Realising Strategic Environmental Assessment in Antarctica

REALISING STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT IN ANTARCTICA

RICARDO M. ROURA*

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition1630 Connecticut Ave. NW, Third Floor

Washington, DC 20009 [email protected]

ALAN D. HEMMINGS

Gateway Antarctica Centre for Antarctic Studies and ResearchUniversity of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800

Christchurch 8140, New [email protected]

This paper discusses high-level environmental policy objectives under the Antarctic TreatySystem (ATS), and their relation to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). It reviewsthe need for SEA in Antarctica; discusses existing ATS strategic processes and the impe-diments to achieving the high-level environmental policy objectives agreed within the ATS,and suggests ways to improve strategic consideration of environmental issues. Whilst theconcept of a strategic approach is already accepted in principle within the ATS, there remaindifficulties in realising this. These include, inter alia, limitations in the established processesaddressing environmental issues (particularly cumulative impacts), and ongoing tensionsbetween the nominally agreed international objectives and national interests (including issuesaround unresolved territorial sovereignty claims) in practice. The article contends that givengrowing pressures on the Antarctic environment, high-level environmental policy objectivescannot be achieved through accumulated reactive ad hoc measures, or by industry self-regulation, but requires a systematic approach to strategic environmental considerations.

Keywords: Antarctica; Antarctic Treaty System; environmental impact assessment;strategic environmental assessment; Protocol of Environmental Protection to the AntarcticTreaty (Madrid Protocol).

*Corresponding author.

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and ManagementVol. 13, No. 3 (September 2011) pp. 483–514© Imperial College PressDOI: 10.1142/S1464333211003973

483

http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1464333211003973

Introduction

The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Protocol)is the primary mechanism for establishing and implementing international legalobligations for the region south of 60○ south latitude, or Antarctic Treaty Area.The Protocol is the most recent component of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS),which is “the Antarctic Treaty, the measures in effect under that Treaty, itsassociated separate international instruments in force, and the measures in effectunder those instruments” (Protocol Art. 1(e)). Thirty-three states are Parties to theProtocol (United States, 2011).

The Protocol reiterates the Antarctic Treaty commitment that Antarctica shall“continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes” (Preamble),designates Antarctica as a “natural reserve, devoted to peace and science” (Art. 2),and requires activities in the Antarctic Treaty area and dependent and associatedecosystems to be planned and conducted in accordance with environmentalprinciples (Art. 3) (See Box 1). The main operational mechanism to ensure thatplanning and conduct of activities conforms to these principles and the highpurposes of the Protocol is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Art. 8).Thus, the primary operational mechanism of EIA is coupled with a strategic normof the foundational ATS instrument.

Box 1 – Articles 2 and 3 of the 1991 Protocol on EnvironmentalProtection to the Antarctic Treaty

Article 2 - Objective and DesignationThe Parties commit themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarcticenvironment and dependent and associated ecosystems and hereby designate Ant-arctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.

Article 3 - Environmental Principles

1. The protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associatedecosystems and the intrinsic value of Antarctica, including its wilderness andaesthetic values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research, inparticular research essential to understanding the global environment, shall befundamental considerations in the planning and conduct of all activities in theAntarctic Treaty area.

2. To this end:(a) activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and conducted so as

to limit adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment and dependent andassociated ecosystems;

484 R. M. Roura & A. D. Hemmings

Box 1. (Continued)

(b) activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and conducted so asto avoid:

(i) adverse effects on climate or weather patterns;(ii) significant adverse effects on air or water quality;(iii) significant changes in the atmospheric, terrestrial (including aquatic),

glacial or marine environments;(iv) detrimental changes in the distribution, abundance or productivity of

species of populations of species of fauna and flora;(v) further jeopardy to endangered or threatened species or populations of

such species; or(vi) degradation of, or substantial risk to, areas of biological, scientific,

historic, aesthetic or wilderness significance;

(c) activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and conducted on thebasis of information sufficient to allow prior assessments of, and informedjudgements about, their possible impacts on the Antarctic environment anddependent and associated ecosystems and on the value of Antarctica for theconduct of scientific research; such judgements shall take account of:

(i) the scope of the activity, including its area, duration and intensity;(ii) the cumulative impacts of the activity, both by itself and in combination

with other activities in the Antarctic Treaty area;(iii) whether the activity will detrimentally affect any other activity in the

Antarctic Treaty area;(iv) whether technology and procedures are available to provide for envir-

onmentally safe operations;(v) whether there exists the capacity to monitor key environmental par-

ameters and ecosystem components so as to identify and provide earlywarning of any adverse effects of the activity and to provide for suchmodification of operating procedures as may be necessary in the light ofthe results of monitoring or increased knowledge of the Antarcticenvironment and dependent and associated ecosystems; and

(vi) whether there exists the capacity to respond promptly and effectively toaccidents, particularly those with potential environmental effects;

(d) regular and effective monitoring shall take place to all assessment of theimpacts of ongoing activities, including the verification of predicted impacts;

(e) regular and effective monitoring shall take place to facilitate early detectionof the possible unforeseen effects of activities carried on both within andoutside the Antarctic Treaty area on the Antarctic environment anddependent and associated ecosystems.

Realising Strategic Environmental Assessment in Antarctica 485

3. Activities shall be planned and conducted in the Antarctic Treaty area so as toaccord priority to scientific research and to preserve the value of Antarctica as anarea for the conduct of such research, including research essential to under-standing the global environment.

4. Activities undertaken in the Antarctic Treaty area pursuant to scientific researchprograms, tourism and all other governmental and non-governmental activitiesin the Antarctic Treaty area for which advance notice is required in accordancewith Article VII (5) of the Antarctic Treaty, including associated logisticactivities, shall:(a) take place in a manner consistent with the principles in this Article; and(b) be modified, suspended or cancelled if they result in or threaten to result in

impacts upon the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated eco-systems inconsistent with those principles.

EIA attaches to any governmental or non-governmental activity for whichadvance notice is required under Article VII(5) of the Antarctic Treaty, whichincludes all expeditions to and within the region, all stations, and any militarypersonnel or equipment. EIA is required for both proposed activities as well aschanges to existing activities. However, emergency operations are excluded fromEIA obligations (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008), as are fishing, sealing, andwhaling activities (Hemmings et al., 2007; Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008). Theseactivities are excluded from EIA obligations from state practice, based upon aparticular interpretation of Article VII(5) obligations (Hemmings et al., 2007).EIA applies primarily to environmental values; in practice it applies to a lesserextent to wilderness and aesthetic values, and does not generally apply to historicvalues (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008). At the time of writing, a total of 824medium and high level EIAs were identified on the EIA database maintained bythe Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (See Table 1). This list is representative ofAntarctic EIA practice but it is not comprehensive, as some State Parties do notto make their EIAs available for listing (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008, p. 195).The earliest EIAs, dating to 1988, predate the Protocol and are grounded inobligations adopted in 1987, which formed the basis for the later Protocolobligations.

The conduct, assessment and judgements around EIA are the responsibility ofState Parties, subject only to a degree of international scrutiny at the highest levelEIA (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008; Hemmings and Kriwoken, 2010). EIA gener-ally operates at the level of individual activities, although in some instances

Box 1. (Continued)


(particularly involving seaborne tourism) a single EIA may seek to cover multipleplatforms operating over a wide spatial area, and over several years (Bastmeijerand Roura, 2008, pp. 208–209). Global environmental management experience(and increasingly, Antarctic experience of impact assessment) shows that EIA is anecessary but not sufficient basis for achieving environmental protection goals(Lee and Walsh, 1992; Wood, 1995; Nooteboom, 2000).

Contemporary human presence in Antarctica includes over seventy active sitesand facilities, including permanent research bases and airfields, several establishedinland traverses, and a large number of sites where tourism landings take place(e.g. nearly 200 in the 2009–2010 Austral summer). These are clustered in distinctregions of Antarctica, which are connected to “gateway” cities in populated partsof the world by ship and air routes (Fig. 1). An examination of recent EIA practiceindicates that a large number of activities are taking place in Antarctica. The vastmajority of these activities have been assessed as having a “minor or transitoryimpact” (in the terminology of the Protocol) (Fig. 2). These activities includescience projects both on land and at sea; logistic, operation, construction andmaintenance projects; and a broad range of tourism activities (Fig. 3). Feweractivities have been assessed as having “more than a minor or transitory impact”,

Table 1. Summary of high and medium level Antarctic EIA 1988–2010.

Activity category High level EIAs (CEEs) Medium level EIAs (IEEs)

Air facilities: construction/operations 1 17Construction/operation of facilities 11 169Drilling (ice/rock) 7 22Field camp 0 13Monitoring Program 0 25National Antarctic Program operations 1 79Non Governmental Expedition 0 36Oil management/salvage 1 12Removal/clean up of facilities 1 32Science 2 222Site management/remediation 0 7Tourism 0 237Traverse 1 10Use of explosives 0 3Waste management 1 18

Note: Draft and final CEE documents are here taken as constituting a single CEE. Some IEEs arelisted under more than one activity category.Source: Antarctic Treaty Secretariat — EIA Database http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ep_eia_list.aspx?lang¼e (retrieved 29.11.10).


including scientific drilling projects and the establishment of new bases (Fig. 4). Thescale, location, distribution and timing of these activities illustrate the consolidationof human presence in some regions, particularly coastal areas, as well as increasedexpansion over the central part of the Antarctic continent. These developments havetaken place in the absence of ATS-wide strategic planning and assessment.

Over the past decade there has been some attempt to supplement the nowestablished duty to conduct EIA with a consideration of the advantages offeredby Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Antarctic environmentalmanagement. In 1999 the concept of SEA was first raised in the Antarctic

Fig. 1. Antarctic active facilities in 2010, and tourism landing sites the 2009–2010 season.Data source: www.comnap.aq and www.iaato.org, retrieved 29.11.10. The sketch does not showfloating ice shelves.


context by the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, as a response to thegrowth of tourism and other activities in Antarctica (Bastmeijer, 2003, p. 177).SEA has since been conceptually developed as a tool that could be applied inAntarctica, whether generally, or for specific regions or activity types (ASOC,2000; Kriwoken and Rootes, 2000; ASOC, 2001; SALEGOS, 2001; ASOC, 2002;Roura et al., 2002; Roura and Hemmings, 2002; Italy, 2004; ASOC, 2007).However, there is currently no legal obligation or even hortatory injunctionin relation to applying SEA in any part of the Antarctic system, notwithstanding thedomestic and regional familiarity of the concept for many of the participating states.

Interpretations of SEA broadly cluster around two options: SEA used as aflexible tool applied as required, or as a systematic process of assessment (Fischer,2002). In the Antarctic context strategic environmental considerations are some-times part of ad hoc international processes addressing high-level policy issues,but Antarctic EIA processes are almost invariably activity specific and operate at anational level. The majority of EIAs are linked to individual National AntarcticPrograms or to private operators involved in the tourism industry. While the levelof international scrutiny increases with the potential environmental impactof proposed activities, national authorities make all final decisions on EIAs(Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008). There is therefore no necessary connection betweenthe internationally agreed environmental goals under the Protocol, on the one

Fig. 2. Antarctic EIA practice 1988–2009.Source: Antarctic Treaty Secretariat — EIA Database http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ep_eia_list.aspx?lang¼e (retrieved 29.11.10).


hand, and consistency with those goals in the activities of individual Parties ortheir operators. Whilst there are Protocol mechanisms (Art. 18) to address formaldisputes, these are unlikely to be deployed below very high level disputes and arethus not helpful in relation to most EIA issues.

This paper discusses high-level environmental policy objectives under the ATS,and their relation to SEA. It reviews the need for SEA in Antarctica, discussesexisting ATS strategic processes and the impediments to achieving the high-level

Fig. 3. Example of Antarctic EIA practice showing recent activities assessed to have a “minor ortransitory impact”: medium level EIAs (Initial Environmental Evaluations — IEEs) submitted during2009 (n ¼ 67). The sketch does not show floating ice shelves.Source: Antarctic Treaty Secretariat — EIA Database http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ep_eia_list.aspx?lang¼e (retrieved 29.11.10).


environmental policy objectives agreed within the ATS, and suggests ways toimprove strategic consideration of environmental issues. Table 2 provides ageneral assessment of Antarctic strategic environmental processes performanceaccording to the criteria adopted by the International Association for ImpactAssessment (IAIA) in November 2001 (based on Fischer, 2002).

Fig. 4. Example of Antarctic EIA practice showing activities assessed to have more than a “minor ortransitory impact”: High level EIAs (Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations — CEEs) sub-mitted between 1999–2009 (n ¼ 13; draft and final documents are here taken as constituting a singleCEE). The sketch does not show floating ice shelves.


Table

2.SEA

performance

criterion

againstAntarctic

strategicprocesses(based

onVerheem

,19

99andFischer,20

02).

Theme

No

Perform

ance

criterion

Perform

ance

inAntarctica

Integrated

1Ensures

anapprop

riateenvironm

entalassessmentof

allstrategic

decision

srelevant

fortheachievem

entof

sustainable

developm

ent

Toalim

itedextent

2Add

resses

theinterrelationships

ofbiop

hysical,social

and

econ

omic

aspects

Toalim

itedextent

—focuseson

environm

ental,

science,

andin

someinstancesensuring

continuedresource

extractio

n/use

3Is

tieredto

policiesin

relevant

sectorsand,

where

approp

riate,

toprojectEIA

anddecision

making

No

Sustainability-led

4Facilitatesidentifi

catio

nof

developm

entop

tions

andalternative

prop

osalsthat

aremoresustainable

Toalim

itedextent

Focused

5Providessufficient,reliableandusable

inform

ationfor

developm

entplanning

anddecision

making

Varies—

exchange

ofinform

ationrequ

irem

ents

existbu

tarecompliedwith

toalim

itedextent

anddo

notaddressallrelevant

issues

6Con

centrateson

keyissues

ofsustainabledevelopm

ent

Som

etim

ese.g.

identifi

catio

nof

CEPstrategic

priorities

7Iscustom

ised

onthecharacteristicsof

thedecision

makingprocess

Yes

8Is

costandtim

eeffective

—

Accou

ntable

9Is

therespon

sibilityof

theleadingagencies

forthestrategic

decision

tobe

taken

Depends

ontheprocessandparticular

legal

requ

irem

ents

10Is

carriedou

twith

profession

alism,rigo

ur,fairness,im

partiality

andbalance

—

11Is

subjectto

independ

entchecks

andverificatio

nNo

12Docum

entsandjustifies

how

sustainabilityissues

weretakeninto

accoun

tin

decision

making

Attheactiv

ityEIA

levelon

ly


Table

2.(Con

tinued)

Theme

No

Perform

ance

criterion

Perform

ance

inAntarctica

Participative

13Inform

sandinvo

lves

interested

andaffected

publicsand

governmentbo

dies

throug

hout

thedecision

makingprocess

CEEon

ly

14Exp

licitlyaddressestheirinpu

tsandconcerns

indo

cumentatio

nanddecision

making

CEEon

ly

15Has

clear,easily

understood

inform

ationrequ

irem

entsandensures

sufficientaccess

toallrelevant

inform

ation

Toalim

itedextent,depend

son

theprocess

Iterative

16Ensures

availabilityof

theassessmentresults

earlyenou

ghto

influencethedecision

makingprocessandinspirefuture

planning

No

17Providessufficientinform

ationon

theactual

impactsof

imple-

mentin

gastrategicdecision

tojudg

ewhether

thisdecision

shou

ldbe

amended,i.e.thatcon

tributeto

theov

erallsustainable

developm

entstrategy

aslaid

downin

Rio

1992

anddefinedin

thespecificpo

liciesor

values

ofacoun

try

Attheactiv

ityEIA

levelon

ly


The Need for SEA in Antarctica

The case for Antarctic SEA results from issues of implementation and effective-ness of existing environmental instruments, and from and emerging environmentalpressures (ASOC, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002; Roura and Hemmings, 2002), notablytourism (Kriwoken and Rootes, 2000; Hemmings and Roura, 2003). This sectionfocuses on three substantive issues: the effectiveness of Antarctic EIA as currentlypracticed; obligations regarding cumulative impact; and absence of strategicconsiderations with regard to the location of proposed activities.

Effectiveness of the EIA process in Antarctica

The Protocol’s Annex I on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) establishes athree-tier system of EIA: “Preliminary”, “Initial” and “Comprehensive”. Thethreshold between these categories is delimited by the elusive notion of “minor ortransitory impact” (Bastmeijer, 2003; Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008; Hemmings andKriwoken, 2010). In practice, the appropriate level of EIA for a proposed activityis determined by decisions made by competent authorities (i.e. at the nationallevel), which may take into consideration standard international practice inAntarctica and voluntary guidelines on Antarctic EIA (ATCPs, 2005). Forinstance, activities deemed to have more than a “minor or transitory impact” suchas the construction of new stations and large scale drilling projects are usuallypreceded by a high level EIA, but lower levels of EIA apply to most otheractivities. In practice, not all activities that take place in Antarctica are preceded byan EIA at a level appropriate to the intensity or scale of the activity — whetherthese are national program operations (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008) or tourism(Hemmings and Roura, 2003). One consequence of this is to reduce the level ofinternational scrutiny over a proposed activity, since the process drops belowthe threshold where this kicks in (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008; Hemmings andKriwoken, 2010).

EIA is sometimes used in a quasi-strategic manner when the impact assessmentis integrated with the planning and decision-making process, particularly in thecase of some high level EIAs, where the level of international scrutiny is higherand the lead times longer. However, it is generally the case that EIA is usedreactively and that strategic decisions have already been made prior to the con-sideration of environmental effects. Typically, the decision to conduct an activityand the activity’s characteristics, timing and location precede the initiation of EIA.Project-specific EIA processes generally commence after many decisions have(albeit often informally) in fact already been taken, alternatives discounted and a


sense of inevitability inculcated in participants to the process (ASOC, 2000). Theconsideration of alternatives to the proposed activity is generally a pro-formacomponent of the EIA document rather than a serious consideration of the process.For instance, the plans of South Korea to construct a new research station arepresented in a document submitted to the XXXIII ATCM in 2010, ahead of thesubmission of an EIA. While the document notes that Korean scientists visitedseveral locations in two alternative regions of Antarctica, it identifies precisely theproposed site where the station would be constructed, andwhere a hut and automaticweather station have already been established (South Korea, 2010). Based on thesedevelopments it seems unlikely that the high level EIA process that will follow willresult in a change of plans, even though the EIAmay formally discuss alternatives tothe proposed activity, including the mandatory alternative of not proceeding. Asnoted by Hemmings and Kriwoken (2010), not a single high level EIA submitted todate has concluded that the proposed activity should not proceed.

The scale and trends of tourism poses strategic challenges to the AntarcticTreaty states (ASOC, 2006). Commercial tourism is currently the largest singleactivity in Antarctica in terms of people involved (Tin et al., 2008). Passengerlandings and marine traffic are highly concentrated at relatively few specificlocations in the Antarctic Peninsula (Lynch et al., 2009), although between 100and 200 landing sites are currently visited each season continent wide. Ship-bornetourism is the most developed modality of tourism and transports the bulk ofAntarctic tourists (Roura, 2010). The Antarctic EIA process was developed fornational program operations, which usually involve a long- or medium-termactivity in specific site (such as the construction of a base or a multi-year researchproject), and the same model of EIA is not necessarily suitable for the differentmodalities of tourism (Hemmings and Roura, 2003). Ship-borne tourism typicallyinvolves a repetition of short-term activities at multiple sites, some of which arepre-selected (and used by many operators) and some of which may be chosen onopportunistic bases to fill gaps in the itinerary or in response to changing con-ditions (Roura, in press).

Obligations regarding cumulative impact

In an Antarctic context, cumulative impact has been defined as the impact ofcombined past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities (De Poorterand Dalziell, 1996). The consideration of cumulative impacts is required underAnnex I of the Protocol for EIA at both Initial and Comprehensive levels. How-ever, the Protocol does not specify the level of analysis that this “consideration”requires, no legally binding standards have been adopted subsequently, and in


practice its coverage in EIA documents is superficial at best. The problems withassessing cumulative impacts in the Antarctic derive from the activity specificfocus of the EIA process, the exclusion of some activities from EIA requirements(such as fishing, which may have an impact on land-based predators) and, inpractical terms, from the availability of information about past, contemporary orfuture activities at a certain site (e.g. United Kingdom, 2010). For instance, theassessments illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4 have focused on the environmental impactsof specific activities in specific locations, rather than on their overall contributionto cumulative impacts on the Antarctic region as whole, including those resultingfrom existing sites, facilities, and uses (Fig. 1).

Thus, a more strategic consideration of cumulative environmental effects inAntarctica would constitute an improvement over current practice in Antarctica.An analysis of non-Antarctic practice on SEA has not demonstrated the widelyheld belief that cumulative effects are best addressed by this instrument (Gunn andNoble, 2010). However, while SEA would not be a panacea, more strategicconsideration of cumulative environmental effects in Antarctica would constitutean improvement over current assessment practice. To resolve the issue of lack ofinformation, “joint EIAs” have been proposed, as well as the development ofcommon databases (De Poorter and Dalziell, 1996) and SEA could, in part, fill thisrole. In addition, SEA could be used to assess the impact of activities from aregional perspective, with areas defined as large or small as required and feasible(given practical and political constraints), in effect strengthening the “areaapproach” in managing Antarctic activities with respect to addressing the issue ofcumulative impacts (e.g. Bastmeijer, 2003, pp. 458–459).

Emerging strategic needs in Antarctica

The main in-area pressures on the Antarctic continent emerge from science andassociated logistics (Tin et al., 2008), while those on the marine environment arisefrom marine harvesting. In addition, the Antarctic region is under increasingpressure from anthropogenic processes originating outside the region such asclimate change and the introduction of non-native species and pollutants. Thesepressures arise, in Antarctica, against a background of increasing human capacitiesand activities, extremely constrained international governance arising from thecomplex and contested juridical situation (Hemmings, 2010a), and the increasingpressures of globalism (Hemmings, 2007, 2009). The debate about what con-stitutes a strategic need, the mechanisms available to respond to these, and theadjudication of success or failure, are necessarily conducted in a diplomatic andinternational law context.


The ATS has identified its high-level policy objectives reasonably clearly as thesystem has evolved. These were first (reflected in the Antarctic Treaty) the con-tainment of national rivalry around territory and ideology, the maintenance of asort of demilitarised zone, the creation of a regional system consistent with theCharter of the United Nations, and the facilitation of scientific cooperation. Thebanning of nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste materials wasin part an early environmental protection objective, albeit it was primarily directedto protecting adjacent southern regions of the world rather than the Antarctic itself.Subsequently, the objectives of rational resource use and protection of environ-mental values in the region have been codified, so that one may summarise thepresent policy objectives as the trinity of securing Peace, Science and theEnvironment in Antarctica. These objectives are the sine qua non for collectivepeaceful engagement with Antarctica, and the present authors are fully supportiveof them. Indeed, it is in pursuit of a more robust underpinning of these thatattention is directed here to SEA.

Given the commitment by Parties across ATS instruments to internationalcooperation and the protection of the Antarctic environment, interesting strategicissues arise around (e.g.) whether stations are better concentrated or dispersed. Theformer risks duplication of facilities and/or research (unless of course they wereintegrated into truly international facilities), the latter increased pressures onenvironmental values — particularly wilderness values as human presenceencroaches upon areas yet untouched by permanent infrastructure. Yet a number ofnew stations have recently been built, without much in terms of Antarctic-widestrategic considerations. The activity-level impact assessment generally refers tothe local effects of such construction and use, and considers alternative locations,but does not address strategic questions of the sort “Are more Antarctic stationsactually needed or desirable?” (see e.g. ASOC, 2004).

A similar argument applies to tourism. Tourism in Antarctica began in the1950s (Headland, 1994) but has substantially developed as a major Antarcticactivity only since the 1990s, coincident with the adoption of the Protocol (e.g.Kriwoken and Rootes, 2000; Hemmings and Roura, 2003; Roura, 2010). Tourismdoes not always easily fit either the pattern of activity conceived as the Antarcticnorm, or the mechanisms of response elaborated (Hemmings and Roura, 2003).The selection of specific sites where tourism is now conducted on an annual basishas not been the subject of any strategic environmental consideration, but hasrather been a consequence of how tourism has developed organically. Sites havebecome tourism destinations because of logistic factors such as location andlanding conditions, coupled with the presence of site features that could potentiallybe turned into tourism attractions, such as natural features, historic sites, and


research stations (Roura, 2010; in press). So far several dozen sites have takenover as tourism “destinations” where frequent landings take place on seasonalbases (IAATO, 2008). The concentration of mainstream tourism at some sites in theAntarctic Peninsula (Lynch et al., 2009) has resulted from practical imperatives inthe conduct of tourism rather than from strategic planning. There has not been anyformal strategic consideration, either by Parties or by the industry, as to whetherconcentrating or dispersing tourism is preferable, and if so, where and how.

Another emerging strategic environmental issue differing from the norm ofactivities when the Protocol was adopted is biological prospecting, which hasemerged from what was previously purely scientific research (Hemmings andRogan-Finnemore, 2008; Hemmings, 2010b). Whilst both pure science and bio-logical prospecting activities may initially be conducted in very similar ways —involving for instance fieldwork, sampling, etc. — their purpose and the outcomeof the activity may be significantly different, potentially involving harvestingrather than merely sampling, and leading to significant economic outcomes ratherthan the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. These differences in purpose,outcome, and consequential developments, however, have so far not been con-sidered in EIAs.

Existing Strategic Processes in the Antarctic Context

Although SEA formally remains an abstract concept in the Antarctic context,strategic environmental considerations are not entirely absent from the AntarcticTreaty System. This section explores the strategic resources that are alreadyavailable in the Antarctic Treaty System, primarily through the environmentalplanning framework of the Protocol, and also through strategic processes that havebeen applied to address specific strategic needs. These form the basis from whichto determine how SEA could in practice be applied in the Antarctic context, anddemonstrate the potential for adapting SEA to Antarctic decision-making andstrategic planning processes.

The Protocol as an environmental planning framework

The Protocol provides an environmental planning framework against which tocompare the effects of decisions made later at the activity level, and provides someof the management instruments required to put planning into action. Articles 2 and3 of the Protocol (Box 1) set the general context for activities conducted in theAntarctic Treaty area. Whilst State Parties enter into the international legal obli-gations here, in practice Antarctic operators assume responsibility for the overall


planning of their activities in a manner consistent with the objectives and prin-ciples of the Protocol.

Under Article 2, the Parties “…commit themselves to the comprehensiveprotection of The Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystemsand hereby designate Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and sci-ence.” Article 3(1) of the Protocol on environmental principles makes specificreference to the need to integrate environmental concerns in planning (Box 1).

Activities should be consistent with the principles of the Protocol, and bemodified, suspended or cancelled if they threaten not to be. Some activities aresubject to limitations and require a permit (e.g. taking of flora or fauna or access tosome types of protected areas) while others are prohibited (e.g. mining activities,importation of some products, open burning of waste).

The Protocol includes six Annexes that detail obligations relating to EIA,conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora, waste disposal and waste management,prevention of marine pollution, management of protected areas, and liability forenvironmental damage. These annexes provide further guidance that can be usedin strategic assessments. For instance, the categories of Antarctic SpeciallyManaged Areas (ASMAs) and Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) in theprotected areas system apply a strategic approach in the management of designatedareas, in that relevant issues are generally considered from the perspective of theseparticular areas and implemented in advance of any specific activity proposed forthose areas (although there might be, in the case of ASMAs, some existingactivities). Further, areas for inclusion in the list of ASPAs are to be identifiedstrategically, within a “systematic environmental geographical framework” (Pro-tocol Annex V, Art. 3.2).

Of note is that the precautionary principle is implicit (Hemmings andKriwoken, 2010) in Protocol Article 3(2)(c), which states: “activities shall beplanned and conducted on the basis of information sufficient to allow priorassessments of, and informed judgements about, their possible impacts.” SomeParties reject the notion that a “precautionary principle” exists, and emphasise thatthe ATS should base decisions on positive scientific information. Nevertheless,more objective observers of the legal casting of the Protocol have seen at least theprohibition of mineral resource activities in Article 7 as strongly precautionary(Rothwell, 2000) and contrasted this with areas where precautionary action is notevident, as in relation to tourism (Scott, 2001; Bastmeijer and Roura, 2004).

Examples of strategic processes in Antarctic decision making

Some of the earlier strategic actions concern proactive measures taken byAntarctic Treaty Parties to regulate specific activities/industries. While not


necessarily “strategic” in the sense of SEA, these actions set broad guidelines forlater developments, and all instances included environmental considerations. Asimpler but more restricted form of strategic considerations pertains to processesthat arise as a result of specific needs, and which are therefore restricted geo-graphically (within parts of Antarctica), concern specific actors, or merely havethe purpose of streamlining discussions. Examples of both forms of action will beadduced below.

Sealing and fishing were addressed through the adoption of the 1972 Con-vention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS) and the 1980 Conventionfor the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR),respectively. CCAMLR specifically adopted an ecosystem approach, of particularstrategic importance as a principle for the conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity (see e.g. Treweek et al., 2005). The 1988 Convention on the Regu-lation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA) was to regulatemining in Antarctica but it has not entered into force, nor is expected to (NewZealand, 2010), having been essentially abandoned in favour of the Protocol, withits Article 7 prohibition of minerals resource activities. In contrast, Parties havebeen reactive in relation to tourism (e.g. Bastmeijer, 2009). While there has been acontinued and (more recently) robust debate on biological prospecting since 1999,progress on the regulation of this activity has been slow due to fundamentaldisagreements about what exactly this activity entails, the part of it that can be saidto properly concern the ATS, and how it could be regulated (Hemmings, 2005;Herber, 2006; Hemmings and Rogan-Finnemore, 2008). Recent discussions(Netherlands, 2010) highlight the difficulties of addressing strategically relevantenvironmental issues that arise from biological prospecting when such basic dis-agreement remains.

In 2001 discussions began on the establishment of an Antarctic SpeciallyManaged Area (ASMA) — one of two types of protected area established by theProtocol — at Deception Island in the South Shetland Islands off the AntarcticPeninsula. Whilst the concept of SEA was not explicitly recognised in thesediscussions, and this was not the first ASMA approved by the ATCM, it was thefirst ASMA developed through an extensive consultation process, with theobjective being to avoid conflicts between protection of the natural environmentand human activities, and between different types of human activities (i.e. scienceand tourism) beyond their present levels. The ASMA, which was approved in2005, anticipated future developments rather than being developed in response tospecific activity proposals. The ASMA process responded to strategic needsemerging from Protocol obligations, explicitly addressed environmental objectivesand issues, involved different Parties and observers/experts in a common reporting


framework, and combined different methods to address different management andassessment needs. Strategic decisions have included, inter alia, the selection of a“facility zone” where future infrastructure development should concentrate, andthe identification of locations where tourism landings can take place to theexclusion of other locations. Other ASMAs have been developed since, but theprocess and strategic content has varied in each case.

As a further example of strategic action addressing protected areas, in 2009the Protocol’s advisory Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) begandiscussions with the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR to develop a sharedunderstanding of the conservation objectives and priorities of both entities overthat part of the Southern Ocean that is regulated by both the environmentalProtocol and CCAMLR. The discussion of the workshop focused on the keyobjectives, priorities, and challenges for both committees, and addressed issuessuch as climate change and the Antarctic marine environment; biodiversity andnon-native species in the Antarctic marine environment; Antarctic speciesrequiring special protection; spatial marine management and protected areas;ecosystem and environmental monitoring; and the creation of a representativesystem of marine protected areas (France et al., 2009). Discussions of this kindmay be regarded as the early bases for strategic environmental planning andassessment in the Southern Ocean.

In 2006 the CEP began to discuss strategic priorities and issues (CEP, 2006). Itadopted a list of priority issues, which while primarily a means to manage theworkload of the committee has also resulted in a categorisation of the environ-mental issues facing the Antarctic region, such as the introduction of non-nativespecies, tourism, and climate change. Replicating the approach taken at the CEP,in celebrating 50 years of the signature of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty the ATCMagreed that “…development of targeted agendas and a multi-year strategic workplan for future ATCMs would be placed on the agenda for ATCM XXXIII” thefollowing year (ATCPs, 2009, pp. 320–329). Again, the idea was rather simply tostreamline the work of the ATCM so that “…such a “strategic” plan would be usedas a tool to help the Treaty Parties anticipate matters requiring priority attention,and to decide when, where, and how those matters could best be addressed.”(ATCPs, 2009, pp. 320–329).

Although these examples suggest that some SEA-like approaches have in factoccurred in some Antarctic processes, they have not been SEA sensu stricto, andParties to the Protocol have not tagged them as related to SEA. A broad-brushevaluation of these processes (based on Verheem, 1999; Fischer, 2002) suggeststhese strategic processes only partly meet established SEA performance criteria(Table 2).


Impediments to Antarctic SEA

The Antarctic regime and circumstances of the Antarctic context provideadditional challenges to the implementation of SEA, including three significant,partly interlinked issues: the continental/marine divide; sovereignty issues inAntarctica and adjacent areas; and the influence of national interests on inter-national governance.

The Antarctic Treaty System addresses issues across the Antarctic continentand islands south of 60 degrees south latitude and in the Antarctic marineenvironment. But it does so through a number of different instruments, withvariable capacities across Antarctic “land” and marine environments, and with notentirely identical parties. Further complicating the picture are the complexities onunresolved territorial sovereignty — so that for most of the world’s states, the highseas extend to the coast of the continent and Antarctic islands — and the appli-cation to this marine area of the key global instrument of the UN Law of the SeaConvention. In practice these factors have meant that overwhelmingly the stan-dards and operational management of Antarctic “land” areas have been subject tothe Antarctic Treaty and the Protocol, whilst Antarctic marine areas have fallen toCCAMLR (CCAS having not become operational in the absence of commercialsealing) and the non-ATS International Whaling Commission (IWC) in relation towhaling in the area. What this has meant is that quite separate institutionaldevelopment has proceeded across the continental/marine divide. Reflecting globalnorms, the instruments applying to the continent — for our purposes here,essentially the Protocol — have developed at least some of the familiar tools ofintegrated environmental management. By contrast, whilst it seemingly has thecapacity to do so, CCAMLR has not seen the development of a protected areassystem or a duty to EIA.

Although the Protocol certainly reaches into the marine environment, in prac-tice as a matter of practical politics, the Antarctic states have conceded toCCAMLR (generally themselves wearing other hats) a set of dual rights in relationto any Protocol capacities touching upon the marine environment — mostobviously a say in relation to the designation of marine protected areas under theProtocol. The designation of any protected area involving the marine environmentrequires the “prior approval of the Commission for the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources” (Protocol, Annex V, Art. 6(2); see also ATCMDecision 9, 2005). To the extent that the case for SEA necessarily builds upon pre-existing commitments to EIA, environmental monitoring, etc, these realities seemlikely to constrain SEA consideration even more in relation to the marineenvironment (and particularly in those institutions of the ATS concerned with it)


than in the “terrestrial” context. For instance, some Parties are of the opinion thateven the standard EIA process does not apply for biological prospecting activitiesinvolving marine harvesting (Netherlands, 2010), which leaves more strategicforms of assessment as a distant possibility, at least at present.

A key problem in realising SEA in Antarctica is with regard to the grey areawhere high-level environmental policy considerations, as agreed at an internationallevel, intersect with high-level Antarctic policy, as considered from the perspectiveof individual Parties (here attending to broader issues than the positions on ter-ritory already referred to). Both may be “strategic”, in a way, and may evencoincide in some cases, but may also be at odds with each other. The promotion ofnational interests acts an impediment to SEA in several ways. In particular, Partieshave the ability to interpret EIA obligations and respond to international criticismin ways that suit them best (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008; Hemmings andKriwoken, 2010).

In parallel, as noted above, Parties are generally reluctant to internationaliseresponses. For instance, an integration initiative proposed by Germany concerninggreater compatibility in the implementation of EIA under the Protocol and gen-erally on pursuing the Protocol’s environmental principles (Germany, 2000) wasreceived coolly. A proposal by France (France, 2008) to address issues posed bythe cumulative impacts of tourism by centralising the collection of data aboutfuture tourism activities generated little discussion, and the few Parties that par-ticipated in that discussion had fundamental disagreements as to how this proposalcould be enacted. The Forum of Competent Authorities, which started in 2005 as acommon initiative of the Netherlands and Germany in a search for greater inte-gration, met in 2006 to exchange information, inter alia, about the way theyauthorise activities and generally manage the EIA process. The Forum noted thatthe legal terms “less than a minor or transitory impact”, “a minor or a transitoryimpact” and “more than a minor or transitory impact” were not clearly defined inthe Protocol or the ATCM Guidelines on EIA (ATCPs, 2005), and acknowledgedthat different countries assess possible environmental impacts differently. In orderto find out the differences in the EIA process, a draft matrix for possibly cate-gorising activities according to their possible environmental impacts was pre-sented, but ultimately the group could not agree on a common assessment(Belgium et al., 2007).

Furthermore, Parties may wish to take particular decisions that support theirAntarctic policy even though they may contradict stated international environ-mental policy. The previously discussed example of research stations is applicablehere too. Parties may consider strategically where to place a new station — basedon factors such as the ease of access and maintenance of the facility; national


research needs and interests; and territorial or resource considerations, ifapplicable — but would not necessarily consider how this new facility would fit inthe overall Antarctic strategic context. Scientific drilling of subglacial lakes isanother case in point (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2008; Hemmings and Kriwoken,2010).

Perhaps the biggest challenge to the strategic consideration of high-levelenvironmental issues arises from the sovereignty issue, which underlies allAntarctic decision-making. Under the umbrella of the Antarctic Treaty, territorialsovereignty has not been specifically addressed beyond the so-called “freezing” ofpositions under Article 4 to the Antarctic Treaty. Claimant states and others havebeen engaged for 50 years in a delicate dance around their various positions onterritorial sovereignty, and one of the consequences of this appears to have been aconsiderable sensitivity to the prerogatives of sovereign freedom of action inAntarctica, on the part of both claimant and non-claimants. Both have beeninvariably resistant to internationalising Antarctic decision-making beyond thatdeemed absolutely essential for resolution of clear and present dangers. This hasinfluenced the degree of internationalisation that has been possible within the EIAsystem, amongst others (Hemmings and Kriwoken, 2010).

Agreement to anything in the ATS requires consensus and so a ready mech-anism is available to thwart any unwelcome developments. So, an internationalSEA process perceived as constraining a state’s activities (including in the parts ofAntarctica that particular states see as their own territory) may face particulardifficulties. Addressing this state of affairs is plainly an issue broader and deeperthan SEA. However, pending resolution of the underlying territorial issues, statesmay still be able to agree to work strategically on certain issues or activities, solong as this can be cast in terms at least neutral as far as their strategic territorialand resource interests in Antarctica are concerned. A selective approach wouldgreatly reduce the scope and effectiveness of potential SEA applications inAntarctica, but at the same time it may be the only way in which states (par-ticularly claimant states) will commit to collective strategic decision-making in theshort-term.

Improving on the Strategic Consideration of AntarcticEnvironmental Issues

A potential role for SEA in Antarctica, and how it would relate to EIA, wasdiscussed by the Subglacial Antarctic Lake Exploration Group of Specialists(SALEGOS), a group of the Scientific Committee of Antarctic Research (SCAR)tasked with discussing the research and exploration of subglacial lakes, and


strategies that would minimise environmental contamination. At its November2001 meeting, SALEGOS discussed employing SEA to streamline the EIA pro-cesses for the different sub-components of the program:

The Group recognized that due to the complexity and magnitude of theproposed scientific plan, which will require a wide range of differentactivities over several years that a series of EIAs will be necessary. Pre-liminary assessments (PA), initial environmental evaluations (IEEs),comprehensive environmental evaluations (CEEs) would all be needed atsome stage to adequately cover the range of activities envisioned duringsubglacial lake exploration. Also the range of activities that will be con-ducted, will probably require differing levels of environmental assessment.This highlights the need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)to adequately plan the exploration program including the assessment ofcumulative impacts. (SALEGOS, 2001, Appendix 4, pp. 2–3).

As envisioned in this remarkably clear statement, SEA would apply EIAapproaches but transcend the limitations of the activity-based EIA process bysetting impact assessment in a broader context. It would address a certain type ofactivity (in this case deep ice drilling) across a particular Antarctic environment —the subglacial lake environment, or more precisely the subglacial. SALEGOS wentas far as noting the need to identify “…a lead nation or at a minimum, theformation of an interim planning group charged with conducting a StrategicEnvironmental Assessment (SEA) of the overall program” as some of key sci-entific and technological milestones for the development and implementation of asubglacial lake exploration Program in the short term (up to three years from themeeting) (SALEGOS, 2001, p. 18 and 26). In practice this idea was never put intoaction, and the drilling of subglacial lakes remains a contentious issue (Bastmeijerand Roura, 2008; Scott, 2008; Hemmings and Kriwoken, 2010).

While there is a clear case for Antarctic SEA, it is less clear who should, couldor would do it. Given the international composition of the ATS institutions anddiverse national interests, there is scope for several types of SEA, carried outinternationally, multi- or bilaterally, or at the level of individual National AntarcticProgram. The most obvious option (and therefore the most likely minimal appli-cation of SEA in the ATS) is for individual program operators (governmental ornon-governmental) to carry out SEA for their own programs and/or activities. Thistype of initiative would clearly be a step forward, but could not cover develop-ments at the level of regions or of activity types, or activities from multipleoperators. Nevertheless, in the Antarctic context there are several bodiesand procedures that could be adapted to SEA and provide advice or actual data


(e.g. CEP, environmental monitoring initiatives, existing EIA procedures, etc.) tosupport initiatives at any of these levels.

The concept of SEA should follow some guiding principles, but the processcould take many different forms (Verheem and Tonk, 2000). SEA should fit intoexisting decision-making processes (Brown and Thérivel, 2000; Sheathe et al.,2001; Nitz and Brown, 2001). SEA can be EIA-derived or inspired, or it can beobjective-led. Both applications can be complementary and integrated into an SEA(Sheathe, 2001). Antarctic SEA could follow any of these models. It has beensuggested that SEA should be “grafted” into the existing decision making pro-cesses (Brown and Thérivel, 2000), and this would seem one of the ways forwardin the case of Antarctica. Some elements of a SEA process could be extracted fromthe existing EIA processes (particularly CEE) or those used in the implementationof Annex V on Protected Areas. However, according to (Wiseman, 1996), “theneed defines the process”. The issues, priorities and needs that set the context inwhich SEA is done, will likely determine the form that SEA should take. Thus,SEA can have many forms, and use methods and techniques adapted to the natureof decision-making in Antarctic institutions, and consequently differ from thecurrent decision-making processes while adapting some of their elements.

At present decisions concerning environmental issues for a substantial part of theATS are taken by the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs).These decisions are informed by a variety of actors and instruments acting at diversetemporal and hierarchical levels, including the work of the CEP as a whole, CEPcontact groups tasked to address specific issues, such as management plans forprotected areas; and SCAR, which has the mandate and expertise to advise theATCM on scientific matters. Discussions of these various bodies address bothregular/recurrent as well as emerging matters. Further integration across the ATSmay be required so that strategic issues do not fall through various gaps in the system.Integration creates a new entity where new relationships are established betweenindividual entities. These entities have specific characteristics and dynamics that incombination act in a different way than by themselves (Eggenberg and Partidário,2000). In this context, integration means that new relationships and linkages arecreated so that the whole — in this case, the ATS at large — acts in a more efficientway than the combination of individual Parties’ actions in order to meet the objec-tives of the Protocol and generally strategic conservation objectives.

Conclusions and Future Developments

The complexities of contemporary human activity in Antarctica (its nature, spatialand temporal pattern and flux, the number and type of actors, etc), the reasonably


foreseeable trajectories of activity, and the context of anthropogenic climatechange effects in Antarctica, require us to develop more strategic approaches tooperational environmental management than are presently found under the ATS.Without such approaches there may be a failure to deliver the high policyobjectives of that system, most recently enunciated in the environmental protectionimperatives of the Protocol and operationalised through commitments therein tohigh technical standards and planning of our activities. Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment appears one obvious route through which to develop and codify newstrategic approaches relating to management of the Antarctic environment,because it builds on existing norms of scientifically grounded EIA and othermanagement tools which are reasonably well developed (and certainly formallygrounded) under the Protocol and in some cases earlier ATS practice.

The geopolitical complexities and realities of the Antarctic space necessarilyconstrain what is possible in the near and medium term, and how it is arrived at.But these are not, in our judgement, an absolute block to the adoption of SEAwithin the ATS. This is a system which is comfortable with technical and soph-isticated constructs, has specialist structures to which it can delegate their devel-opment and review, and some of whose members will have some experience ofSEA domestically and regionally such as within the European Union. There is abasis for optimism in these facts.

However, acceptance of SEA will require the development of an understandingof it conceptually and operationally in a number of Antarctic states that hithertohave had no, or little, exposure to it in other contexts. This is a not unfamiliarsituation within the ATS. Much of the environmental development of the ATS,and much that is now codified in the Protocol or more recent mandatory orhortatory practice, was at an earlier date the cutting edge proposal of one or a fewstates. Generally, best practice in Antarctica has not sprung fully-formed from thecollective will of the entirety of Parties, but from the subsequent general adoption(through consensus decision-making) of practices pioneered by a subset of theParties. The demonstration that a practice, or approach, works, does not imposeonerous burdens, and offers material benefits (whether to the environment, oper-ational efficiency, scientific outcome, or financial cost) is the essential first stage ingaining general acceptance.

SEA will, for its institutional acceptability, likely have to be framed in the firstinstance as a mechanism for the provision of technical advice to the policy fora ofthe ATS, rather than as a further definitive legally binding gatekeeper for Antarcticactivities. The corollary of this is that mechanisms for the utilisation of SEA by theexisting advisory body of the CEP need to be developed. For the comfort of boththe ATS policy fora (the ATCM) and its advisory body (the CEP), practical


demonstration of the utility of SEA may best be achieved through a non-threa-tening model. There seems little sense in proposing the coupling of SEA withactivity typologies which are politically sensitive or inherently complex in theirown right in the first instance (such as, e.g. biological prospecting), although itmay be that a mature Antarctic SEA is of particular value precisely in relation tosome of these activities.

We suggest two immediate considerations for the realisation of SEA inAntarctica. One is the perhaps tactical necessity of explicitly confining any SEAefforts to the Antarctic “terrestrial” environment in the first instance, so that thisproject falls essentially within the purview of a single instrument (the Protocol). Thisavoids any of the jurisdictional problems around instrument-crossing proposals andthe particular difficulties in themarine environment, evenwithin the ATS let alone inrelation to the issue of jurisdictional competence between ATS instruments andglobal instruments such as the Law of the Sea Convention. This approach wouldenable any of a number of possibilities in which SEA could be realised, perhaps in astagedmanner. Although plainly presently an evenmore difficult area juridically andin relation to resource exploitation interests, there is no a priori reason why SEAshould not be applicable to the Antarctic marine environment too.

Second, whilst SEA might ideally be given effect through a new explicit SEAinstrument (by which we mean any of a range of options from a new Annex to theProtocol to substantive amendment of an existing annex —most obviously Annex Ion EIA), given the apparent reluctance of Parties to adopt new instruments,perhaps a de facto achievement might be possible using the existing instruments.These options encompass both the informal and formal spectrum of SEA possi-bilities (Fischer, 2002). The present instruments for EIA and the designation ofprotected areas could be used in an ad hoc manner to address strategic environ-mental needs for particular regions, environmental domains, or activity typologies,were there sufficient political will. This would require the acknowledgment byParties that new uses are being made of decision-making and assessment processesalready in place, which in itself of course requires affirmative policy choices. Butthis could overcome the more severe policy constraints on elaborating a newinstrument to apply an imperfectly understood concept. It would leave open theoption of subsequently moving to such a dedicated instrument — and would allowthis to be developed (as in the case of other environmental initiatives subsequentlyseparately codified) on the basis of practical experience gained.

The proposals above, in our view, seem within reach despite the complexity ofAntarctic decision making and the tensions between internationally agreedobjectives and national interests. Failing to address strategic environmental needsmust surely raise concerns that the original objectives of the Protocol are not taken


seriously enough to warrant reasonable updating of the mechanisms and practicesof states.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge their colleagues from state, observer and expert del-egations at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings over many years, with whomthe challenges of sensible international management of Antarctica have beenlearnt. In particular, the authors thank Dr. Kees Bastmeijer (University of Tilburg),Dr. Harry Keys (Department of Conservation, New Zealand), and ChristianLambrechts (United Nations Environment Programme). The useful comments onthe manuscript made by two anonymous referees are also acknowledged. RicardoRoura acknowledges the support of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition todevelop the concept of SEA in the Antarctic. We also acknowledge the EIAdatabase maintained by the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat in Buenos Aires, and thework of its staff in maintaining this critical resource. Of course, none of thesepeople should necessarily be implicated in the positions taken by the authors here.

References1

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (1999). Large scale Antarctic tourism.Information Paper 121, XIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Lima, 24 May–4June 1999.

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (2000). Antarctic Strategic Environ-mental Assessment: Application to the growing Antarctic tourism industry. InformationPaper 10, XII Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting, The Hague, 11–15September 2000.

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (2001). Strategic needs and decision-making in Antarctica. Information Paper 54, XXIV Antarctic Treaty ConsultativeMeeting, St Petersburg, 9–20 July 2001.

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (2002). Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment in Antarctica: A “Stepping Stone” to Madrid Protocol objectives. Infor-mation Paper 82, XXV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Warsaw, 10–20September 2002.

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (2006): Strategic issues posed bycommercial tourism in the Antarctic Treaty Area. Information Paper 120, XXIX Ant-arctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Edinburgh, 12–23 June 2006.

1Documents submitted to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and other documents of theAntarctic Treaty System are available from the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website www.ats.aq.


Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (2004). Are more Antarctic stationsjustified? Information Paper 94, XXVII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, CapeTown, 24 May–4 June 2004.

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (2007). Strengthening the CEE process.Information Paper 84, XXX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, New Delhi, 30April–11 May 2007.

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) (2008). A Decade of Antarctic Tourism:Status, Change and Actions Needed. Information Paper 41, XXXI Antarctic TreatyConsultative Meeting, Kyiv, 2–13 June 2008.

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) (2005). Guidelines for EnvironmentalImpact Assessment in Antarctica. Attachment to Resolution 4 (2005), XXVIII AntarcticTreaty Consultative Meeting, Stockholm, 6–17 June 2005.

Bastmeijer, K (2003). The Antarctic Environmental Protocol and its Domestic LegalImplementation. Kluwer Law International: The Hague.

Bastmeijer, K (2009). A long term strategy for Antarctic tourism: The key to decisionmaking within the Antarctic Treaty System? In Polar Tourism: Human, Environmentaland Governance Dimensions, P Maher, E Stewart and M Lück (eds.), Elmsford, NY:Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Bastmeijer, K and RM Roura (2004). Regulating Antarctic tourism and the precautionaryprinciple. The American Journal of International Law, 98(4), 763–781.

Bastmeijer, K and RM Roura (2008). Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica. InTheory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, K Bast-meijer and T Koivurova (eds.), Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Peru, Russian Federation, Ukraine, UnitedKingdom (2007). International Workshop of Antarctic Competent Authorities. Infor-mation Paper 18, XXX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, New Delhi, 30 April–11 May 2007.

Brown, AL and R Thérivel (2000). Principles to guide the development of strategicenvironmental assessment methodology. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,18(3), 183–189.

Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) (2006). Antarctica’s future environmentalchallenges. Report of the CEP workshop. United Kingdom: Edinburgh.

De Poorter, M and J Dalziell (eds.) (1996). Cumulative Impacts: Minimization andManagement. Washington DC: IUCN.

Eggenberg, M and MDR Partidário (2000). Development of a framework to assist theintegration of environmental, social and economic issues in spatial planning. ImpactAssessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 204.

Fischer, TB (2002). Strategic Environmental Assessment performance criteria — Thesame requirements for every assessment? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policyand Management, 4(1), 83–99.


France (2008). A Mechanism for Centralizing Tourism and Non-governmental ActivityDeclarations and Authorization Requests Suitable for Taking Cumulative Impacts intoAccount. Working paper 34, XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kyiv, 2–13June 2008.

France, New Zealand, Russian Federation, and United States (2009). Report of the JointCEP/SC-CAMLR Workshop. Working paper 55, XXXII Antarctic Treaty ConsultativeMeeting, Baltimore, 6–17 April 2009.

Germany (2000). Exchange of information on the application of Articles 3 and 8 as well asAnnex I of the Protocol. Working Paper 2, XII Special Antarctic Treaty ConsultativeMeeting, The Hague, 11–15 September 2000.

Gunn, J and BF Noble (2010). Conceptual and methodological challenges to integratingSEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review.doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.12.003

Headland, RK (1994). Historical development of Antarctic Tourism. Annals of TourismResearch, 21(2), 269–280.

Hemmings, AD (2005). A question of politics: bioprospecting and the Antarctic TreatySystem. In Antarctic Bioprospecting, AD Hemmings and M Rogan-Finnemore (eds.),Christchurch: Gateway Antarctica.

Hemmings, AD (2007). Globalisation’s cold genius and the ending of Antarctic isolation.In Looking South: Australia’s Antarctic Agenda, LK Kriwoken, J Jabour and ADHemmings (eds.), Leichhardt: The Federation Press.

Hemmings, AD (2009). From the new geopolitics of resources to nanotechnology:Emerging challenges of globalism in Antarctica. Yearbook of Polar Law, 1, 55–72.

Hemmings, AD (2010a). Environmental Law – Antarctica. In The Law and Politics ofSustainability, Volume 3, Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability, JB Ruhl, K Bos-selmann and DS Fogel (eds.), Great Barrington MA: Berkshire.

Hemmings, AD (2010b). Does bioprospecting risk moral hazard for science in the Ant-arctic Treaty System? Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 10. doi: 10.3354/esep00103.

Hemmings, AD and K Kriwoken (2010). High level Antarctic EIA under the MadridProtocol: state practice and the effectiveness of the Comprehensive EnvironmentalEvaluation process. International Environmental Agreements, 10. doi 10.1007/s10784-010-9119-5. [online 11.2.10]

Hemmings, AD and M Rogan-Finnemore (2008). Access, Obligations and Benefits: Reg-ulatingBioprospecting in theAntarctic. InBiodiversityConservation, Law þ Livelihoods:Bridging the North-South Divide, MI Jeffery, J Firestone and K Bubna-Litic (eds.), NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Hemmings, AD and RM Roura (2003). A square peg in a round hole: Fitting impactassessment under the Antarctic environmental protocol to Antarctic tourism. ImpactAssessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 13–24.


Hemmings, AD, KR Scott and M Rogan-Finnemore (2007). Broadening the duty inrelation to Environmental Impact Assessment across the legal instruments applying inAntarctica. Restoring the Rule of Law in International Affairs. 15th Annual Conference,Australian & New Zealand Society of International Law, Canberra, 28–30 June. http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/IHLRes/2007/11.html#fn1

Herber, BP (2006). Biological prospecting in Antarctica: the search for a policy regime.Polar Record, 42, 139–146.

IAATO (International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators) (2008). Tourism stat-istics. Online. Providence, USA: IAATO. Available HTTP: http://www.iaato.org/stats/(accessed 1 September 2008).

Italy (2004). Preliminary consideration on “Strategic Environmental Assessment”, the caseof Edmonson Point Area, Ross Sea, Antarctica. Information Paper 42, XXVII AntarcticTreaty Consultative Meeting, Cape Town, 24 May–4 June 2004.

Kriwoken, LK and D Rootes (2000). Tourism on ice: Environmental impact assessment ofAntarctic tourism. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(2), 138–150.

Lee, N and F Walsh (1992). Strategic environmental assessment: An overview. ProjectAppraisal, 7(3), 126.

Lynch, HJ, K Crosbie, WF Fagan and R Naveen (2009). Spatial patterns of tour ship trafficin the Antarctic Peninsula region. Antarctic Science, 22(2), 123–130.

Netherlands (2010). Report of the ATCM Intersessional Contact Group to Examine theIssue of Biological Prospecting in the Antarctic Treaty Area. Working Paper 13,XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Punta del Este, 3–14 May 2010.

New Zealand (2010). Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral ResourceActivities. Wellington: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/01-Treaties-for-which-NZ-is-Depositary/0-Antarctic-Mineral-Resource.php

Nitz, T and AL Brown (2001). SEA must learn how policy making works. Journal ofEnvironmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(3), 329–342. Special Issue:Strategic Assessment Tools. W Sheathe (ed.).

Nooteboom, S (2000). Environmental assessment of strategic decisions and projectdecisions: Interactions and benefits. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(2),152.

Rothwell, DR (2000). Polar environmental protection and international law: The 1991Antarctic protocol. European Journal of International Law, 11(3), 591–614.

Roura, RM (2010). Cultural heritage tourism in Antarctica and Svalbard: Patterns,impacts, and policies. In Tourism and change in the Polar Regions: Climate,Environment and Experiences, M Hall and J Saarinen (eds.), Routledge. pp. 180–203.

Roura, RM (in press). “Turismo Polar” [Polar tourism] In Diccionario de Turismo [Dic-tionary of Tourism], E Acebo Ibáñez and RG Schlüter, Regina G, Buenos Aires:Editorial Claridad.


Roura, RM and AD Hemmings (2002). Introducing Strategic Environmental Assessmentin a new context: Strategic needs and decision-making in Antarctica, and the need forSEA. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference Event of the International Associ-ation for Impact Assessment: Assessing the Impact of Impact Assessment, 15–21 June2001, The Hague, The Netherlands. Fargo, USA: International Association for ImpactAssessment.

Roura, RM, AD Hemmings and N Semenova (2002). ,:

. [Strategic needs, strategic processes:Use of Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Antarctic Treaty System.]Proceedings of the Conference on Studies and Protection of the Environment inAntarctica, 13–15 of November 2002. p. XX. San Petersburg, Russian Federation:Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute of Rosgidromet (Russian Federal Service ofHydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring).

SALEGOS (Subglacial Antarctic Lake Exploration Group of Specialists) (2001). Reportof the Subglacial Antarctic Lake Exploration Group of Specialists (SALEGOS)Meeting — I Bologna, Italy, 29–30 November 2001. http://salegos-scar.montana.edu/Accessed April 2010.

Scott, K (2008). Regulating subglacial aquatic research under the Antarctic Treaty System.New Zealand Universities Law Review, 23, 134–154.

Scott, SV (2001). How cautious is precautious?: Antarctic tourism and the precautionaryprinciple. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50(4), 963–971.

Sheathe, W (2001). The rise of strategic assessment tools. Journal of EnvironmentalAssessment Policy and Management, 3(3), iii–x. Special Issue: Strategic AssessmentTools. W Sheathe (ed.).

Sheathe, W, S Dagg, J Richardson, R Aschermann, J Palerm and U Steen (2001). StrategicEnvironmental Assessment (SEA) and integration of the environment into strategicdecision making. European Commission Contract No. B4-3040/99/136634/MAR/B4.Available from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/sea-support.htm).

South Korea (2010). The Republic of Korea’s contribution to Antarctic science byinstalling a new permanent station in Terra Nova Bay, Ross Sea. Information Paper 54,XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Punta del Este, 3–14 May 2010.

Tin, T, AD Hemmings and RM Roura (2008). Pressures on the Wilderness Values of theAntarctic Continent. International Journal of Wilderness, 14(3), 7–12. http://www.wilderness.net/library/documents/IJWDec08_Tin.pdf

Treweek, J, R Therivel, S Thompsom and M Slater (2005). Principles for the use ofStrategic Environmental Assessment as a tool for promoting the conservation andsustainable use of diversity. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Man-agement, 7(2), 173–199.

United Kingdom (2010). Assessing cumulative environmental impacts: Identifying thedistribution and concentration of national operator activities in Antarctica. Working


Paper 23, XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Punta del Este, 3–14 May2010.

United States (2011). Report of the Depository Government of the Antarctic Treaty and itsProtocol in accordance with Recommendation XIII-2. Information Paper 22, XXXIVAntarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Buenos Aires, 20 June–1 July, 2011.

Verheem, R (1999). SEA Performance criteria, Presentation at the IAIA 1999 Glasgowmeeting, June 16–20, http://www.iaia.org

Verheem, RAA and JAMN Tonk (2000). Strategic Environmental Assessment: Oneconcept, multiple forms. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 177–182.

Wiseman, K (1996). Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): A primer. Division ofWater, Environment and Water Technology. CSIR, Stellenbosch, South Africa: http://fred.csir.co.za/www/sea/primer/seasum.htm.

Wood, C (1995). Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment:A Comparative Review. London: Longman Scientific and Technical.


Realising Strategic Environmental Assessment in Antarctica

Documents

Transcript of Realising Strategic Environmental Assessment in Antarctica