Skip navigation


You are in:  Home » Publications » Reports » Report 17

SCAR Report No 17, August 1999

SCAR Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation GOSEAC  
Report of GOSEAC IX
Bremerhaven, Germany, 7-11 July 1997.

Participants at the ninth meeting were: D W H Walton (Convenor), K Birkenmajer, E S E Fanta, M Fukuchi, M C Kennicutt II, H Miller, M Oehme, and J Valencia. M De Poorter (ASOC) and J Plötz (Environmental Officer, Alfred-Wegener-Institut) attended as Observers. G Kleinschmidt (Chairman of the German National Committee for SCAR) attended the first day of the meeting. P D Clarkson (Executive Secretary, SCAR) acted as Secretary to GOSEAC. Apologies were received from J M Acero and P J Barrett. A list of addresses of GOSEAC members and observers is given in Appendix 1.

Professor Dr Max Tilzer, Director of Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung welcomed the participants to Bremerhaven. He spoke of the importance of the Antarctic environment and highlighted the extensive clean-up operation undertaken by Germany in the Schirmacher Hills. Professor Dr Georg Kleinschmidt, Chairman of the German National Committee for SCAR, then spoke of his own pleasure to welcome the SCAR Group to Germany and wished the Group a very successful meeting.

1. Adoption of the agenda and appointment of rapporteurs

The revised agenda (see Appendix 1) was adopted. Rapporteurs were appointed for the following agenda items:
1–3 D W H Walton; 4.1–4.4.3 K Birkenmajer; 4.4.4–4.6 M C Kennicutt;
5 H Miller; 6 M Oehme; 7 E S E Fanta; 8 J Valencia; 9–11 M De Poorter.

2. Matters arising

The Convenor advised that a number of items arising from GOSEAC VIII were already listed as agenda items.

2.1 Membership of GOSEAC

The Convenor reported on changes to membership of the Group, following a review by the Executive Committee at XXIV SCAR. M Manzoni would retire and P Trehen had resigned. M C Kennicutt (previously Co-opted Member) and M Fukuchi become members of the Group. J C A Sayers had resigned from the Group shortly before the meeting due to starting his new appointment as the Executive Secretary of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP). The Convenor welcomed the new members to the Group and recalled with gratitude the valuable contributions that the departing members had made over several years, noting particularly the link with the Standing Committee on Antarctic Logistics and Operations (SCALOP). He hoped that this invaluable link would be maintained in the future.

2.2 Pristine areas

H Miller reported that the Working Group on Glaciology had discussed the possibility of identifying pristine areas on two occasions and had sought advice from COMNAP on records of human activities in such areas. COMNAP had concluded that reports of much of the early phase of activities inland had been poorly documented and it was now impossible to be certain that any area had remained unvisited. The Working Group had pointed out that the record of any activity was restricted to a single annual layer of snow, and that in some instances such activity had been valuable as a time marker for investigations of previous climate patterns. It was concluded that it was not possible to designate any pristine areas although annual snow fall produced a new pristine surface each year. It might still be considered useful to provide protection to an area in order to limit human activities but the purpose of such an area would need to be carefully defined.

Some members raised the question of whether Forlidas and Davis Ponds (SPA 23) could be considered as a pristine area. Subglacial lakes were considered to be pristine areas and the Group considered that, in view of the present discussions on Vostok Lake, SCAR should raise the question with the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) as to whether some could be designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs).

2.3 Discussions with NGOs

The Convenor reported on the outcome of discussions amongst Chief Officers concerning the production of a video on Antarctic science jointly with the NGOs. It was considered to be a considerable task and no individual had been prepared to accept the role of co-ordinator. There was therefore no progress.

3. Report of XXI ATCM

3.1 TEWG and WG II

The Convenor tabled the draft report of the Treaty Meeting and provided some general comments on the meeting. The facilities and support had been exceptionally well organized in Christchurch.

Revised rules of procedure were agreed for the ATCM and new rules of procedure were drafted for the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP). Japan was expected to complete ratification before the end of 1997 thus bringing the Protocol into force. This would mean that at the next meeting in Tromsø the Transitional Environmental Working Group (TEWG) would be replaced by the CEP. Despite attempts by various Parties to limit the number of papers there were still more than 170 papers tabled.

The TEWG was at its most efficient with O Orheim as Chairman. All of the protected area plans commented on by GOSEAC - the new plans for Botany Bay and Lewis Bay and the revised plans for Canada Glacier, Cierva Point, Potter Peninsula and Harmony Point - were accepted with virtually no changes. A paper from the United Kingdom took up suggestions raised originally by the SCAR/IUCN Workshop on Protected Areas. The ATCM agreed to hold a workshop prior to the Tromsø meeting to consider gaps in the present system, the SCAR ecosystem classification matrix and the procedures for reviewing management plans. SCAR, along with Australia, Chile, Norway and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), was asked to organize this.

The draft Guide for the Preparation of Management Plans for Specially Protected Areas tabled by SCAR was considered by some Parties to require further improvements. It was agreed that SCAR would incorporate any amendments received and then the United Kingdom would co-ordinate any further intersessional work to develop an improved draft for XXII ATCM.

Papers tabled by Argentina, and by New Zealand, on the interpretation of environmental impact assessment procedures incorporated many of the ideas developed by GOSEAC over the last two years. TEWG agreed to intersessional consultations, co-ordinated by Australia, to analyse the usefulness of existing EIA procedure guidelines with a view to discussing possible improvements at XXII ATCM. The report of the IUCN workshop on cumulative impacts was welcomed as a basis on which the CEP could consider this difficult area. IUCN was recommended to develop the material further with interested Parties and SCAR and contribute a further paper to XXII ATCM.

The joint SCAR/COMNAP paper on environmental monitoring was welcomed by all the Parties. The report on the two workshops had been circulated to all Parties before the meeting. The ATCM was happy to endorse the production by COMNAP of a technical handbook on techniques, with advice from SCAR, and that SCAR undertake a review of key research issues, that data management be considered by the SCAR/COMNAP Data Management Group and that COMNAP should develop methods for co-ordinating monitoring activities.

The SCAR paper on the State of the Antarctic Environment Report (SAER), together with one from New Zealand, generated a great deal of discussion and the participation of almost all the countries represented at TEWG. Parties saw the utility of this approach but had concerns about the scope, cost and management of the production of the SAER. New Zealand's intention to prepare a Ross Sea Region State of the Environment Report was seen as complementary to the continent-wide study but it was agreed that the two projects should not be coupled together. It was agreed that SCAR would need to play a major role in the preparation of the scientific sections of the report but that policy and recommendations would be the concern of the CEP. To develop the proposal, from the basis provided by SCAR, it was agreed that New Zealand would co-ordinate intersessional activities between all interested Parties, observers and experts. The objectives of the consultation would be to develop clear objectives, recommend whether the report should be summary or comprehensive, consider the report framework, propose a time frame, and consider the resources necessary to produce the report and where they might be obtained. All those wishing to take part were required to indicate their interest to New Zealand by the end of June 1997. SCAR had indicated that it wished to be included in the consultations.

WG II welcomed the implementation of the SCAR/COMNAP Antarctic Master Directory.

There was considerable discussion of Vostok Lake and the current proposals for investigating the water and sediment in the lake. Russia reported on further geophysical work using bore hole tools loaned by Germany. Interest had been expressed by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) in using Vostok Lake as a trial for equipment designed to sample beneath the ice cover on Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter. In response to concern expressed by SCAR and others about the penetration of the lake, Russia stated that there would be no penetration until the project had been fully assessed by the international scientific community and subjected to full environmental assessment.

H Miller noted that the SCAR position had always been that equipment and methods should be tested on other subglacial lakes first. Interest in the project had also been expressed by the European Polar Board. He considered that a primary stage could be the use of a "Philbert-type" probe which would melt its way into the lake resealing the hole behind it to limit contamination.

The UK tabled a paper based on key recommendations of the SCAR/IUCN Workshop on Environmental Education and Training. It was agreed that Australia would co-ordinate the production of a document for the public describing the operation and achievements of the Antarctic Treaty System, whilst COMNAP and the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) agreed to collect information on education and training schemes used by national operators and tour operators. Chile offered to host a workshop on education and training of people going to the Antarctic and this will be held in conjunction with the SCAR/COMNAP meeting in Concepción in July 1998. New Zealand announced it would be tabling a "Layperson's Guide to the Protocol" next year.

3.2 Liability

There was some progress but the activities are coming to a standstill. The next intersessional meeting will prepare a paper for XXII ATCM summarising the present position and seeking guidance on the next steps.

3.3 Tourism

There was considerable discussion of exactly what was required from tourist operators in terms of reports on activities. A standard form was agreed and will be tested next season. The site survey project, supported jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom and undertaken by R Naveen was discussed as an important step in assessing possible impacts on these sites. IAATO drew attention to the support its members had provided to national operators in the last season and encouraged national operators to request support for both science and logistic activities on a co-operative basis.

IAATO presented a paper on terms of reference for an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) of ship-based activities around the Antarctic Peninsula. IAATO noted that its members were concerned about how to ensure that all appropriate Parties were informed about the proposed activities. Parties agreed that differing legislative requirements could make a single IEE difficult but noted that wide circulation could help in providing information towards possible cumulative impacts.

4. Protected and Managed Areas

4.1 Handbook

During the GOSEAC VIII meeting, the Group critically examined the draft of this handbook. The final version was circulated to SCAR National Committees and Chief Officers for comment. Comments and corrigenda received were incorporated into a final draft version that was re-titled "Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas" and was tabled by SCAR at XXI ATCM as a Working Paper (XXI ATCM/WP18) under Agenda Item 6.f. In general, the "Guide" was well-received but some Delegations felt that some further revision was required. The offer by United Kingdom Delegation to undertake this work and to present a revised version at XXII ATCM was accepted.

4.2 List of Protected Areas

The Convenor introduced a "List of Protected Areas in Antarctica", published by the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office (London) in collaboration with the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), that was tabled at XXI ATCM (IP66). The Group commended this publication as a very valuable and useful document and hoped that it would be made widely available. The opinion was expressed that the content of the volume should be made available on the Internet. It was recognized that a new version of the "List" would be necessary when the protected areas are re-numbered following the entry into force of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the establishment of the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP). At present, the "List" is an excellent source of information, particularly for tour operators. The Convenor and his colleagues were congratulated on this publication.

4.3 Agenda for proposed workshop on Protected Areas

The Convenor reported that this workshop was proposed at XXI ATCM as a one-day workshop to be held immediately prior to the start of XXII ATCM. The Agenda for the proposed workshop will be based on the Terms of Reference given in the Draft Final Report of XXI ATCM (paragraph 73):

i. compare the protected areas currently designated against the categories of areas set out in Article 3(2) of Annex V in order to identify gaps in the existing system;
ii. examine the SCAR ecosystem classification matrix for protected areas to identify the changes that are needed so that the matrix better incorporates the categories of areas set out in Article 3(2) of Annex V;
iii. identify, where possible, areas which might be designated to fill any gaps found in the existing system; and
iv. examine, and where possible identify ways to improve, the procedure for developing and reviewing proposals for ASPAs.

In the ensuing discussion, the Group proposed that the following points should be considered by the Workshop Steering Committee when constructing the agenda:

i. wilderness and aesthetic values; representative examples of the most important ecosystems (benthic ecosystems seem to be poorly represented at present); type locations of species; on-going and planned research; outstanding geological/ geomorphological features (to be discussed with the Chief Officer of the Working Group on Geology). The matter of outstanding glaciological features, including ice-streams, blue-ice areas and subglacial lakes, was discussed at some length but no conclusion was reached on whether such features need special protection and, if so, how this could be achieved. The definition of marine areas for protection was regarded as requiring the advice of CCAMLR to evaluate the scientific priorities versus the commercial priorities. It was noted that XXI ATCM had provided a definition of "significant marine area" to determine more precisely which plans would need review by CCAMLR. Finally the basis on which the boundaries to protected areas should be defined needs further discussion.

ii. The SCAR ecosystem classification matrix for protected areas could be broadened by including some new aspects, such as fossils, meteorites, ventifacts, and outstanding geological and geomorphological features. It was noted that aesthetic and wilderness values are not included.

iii. The geographical distribution of protected areas is very uneven in the Antarctic. This is a function of the paucity and uneven distribution of ice-free ground (approximately 0.4% of the continent), the distribution of scientific stations and the areas of tourist interest. When considering the gaps in the existing geographical distribution, special consideration should given to protecting those outstanding features identified above (see section (i)).

iv. The current procedures for the review process of management plans are necessarily slow, because of the requirements for adequate consultation, and are critically dependent on existing schedules: GOSEAC meets annually; SCAR meets biennially but the SCAR Executive Committee meets once between SCAR meetings; ATCPs meet annually at the ATCM and presumably the CEP will also meet annually; CCAMLR also needs to be involved in the consultations for those areas with significant marine components. These schedules may change when the CEP and an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat are established and then the roles of GOSEAC and SCAR will need to be discussed in relation to a changed situation.

4.4 Management plans

4.4.1 New College Valley, Caper Bird, Ross Island (SPA no 20)

A new Management Plan for a Specially Protected Area (SPA), prepared by New Zealand, was tabled. This Plan includes the previous Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) no 10 (Caughley Beach) and the previous SPA no 20 (New College Valley).

The Group appraised the content of the proposal and indicated some parts that could be clarified or supplemented: the lack of a general geological description of the Area; the lack of any indication on the map of the distribution of moss patches; the unclear identification on the ground of some boundaries of the Area.

The Group recommended that the Plan should be returned to the originator with suggestions for changes.

4.4.2 Cape Royds, Ross Island (new SPA)

This Management Plan, prepared by New Zealand, is for a proposed new SPA to protect Historic Site no 15. The Area includes the hut built for Sir Ernest Shackleton's 1907&emdash;09 Nimrod expedition. The Group recommended that this Plan should be accepted, subject to minor modifications, including a change of name to avoid confusion with SSSI no 1.

4.4.3 Cape Adare (new SPA)

This Management Plan, prepared by New Zealand, is for a proposed new SPA to protect Historic Site no 22. The Area includes the huts built for Carsten Borchgrevink's 1898&emdash;99 Southern Cross expedition and for the northern party of Captain R F Scott's 1910&emdash;13 Terra Nova expedition. The Group recommended that this Plan should be accepted, subject to minor modifications.

4.4.4 Western Shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands (SSSI no 8)

This Management Plan, prepared by Poland, is a new Plan for existing SSSI no 8.

It was unclear whether other countries with an interest in the Area had been fully consulted in the drafting process and the originator should be urged to consult all interested parties before the Plan is submitted to the ATCM. Specific comments were made concerning the maps, including the naming of features, and the clarification of contour units and intervals. It was noted that all permits should be issued for a finite period and this should be indicated in the Plan. The agreed wording for reporting requirements needs to be inserted. The Convenor will provide the originator with an annotated copy of the Plan with suggested revisions.

4.4.5 Lion's Rump, King George Island, South Shetland Islands (SSSI no 34)

This Management Plan, prepared by Poland, is a new Plan for existing SSSI no 34.

The Group suggested that this Plan should be submitted as a SPA, rather than a SSSI, because there are no long-term scientific studies in progress or planned and it is a representative example of the terrestrial, limnological and littoral habitats of the maritime Antarctic. In this respect, improved descriptions of the sublittoral areas and of the terrestrial vegetation are needed. The maps need to be up-dated, improved and standardized. It was suggested that access to the Area from the sea should be from a landing beach outside the Area. Finally, the originator should be advised that, because the Area includes a marine component, the Plan may need to be reviewed by CCAMLR before submission to the ATCM. The Convenor will provide the originator with an annotated copy of the Plan with suggested revisions.

4.4.6 Hut Point, Ross Island (new SPA)

This Management Plan, prepared by New Zealand, is for a proposed new SPA to protect Historic Site no 18. At present the Area comprises the hut built for Captain R F Scott's 1901&emdash;04 Discovery expedition.
The Group agreed that this Plan should be accepted, subject to modifications, including the suggestion that the Area should be larger than the hut itself to provide a buffer zone.
The Convenor will provide the originator with an annotated copy of the Plan.

4.5 Environmental Code of Conduct for the Dry Valleys

"An Environmental Code of Conduct for the McMurdo Dry Valleys", (XXI ATCM/IP56) submitted by New Zealand, was tabled. The Group discussed whether this Code of Conduct could be generalized and applied to other areas of the Antarctic. The general concept of a code of conduct was supported and it was suggested that the various existing guides and codes of conduct for visitors to the Antarctic could be surveyed and the common practices could be summarized into a general guide to provide a degree of conformity. This survey would be most appropriately undertaken in conjunction with the workshop on Education and Training (see item 7).

4.6 Management of the Dry Valleys

No further progress on the proposed Management Plan for an ASMA for the Dry Valleys of Victoria Land was known to the Group. Such a management plan was regarded by the Group as being very important and it was agreed that those national programmes concerned should be encouraged to proceed with the development of a plan.

5. Environmental monitoring
5.1 Technical handbook

GOSEAC had been asked by COMNAP for advice on good environmental monitoring practice. This was extensively discussed at both environmental monitoring workshops. Key research areas have also been identified. Relevant lists can be found in the workshop proceedings which include a wide range of parameters that may be useful at individual sites. There remain, however, open questions, eg which type of protocol to use for monitoring purposes. Here the Antarctic Environmental Officers Network (AEON) will be asked to develop appropriate protocols with the assistance of GOSEAC.

It seems that, for measurements of certain chemical parameters, it would be good practice to follow the existing Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) as guidelines where appropriate. No such agreed international procedures exist for biological monitoring.

In discussion it was pointed out that care needs to be taken to document the quality standards which measurements of parameters were undertaken. The technical handbook must address this issue and contain details on sampling and processing techniques. Recognizing that only a finite number of measurements can be done, GOSEAC recommends that a few key parameters be monitored, but then to the accepted quality standards.

Choice of a parameter needs to encompass practical decisions on the expected relationship to the impact, its importance in the ecosystem, and the practicality of making the measurement. The value of the measurement is the extent to which it guides management decisions. In general, since exact baseline information is usually missing against which absolute change could be determined, it seems advisable that attempts are made to measure gradients with distance from the source.

To monitor station impact on the local environment it is recommended to AEON that they should at least:

i. monitor sewage outflow effects;
Sewage is a good indicator of human activities with high biological significance. (Current practice suggests that, for stations with personnel numbers exceeding 50, sewage treatment should be considered.) For both cases, monitoring the waste water for nitrate, phosphate, chloride, total organic carbon, temperature, and particulate load should be undertaken. Possibly coliform counts should also be undertaken.

To monitor effects, changes in the biological communities at the end of the pipe should be observed in comparison to a suitable control area or along a gradient. The observed number of amphipods/m2 could be used as one indicator.

ii. monitor total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and snow;
Standard methods (also for field use) are easily available and provide a good indication of the quality of fuel management.

iii. monitor noise from station and vehicle movement (where applicable);
It has been shown that birds and seals are disturbed by constant and/or sudden noise. Therefore noise abatement procedures should be introduced at stations in the vicinity of bird and seal colonies and procedures for flight operations developed minimizing impact.

iv. monitor physical surface disturbance and debris. Techniques for this need to be assessed.

It is recognized that more detailed measurements of particular organic or inorganic contaminants may be required at particular sites.

M C Kennicutt informed the Meeting that his group has been tasked with defining within the next year the ways in which the recommendations from the Environmental Monitoring Workshops could be implemented within the US Antarctic Program. Appropriate standards and rules will be drawn up and areas of future research efforts identified. GOSEAC will use this as a basis for possible further deliberations on the subject.

5.2 Data availability

With regard to data availability COMNAP had prepared an Information Paper (XXI ATCM/IP67) containing presently available information on:

All members were asked to examine this paper carefully and to report any other monitoring activities to try to ensure completeness. The Convenor offered to look at the possibility of providing an Internet-accessible listing of appropriate literature.

5.3 Research questions

The Group examined the report of the Monitoring Workshops and recognized that there was a wide range of important research issues identified there but which had yet to be adequately described. It was agreed that the report could be used as a basis for the preparation of three discussion papers for GOSEAC X as follows:

5.4 Workshop on cumulative impacts

M De Poorter reported on the IUCN-convened workshop on "Cumulative Environmental Impacts in Antarctica: minimisation and management", held in Washington DC, 18–21 September, 1996. A copy of the proceedings was distributed to participants. Based on that workshop, an information paper to XXI ATCM (XXI ATCM/IP61) had been prepared and was also tabled for GOSEAC.

The Workshop was devoted to cumulative effects, a subject which needed particular attention, given the increase in activities at many sites and the present lack of detailed information about relevant processes. The workshop reached a definition of cumulative impact in the Antarctic context. It also concluded that wherever obligations regarding environmental impact are identified, this should be taken to include cumulative impacts. The workshop identified the value of programmatic EIAs (although there was formally no proviso in the relevant paragraphs of the Protocol). In identifying potential cumulative impacts, the concept of ASMAs/ASPAs was recognized as an effective tool to manage cumulative impacts. However, areas should be larger and more marine areas are needed. The workshop found problems in precisely defining intrinsic values, such as aesthetic and wilderness values.

GOSEAC then discussed in detail the 23 recommendations from the workshop and comments were made on the following:

Recommendation 4:

Consideration should be given to a review of the Specially Protected Species in Appendix A to Annex II [of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty] with a view to examining its utility for the protection of species whose decline may be the consequence of, inter alia, cumulative impact (eg southern giant petrel, Macronectes giganteus).

The Bird Biology Subcommittee should consider cumulative impacts on certain bird species and should forward to the Treaty a list of species to be protected. A connection to CCAMLR should be established because of the particular nature of the problem.

Recommendation 8.

"Pristine" areas should be identified for a site register, and consideration should be given to the use of designations under Annex V [of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty] to achieve the appropriate level of protection(which could include exclusion of activities) of such sites where appropriate.

This recommendation should be raised at XXII ATCM

Recommendation 9.

Antarctic Treaty Parties should review elements of information exchange under the ATS to see whether the format, timeliness and content of current exchanges are adequate to meet the obligations under Annex I of the Protocol [on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty] to consider cumulative impacts in environmental impact assessment. Particular emphasis should be placed on geographic precision and standardised reporting.

It is recognized the present exchange of information system needs to be revised.

Recommendation 14.

The development of common databases containing comprehensive data on all activities and other relevant variables should be considered in multiple operator areas.

Recommendation 15.

COMNAP and SCAR should examine the feasibility and means of including references to operational databases in the ADDS.

Recommendation 16.

Data or other information should where possible be provided with lat/long coordinates (using GPS).

Data bases and related information are being implemented on the COMNAP-Network. Some countries make this information available publicly on servers already.

Recommendation 18.

Any non-treaty Party operator in the Antarctic should be encouraged to conduct activities in accordance with Antarctic Treaty System procedures and practices, including exchanging information with other operators, to allow cumulative impacts to be addressed.

This is being realized practically, eg in air flight manuals.

Recommendation 22.

Suitable control areas [should] be established relevant to stations or other activities as a tool for determining the impact of those activities.

ASPAs could be used as control areas.

E Fanta introduced her paper on protected and managed areas as useful tools for avoidance or minimisation of cumulative impacts. It was a useful review of the ASMA and ASPA systems and their key features as well as how activities should be coordinated to reduce cumulative impacts.

5.5 Environmental impact assessment

At XXI ATCM the terms "minor" and "transitory" were again discussed and several papers from ATCM relevant to the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) were tabled for information.

i. A paper (XXI ATCM/IP38) from Norway listed EIAs produced in 1996. A paper (XXI ATCM/IP57) from the United Kingdom gave a full list of (EIAs) since 1988.

ii. New Zealand prepared a paper (XXI ATCM/IP36) reporting on intersessional work led by New Zealand on understanding the EIA process. A survey of Parties was undertaken giving a number of standardized questions and responses were evaluated. There seems to be a wish amongst Parties to move from an individual to a programme-based assessment.

There was agreement that each ATCM host country should up-date this survey.

Argentina submitted a paper (XXI ATCM/IP55) (containing many of the elements discussed within GOSEAC) on "Elements for the Interpretation of Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures established in Annex I of the Madrid Protocol". The paper was particularly well-received at the ATCM.

New Zealand has undertaken to work towards a better understanding of the terms "minor" and "transitory" for the Treaty Parties, who are unwilling to accept a prescriptive list of what the terms really constitute. GOSEAC will discontinue its own formal discussion on the terms. However, the assessment matrix developed at GOSEAC could be introduced as a discussion paper for the AEON workshop on EIA methodology.

Other papers tabled included those on follow-up changes required for the Cape Roberts Project Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) which were necessitated by unforeseen circumstances. This was strongly endorsed by GOSEAC because it was felt to demonstrate a commitment to both the spirit and the implementation of the EIA process in a dynamic and transparent way.

Treaty papers contain much information useful to those in the Antarctic science and logistic communities. The question was raised on where and how Treaty papers would be available to interested persons. It was suggested that posting a list of the titles of Treaty papers on a suitable server could be a first step. A full record of Treaty recommendations can be found in the SCAR Bulletin, published in Polar Record. In most countries, Treaty papers are not easily accessible.

5.6 Certified Antarctic Reference Material

The Convenor reported that a first batch of 300 vials has been prepared by S Caroli (Italy) containing dried, powdered krill for the purpose of an international standardization programme on heavy metals.

6. State of the Antarctic Environment Report

The Convenor informed the meeting that the draft structure for this report, developed at GOSEAC VIII, had been discussed first by Delegates at XXIV SCAR and subsequently by Delegates at XXI ATCM. The comments of the ATCPs are included in the draft final report of XXI ATCM (paragraphs 149&emdash;160). The ATCM considered that the proposed time-schedule for developing the report was probably too optimistic and that funding of the development would certainly be essential if the scheduled deadlines were to be met. The Convenor also reported that the offer from the New Zealand Delegation at XXI ATCM to coordinate intersessional activities had been accepted (see item 3.1). A draft set of objectives had been prepared by New Zealand and this was tabled for the Group to consider.

These objectives were discussed and, with the inclusion of some modifications, was found to be generally suitable for further progress. A copy of the report on "The State of the European Arctic Environment" was tabled as an example of an alternative approach. However, the Group agreed that the European approach was not really appropriate to the Antarctic as it was focused on sustainable development and not on scientific values. The Group concluded that the original draft structure developed at GOSEAC VIII contained all the necessary elements as given in the draft objectives of the SAER. Some minor refinements to the original structure were proposed and these are shown incorporated into a new draft at Appendix 3. The new draft structure has also been annotated to indicate those subject areas expected to be covered under individual headings and sub-headings.

7. Education and training initiatives

The published report of the SCAR-IUCN workshop "Opportunities for Antarctic Environmental Education and Training" received very little discussion at XIX ATCM so that SCAR submitted an Information Paper "Environmental Education and Training" (XX ATCM/INF 70 Rev 1) to XX ATCM. The United Kingdom Delegation developed some of the ideas given in the SCAR paper and tabled a Working Paper "Proposals for Education and Training in Antarctica" (XXI ATCM/WP14) at XXI ATCM. As a result, the Delegates at XXI ATCM agreed the following:

i. there is a need to make better information about the Antarctic and its environmental protection more readily available to the public;
ii. COMNAP was asked to survey existing education and training programmes for Antarctic personnel;
iii. a checklist for training programmes should be developed;
iv. a workshop on education and training for Antarctic personnel will be held in Concepción, Chile, 17&emdash;18 July 1998, and will be
organized jointly by Chile and New Zealand in conjunction with XXV SCAR / COMNAP IX.

The Group proposed that SCAR should seek to include the following topics on the workshop agenda:

The Group agreed on the importance of providing lay guides to the Antarctic Treaty System and the Environmental Protocol for visitors of all kinds and noted that several national programmes and organizations, such as IAATO, have already developed their own material. It was also considered that a uniform guide, or set of guides, approved by the ATCM would be a more acceptable approach.

8. Reports from other Relevant Groups
8.1 SCAR groups

The Convenor reported that the first meeting of the new SCAR-COMNAP Joint Committee on Antarctic Data Management (JCADM) had been held in Christchurch, New Zealand, 20–23 June 1997, and that a presentation had been made to XXI ATCM. The objectives of the Antarctic Data Directory System are to disseminate knowledge about Antarctic scientific programmes, facilitate interdisciplinary research, encourage effective cooperation between national Antarctic programmes, and to provide a decision-making tool for Antarctic operators and scientists.

Dr Manfred Reinke of the Alfred-Wegener-Institut, a member of JCADM, made a short presentation to the meeting of the main features of the Antarctic Master Directory (AMD), the role and responsibilities of JCADM, the establishment of the infrastructure for the collection of data sets, and the interactions between the National Antarctic Data Centres (NADCs) and other directory systems, such as GLOCHANT and CCAMLR. The Group discussed the types of information and data that could assist the work of GOSEAC and that JCADM might encourage.

E Fanta advised that the Subcommittee on Evolutionary Biology of Antarctic Organisms would meet in Padua, Italy, 6–;8 October 1997, to identify principal research areas, possible collaborative research programmes and an agenda for a proposed workshop.

The Convenor noted that First Circulars had been distributed for the following meetings:

K Birkenmajer advised that the Centenary of the "Belgica" Expedition (1897–99) would be celebrated at the following events:

The Convenor also referred to the planned Workshop on Area Protection in the Antarctic, to be held in Tromsø, Norway, 23 May 1998, immediately prior to XXII ATCM, 25 May –5 June 1998.

8.2 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

E Fanta reported on CCAMLR activities relevant to GOSEAC. The Scientific Committee of CCAMLR supported the suggestions of the Working Group on Environmental Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) in Bergen, Norway, and accepted the need for biological studies of Antarctic petrels, such as chick diets, population sizes, breeding success and adult survival, and noted the lack of data on cape petrel breeding chronology. The Working Group considered the improvement of monitoring methods, including the collection of toxicological and pathological samples of selected species.

The book "Fish the sea, not the sky" will be translated into the four official CCAMLR languages to help to avoid further incidental mortality of sea birds associated with fishing activities. Concerns about the fluctuations and reductions in sea bird populations should be referred to the SCAR Bird Biology Subcommittee of the Working Group on Biology.

The issue of marine debris derived from the South Ocean fishing industry, causing entanglement and wounds to sea birds and marine mammals, was discussed. It was suggested that SCAR should recommend Antarctic Treaty nations to remove marine debris.

The Group suggested that there should be closer links between SCAR and the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR to consider issues of environmental protection and monitoring in the Antarctic. There were particular common interests shared by GOSEAC and WG-EMM.

The Convenor thanked E Fanta for her report.

8.3 The World Conservation Union (IUCN)

J Valencia summarized the main IUCN concerns regarding the Antarctic environment, including the continuing growth of tourism and its possible impacts; and the safety of operations, especially with large ships. There is interest in establishing minimum safety standards and maximum passenger capacities for ships. A related issue is the possible use of ASMAs as a tool for the management of frequently visited sites. IUCN recognized the role of environmental education and training in the process of implementation of the Protocol on Environmental Protection.

IUCN also has a continuing interest in environmental protection of sub-Antarctic islands. The Convenor reported on the production of management plans for the following islands:

IUCN has expressed the hope that, in spite of increasing fishing pressure in the CCAMLR area, the existing prohibition around Iles Crozet would be mentioned in the definitive management legislation.

8.4 Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC)

M De Poorter gave a summary of the main ASOC environmental concerns. These include the ratification of the Protocol on Environmental Protection; the establishment of an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat; compliance with Antarctic Treaty regulations by non-consultative Parties such as Bulgaria, Canada and Ukraine; the development of global climate change research, including the disappearance of the ice shelf connection between James Ross Island and the Antarctic Peninsula; the increase of illegal fishing within the CCAMLR area; bird by-catches in the Southern Ocean; and understanding the benefits of an Annex on Environmental Liability to the Protocol for the protection of scientific research n the Antarctic.

After an exchange of ideas about these environmental issues and consideration of possible actions by SCAR, the Convenor thanked M De Poorter for her report.

8.5 Antarctic Environmental Officers Network (AEON)

J M Acero sent a written report of the activities of the Antarctic Environmental Officers Network (AEON), following its establishment at COMNAP VIII in August 1996. The AEON Steering Group comprises E Waterhouse (Co-ordinator), J M Acero, J Jatko and B Njåstad. A World Wide Web home page <http://earth.agu.org/amen/aeonhome.html> was established in October 1996. In April 1997, AEON completed updating the information on monitoring activities in the Antarctic. A summary was provided to XXI ATCM by COMNAP (XXI ATCM/IP67). AEON also participated in developing two Working Papers, co-ordinated by New Zealand, on defining the terms minor and transitory impact, and on EIA procedures, that were presented at XXI ATCM. Current AEON activities include organizing the Antarctic Oil Spill Pollution Course, preparing a comprehensive environmental protection plan for Antarctica, and closer co-operation among the Environmental Officers of Finland, Sweden and Norway. Future activities will include cooperation with SCAR and COMNAP in the preparation of the Handbook on Environmental Monitoring in Antarctica, and continuing discussions on EIA methodology.

The Group considered these activities of AEON to be a positive step towards the implementation of environmental protection of the Antarctic.

9. Any Other Business

The Group received a paper by Dr R I Lewis-Smith entitled "Introduced Biota in Antarctica". The paper drew attention to current examples of pet animals and introduced plants growing in imported soil at a number of stations. The Group expressed grave concern at these occurrences and proposed that a Working Paper be submitted to XXII ATCM, stressing the threats posed by deliberate and accidental introductions and the need for improved management.

Attention was also drawn to the United Nations Expert Conference on alien species that had highlighted the threat of alien introductions to native communities. It was agreed that this was a greater concern in the Antarctic because of the naturally low biodiversity in the region.

10. Agenda items for XXII ATCM

The Group examined the draft Agenda for XXII ATCM to consider those items under which SCAR might make contributions. The following proposals were suggested:

11. Recommendations to SCAR Executive Committee

GOSEAC recommends to the SCAR Executive Committee that:

1. A new member of GOSEAC be appointed to provide the important linkage with SCALOP.
2. After suggested revisions have been undertaken by appropriate national committees, the Management Plans for the following protected areas be endorsed and forwarded to XXII ATCM:

3. A Working Paper on introduced animals and plants be prepared for XXII ATCM.
4. A paper on the protected area system be developed for presentation at the workshop to be held immediately preceding XXII ATCM., with particular reference to:

5. Scientific advice on station monitoring be provided to COMNAP/AEON.
6. SCAR should participate in the intersessional development of the SAER.
7. SCAR should encourage relevant National Committees to develop management plans for the Dry Valleys.
8. A paper on education and training for Antarctic personnel be prepared for presentation at the workshop to be held in Concepción, Chile, 17–18 July 1998, in conjunction with XXV SCAR / COMNAP IX.
9. Consideration be given to determine how links to CCAMLR could be improved.

12. Time and place of next meeting

M Oehme confirmed his earlier invitation to host the GOSEAC X meeting in Basel, Switzerland, 21&emdash;25 September 1998. The Convenor expressed his thanks for this offer.
E S E Fanta offered to host the following meeting, GOSEAC XI, in Brazil during 1999, at Curitiba or an alternative venue.
Finally, the Convenor, on behalf of all the participants, thanked Professor Heinz Miller for hosting a very successful and most enjoyable meeting in the Alfred-Wegener-Institut.

List of Appendices