, and the reasons for the Antarctic Treaty parties to support the Committee's work to foster a spirit of cooperation as a prerequisite for continuing protection of the Antarctic environment.

Epilogue

2019 ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Alessandro Antonello
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Resource ◽  
Environmental Agreements ◽  
Natural Element ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic

This epilogue reflects on Antarctic diplomacy and science after 1980 in light of the greening of Antarctica that occurred after 1959. It suggests ways in which the failed ratification of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) of 1988 and the successful negotiation of the Madrid Protocol of 1991 closely followed the intellectual and conceptual contours laid down between 1959 and 1980 in the major environmental agreements following the Antarctic Treaty. It also reflects on the seeming absence of ice—the dominant natural element in Antarctica—from early and recent Antarctic geopolitics and how ice might affect future Antarctic diplomacy and geopolitics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document