Skip navigation


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

Report No 17

Report of GOSEAC X
Bad Schauenburg, Switzerland, 21–25 September 1998.

Dr David Walton, Convenor, welcomed the members of the Group to Bad Schauenburg, especially Jan Erling Haugland as a new member in succession to Jack Sayers who is now the Executive Secretary of COMNAP. He noted that all members of the Group would be present at this tenth meeting of GOSEAC.

D W H Walton (Convenor), J M Acero, P J Barrett, K Birkenmajer, E S E Fanta, M Fukuchi, J E Haugland, M C Kennicutt, H Miller, M Oehme, J Valencia, P D Clarkson (Executive Secretary)

There would be no observers at this meeting but Mrs Evelyne Gerber of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs would be visiting the Group on Tuesday morning. He also thanked Professor Michael Oehme and his wife Dorothea for hosting the meeting in such a delightful setting.

1. Adoption of Agenda and appointment of Rapporteurs

The agenda for the meeting was adopted as given in Appendix 1.

Rapporteurs were appointed from among the members (see Appendix 2) as follows:

K Birkenmajer 1–3; M Fukuchi 6.3.3; P D Clarkson 4; P J Barrett 6.4

J Valencia 5; J M Acero 7; D W H Walton 6.1&emdash;6.2 M C Kennicutt 8

M Oehme 6.3.1; H Miller 9–12; E S E Fanta 6.3.2

2. Membership of the Group and the future role of GOSEAC

The Convenor reported on the views of the SCAR Executive Committee concerning the size of Groups of Specialists in general, the length and frequency of their meetings, and the consequent costs of supporting Groups of Specialists. He asked the members to think about these points during the meeting and to bear them in mind when discussing the current and future operation of the Group.

In the light of the establishment of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) at the Twenty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (XXII ATCM), the Convenor suggested that the Group should review the role of GOSEAC. The declared intention of the CEP to organize for itself some environmental activities previously undertaken by SCAR meant that certain burdens, such as the editorial effort in the drafting of protected area management plans, would no longer need to be done by GOSEAC. However, there are still many areas for which independent scientific advice is needed.

In a wide-ranging discussion, the Group attempted to identify the short- and medium-term roles that SCAR might be expected to play in providing environmental advice. In so doing, it became clear that there was an opportunity for this to be linked to an assessment of how advice had been provided in the past and how effective this had been at the Treaty level. This amounted to a requirement for an audit of the contribution made by GOSEAC over the past 10 years. The Group wished to undertake this and to forward the result separately to the SCAR Executive Committee.

In looking to the requirements for environmental advice in the immediate future, the Group agreed with most of the principal areas of interest identified by the CEP in which there is a wide variety of problems that had not yet been satisfactorily resolved. These are specifically:

In addition, the Group recognized the value of providing oversight on developments such as the increased interest in wildlife diseases; the linkage between CEMP sites and ASPAs; and a forum for the discussion of multi-disciplinary science areas such as Vostok Lake. Should there be any further development of the Liability Annex, SCAR was likely to be asked for advice on various aspects of environmental damage and the potential for remediation.

There may be several equally effective ways of providing scientific input to these areas at the Treaty in the future. However, the Group, having several members who had attended the last CEP meeting, noted that a large committee, such as the CEP, with at least 26 members and no chosen balance of expertise, had found it difficult to address adequately the detailed technical and scientific problems but that it was better able to deal with policy implications arising from such problems. In contrast, SCAR has the advantage of being able to choose the required balance of expertise and to organize it in small and effective committees which are more conducive to detailed scientific discussions. This complements the CEP at present and is an advantage that the Group felt should continue to be developed. It was considered essential to ensure that independent scientific advice continued to be available to complement that provided by national delegations at the CEP.

3. Matters arising from GOSEAC IX
3.1 Vostok Lake

H Miller gave a concise description of Vostok Lake, the subglacial lake beneath Vostok Station, and outlined the history of discovery of the lake. The body of water covers an area of approximately 230 km by 50&emdash;70 km and is about 600 m deep. The ice&emdash;water interface is about 3,750 m below the surface at Vostok Station. The current drilling programme was stopped at 3,623 m below the ice surface, about 130 m above the ice&emdash;water interface.

He described briefly the programmes of research that had been undertaken and the results of several workshops that had been organized by SCAR and NASA since 1995. A specific result had been the close attention paid to drilling conditions and parameters that will avoid contamination in any attempt to enter and sample the lake water and underlying sediment. GOSEAC endorsed the need for biological representation from SCAR at any future workshops.

3.2 Introduced biota

The Convenor presented the paper by IUCN that was tabled at XXII ATCM (XXII ATCM/ IP53) entitled "Introduction of non-native species in the Antarctic area: an increasing problem". In the past 40 years, in spite of increasing intensity of research and numbers of visitors, no significant introductions have been recorded which threaten the biodiversity or integrity of Antarctic ecosystems.

In the discussion that followed, many aspects raised by the paper were taken into account, eg the problem of background observation (usually insufficient in terms of time); visitors as agents of introduced/alien biota dispersal; pets and house plants on visiting ships and stations; agents transporting microbes/micro-organisms (seals, birds, wind, visitors); problems of pathogens of birds and seals; practicability of prevention/controlling; deliberate or accidental introductions. Of particular concern was that most of the data were anecdotal and therefore difficult to verify and evaluate.

The need for further research to identify the threats or potential threats to the existing environment was stressed. In particular it was emphasized that:

a. rigorous implementation of Annex II of the Protocol would minimize the potential for anthropogenic introductions; it was essential
to remember that introductions might be effected by natural agencies, especially in areas with migrating birds.

b. despite the apparent requirement in Annex II, article 4, to remove all apparently alien biota immediately, there were scientific
concerns about doing this. It would be valuable to study such unintentional introductions of alien biota to determine how the
introductions occurred and how they affect, if at all, the biodiversity;

c. accidental introductions should be reported and monitored;

d. zero tolerance was not seen as a practical solution, especially because of micro-organisms.

3.3 State of the Antarctic Environment Report

The Convenor introduced the paper prepared by Anders Modig for the CEP intersessional group on the SAER. SCAR is included in this group and the SCAR Executive had asked GOSEAC to provide comment and input for the Executive to forward as appropriate. GOSEAC listed the following points for inclusion:

The SAER will only justify the resource cost if:

3.4 Environmental Impact Assessment

J M Acero introduced a paper entitled "Guidelines for the Implementation of EIA" (draft version 1) circulated for the CEP intersessional group on EIA. The intentions of the paper were, among others:

There was wide discussion on the subjects addressed in the paper and a number of changes and introductions were suggested for SCAR to forward to the CEP intersessional group. The author was commended for this very useful contribution.

4. Reports on XXII ATCM and on XXV SCAR

4.1 CEP Report

The Convenor introduced the report of the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP) by describing what had taken place during XXII ATCM in Tromsø, Norway, during May 1998. The CEP had held its inaugural meeting during XXII ATCM under the chairmanship of Professor Olav Orheim (Norway). Although the wording of the CEP report indicates the primacy of the CEP in providing advice to the ATCM on environmental issues, the report also make it clear that advice from SCAR would also be valuable. It was noted that GOSEAC, as a small and expert group selected from a balanced range of scientific and environmental expertise, was well-placed to provide useful advice to SCAR in responding on these issues to the CEP.

The CEP had established two intersessional, open-ended contact groups to study Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (see also item 3.4) and the State of the Antarctic Environment Report SAER) (see also item 3.3). A workshop on the protected area system would be held immediately prior to XXIII ATCM, before the next meeting of the CEP (see also item 4.4). The system of open-ended contact groups working intersessionally by e-mail and workshops to be held in conjunction with ATCMs, in addition to the meeting of the CEP held during the ATCM, would currently form the modus operandi of the CEP; formal intersessional meetings would not be held because they would require simultaneous translation and would thus be prohibitively expensive.

There was a request that the Delegates to the CEP should have a background in Antarctic science and there was a general expectation that, in due course, the CEP should have a range of competence and expertise to provide a parallel to the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR. In this case, the role of SCAR, as mentioned earlier, could be expected to undergo changes. The Convenor said that GOSEAC should consider how its role might change as a result and should advise the SCAR Executive Committee.

A particular point for SCAR to note is that all Working Papers for the CEP need to be submitted 75 days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be tabled. It should also be noted that papers can be submitted in electronic form only. Working Papers for the ATCM need to be submitted only 60 days prior to the ATCM so that it would appear that there will, in future, be two sets of Working and Information papers that will be submitted to each ATCM depending upon their target group at the meeting. Therefore, SCAR should ensure that matters for discussion are correctly and separately addressed.

In the past, SCAR has received some draft IEEs and CEEs for information and comment but there was no requirement for this. There was discussion at the CEP meeting regarding whether or not the CEP has to review all CEEs. A particular concern for SCAR will be the draft CEE for the proposal to drill into the subglacial lake beneath Vostok Station that the Russian Federation announced would be submitted to XXIII ATCM. The Group felt that it was important that SCAR should have the opportunity to see and review the scientific content of CEEs.

The CEP Report requested COMNAP to develop a handbook on monitoring techniques and SCAR has been asked to provide scientific advice on this (see item 6).

The CEP considered the paper submitted by the United States(XXII ATCM/IP 28) proposing that the national Annual Reports to SCAR should be amalgamated with the national Annual Exchanges of Information between the ATCPs. The Report of the CEP (paragraph 56) recommended that this be further considered by XXII ATCM (see items 4.2 and 4.4).

4.2 Matters arising from draft Final Report of XXII ATCM

Paragraph (67) of the Report notes the desirability of the ATCM to receive the advice of the CEP and other sources, including SCAR, on practical aspects of the liability issue. SCAR may be asked to identify the loss of scientific values associated with environmental damage by providing examples of facts and data related to possible impacts.

Appendix 2 of the Report refers to the agenda of Working Group II that includes operational safety, tourism and NGO activities, inspections, and operational, scientific and educational issues. SCAR needs to consider what papers it will table (see items 4.4 and 4.5).

4.3 Matters arising from Working Group on Biology

The Working Group had made a recommendation to XXV SCAR concerning protection of the microbiological and limnological properties of the subglacial Vostok Lake during any proposed drilling operation to sample the lake. This recommendation had been subsumed into a SCAR recommendation (see also items 3.1 and 4.5).

The Working Group recalled earlier SCAR recommendations on the introduction of non-indigenous organisms, especially micro-organisms, into the Antarctic Treaty area and suggested that a paper on this matter could be tabled at XXIII ATCM (see item 4.5).

Communication within SCAR was also discussed and the Working Group suggested that more use be made of the World Wide Web and the SCAR web site, In particular, posting draft management plans for protected areas on the SCAR web site would provide improved opportunities for all SCAR groups to comment on these. The SCAR Secretariat should scan those plans that are not received electronically so that all plans could be made available on the web site. In addition, it was recommended that the "Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas" should be published by SCAR to make it generally available to the scientific community. In this respect, GOSEAC noted that the CEP has established a web site and will post there all relevant materials, including draft management plans.

The Working Group planned to hold a workshop prior to the next SCAR Biology Symposium to allow the community to develop new scientific programmes. The Working Group identified research on environmental protection, conservation and management as a priority area.

4.4 Matters arising from SCAR Delegates Meeting

Delegates discussed SCAR communication in general and agreed that the SCAR web site needs to be developed and much greater use made of this facility.

The Delegates also noted the Workshop on Antarctic Protected Areas to be held immediately prior to XXIII ATCM (see item 4.1). SCAR had been invited to be represented on the Steering Committee that will be chaired by J Valencia. The Executive Committee welcomed this approach and agreed that SCAR should represented. The Steering Committee had already met twice during XXII ATCM to draft a programme and will continue to work intersessionally by electronic mail.

The Delegates also noted the two open-ended contact groups (on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures, and on the State of the Antarctic Environment Report (SAER)) of the CEP that plan to work intersessionally by electronic mail before XXIII ATCM (see item 4.1). It was agreed that the SCAR Secretariat should be the SCAR contact point for these two groups and should keep the Executive Committee informed.

4.5 SCAR papers for XXIII ATCM, Lima, Peru, 1999

The SCAR Executive Committee agreed that the SCAR papers to XXIII ATCM should address the following matters.

SCAR Report to XXIII ATCM

Highlights of SCAR scientific research

Programme on Antarctic Pack Ice Seals (APIS)

Report on the "Symposium on Polar Aspects of Global Change", Tromsø, 1998

Introduction of non-indigenous organisms to the Antarctic

Re-introduction of indigenous species to the Antarctic

Biological prospecting

Antarctic Data Management (joint with COMNAP)

Environmental Monitoring in the Antarctic (joint with COMNAP)

The SCAR Secretariat would be inviting contributions from relevant SCAR groups so that the papers could be assembled in time to meet the deadlines for submission to the ATCM and the CEP. GOSEAC will contribute to several of these as appropriate.

5. Commercial exploitation of biological resources

At its last meeting in Concepción, the Working Group on Biology addressed the question of biological prospecting in Antarctica. It was noted that the Antarctic Treaty System had no provision for dealing with commercial exploitation of biological resources and that, recently, collections of Antarctic organisms have been made for pharmaceutical purposes. It was considered very likely that commercial exploitation of biological resources will develop rapidly in the near future.

Some of the problems that may arise from such activities are:

GOSEAC noted in this respect that terrestrial biota are protected under the Protocol (Article 3 of Annex III) and that harvesting of marine organisms are protected under CCAMLR. Commercial exploitation of terrestrial organisms appears not to be covered by existing legislation and genetic exploitation of any organism is not included in any ATS legislation.

The Working Group on Biology recommended that SCAR should submit a Working Paper to XXIII ATCM on the implications of biological prospecting in Antarctica.

The Convenor will send the outcome of these discussions to the Chairman of the Working Group on Biology for further consultation.

6. Environmental monitoring

After consideration of the possible research areas, Antarctic-specific problems in monitoring programmes were discussed. One such was the role of environmental officers, appointed by the manager of each national Antarctic programme, in developing monitoring programmes. Many of these officers are not scientists and may have some difficulty in understanding and implementing new monitoring techniques. The role of the environmental officers and their Antarctic Environmental Officers Network (AEON) and its relation to SCAR and GOSEAC was also discussed. P D Clarkson recalled the relationships between SCAR-GOSEAC, COMNAP-AEON, and ATCM–TEWG (now CEP), described in the Report of XXIV SCAR Delegates meeting as follows:

SCAR-GOSEAC: provision of scientific and technical advice to ATCM

ATCM–CEP: proposing rules and regulations to ATCM

COMNAP-AEON: practical implementation of ATCM resolutions and measures.

The Convenor stated the Terms of Reference of AEON:

J M Acero alluded to the limited responses within AEON as a common problem for the efficient functioning of the network. This may be due partly to communication problems within each country and also to the different roles of environmental officers in each country.

6.1 AEON Technical Handbook for Station Monitoring

The Group discussed a list of potential monitoring variables compiled by AEON from the Report of the SCAR-COMNAP environmental monitoring workshops (Monitoring of Environmental Impacts from Science and Operations in Antarctica). Bearing in mind the requirement of focus, for the first edition of the handbook, on key variables useful to managers for reducing the impacts of Antarctic stations, the meeting recommended that the handbook contain monitoring protocols for the parameters tabulated below (Table 1).

   waste water  soil  marine sediments  snow freshwater/ sea water
Suspended solids x       x
BOD x       x
DO x       x
pH x       x
Conductivity x     x
Nutrients (N, P, Si) x       x
Temperature x     x
Coliform bacteria x       x
Grain size   x x    
TOC   x x    
TIC x x    
Trace metals   x x x  
Hydrocarbons   x x x  
PAH x x
Particulates x
Phytoplankton  x

Table 1: Parameters for monitoring protocols

A survey of existing data on air monitoring had shown them to be less valuable for decision-making than monitoring variables in waste water, soil, snow and sediments. It was, therefore, not included in this list at this stage.

It was recognized that acceptable methods exist for a much wider range of variables but many of these were seen as a second tier of monitoring, undertaken when the primary measurements had identified a problem

In addition to process measurements, the Group recognized the value of inventory measurements in providing both comparative data between stations and indications of trends in potential impacts on the environment. Chief amongst these were:

M C Kennicutt provided the Group with an overview on progress with the NSF Office of Polar Programs contract on environmental monitoring at McMurdo Station. The Group felt that the results of this work would have much wider value than simply one station and would welcome the opportunity to use the final contract reports to develop recommendations of wider applicability to the scientific and logistic communities.

Biological monitoring posed particular problems both for measurement and interpretation. At present, only two measurements, using phytoplankton to identify nutrient enhancement, and coliform bacteria to identify efficiency of sewage treatment are proposed. The Group intended to examine other measurement systems in detail and seek further specialist advice before recommending any other biological protocols for general use.

6.2 Existing research data and activities

The valuable information paper (ATCM XXII/WP54) prepared by aeon had been circulated to members. The group welcomed this as a major step forward in identifying both existing monitoring projects and published sources of data. Only 16 countries from the 27 ATCPs had responded with information and it was known that a substantive amount of information was therefore missing. The group felt the initiative should be further developed and made generally available. Group members from countries which had no entry agreed to provide data to improve the coverage for Brazil, Norway and Poland. M Oehme offered to provide details from his bibliography on air monitoring in the Antarctic while the Convenor offered to implement a search of the US Library of Congress Cold Regions Database to improve the listing. It was agreed that contact would be made with E Waterhouse in New Zealand to offer each assistance and suggest that the enhanced information should be made more widely available by mounting on the Web and providing the necessary metadata entries. The Group wished to develop closer links to the COMNAP Environmental Management Group to ensure scientific assistance and advice can be provided as appropriate.

6.3 Research requirements

6.3.1 Physiological and biochemical monitoring

E S E Fanta tabled a paper summarizing the important effects that human activities in Antarctica might have on the different components of the biota. In the individual, the first effects from a low level of impact are perceived at the cellular level and can be monitored by biochemical and molecular biological techniques. The consequences are physiological and a great variety of measurements can be made to characterize them. They are also manifested by changes in the behaviour of the organisms, another aspect that can be monitored. The effects can be lethal, sub-lethal or chronic, and can have consequences at population or ecological levels.

There is a high level of individual and species specific variation in the sensibility to the impact and the type and intensity of the reaction. Therefore, the normality of the organisms under consideration must be known. Taking all these factors into consideration, the following monitoring techniques can be suggested:

The aspect to be monitored will depend on the interaction under consideration. Biochemical and behavioural monitoring are recommended and standard techniques are available for most of the organisms. Bioassays and tests under controlled laboratory conditions should be recommended where possible.

The main goals of bio-monitoring were considered to be: minimizing the impact of anthropogenic activities on the biosphere; and obtaining important information to allow improvement of environmental management. The group agreed that future research should be directed towards the establishment of baselines and the detection of early biological changes at low levels of pollutants. It is now more than 2 years since the report (Monitoring of Environmental Impacts from Science and Operations in Antarctica) of the environmental monitoring workshops was published and during this time, a substantial amount of new knowledge has become available. Therefore, it was decided to request EASIZ, the Group of Specialists on Seals and the Subcommittee on Bird Biology to up-date and, if possible, to complete the matrices on biological monitoring methodologies summarized in table 9.1 of the report. The need for a selection of species useful for monitoring was emphasized and, in this respect, benthic systems were considered to be more useful than pelagic ones.

6.3.2 Monitoring responses of birds and seals to disturbance

J Valencia reported on two aspects of human intervention in the Antarctic environment:

  1. the responses of birds and seals to human intervention and
  2. what are the possibilities to monitor the changes introduced by that intervention.

Human disturbances on birds and seals can occur at the level of individuals, populations or metapopulations. They can occur for a short term, long term or be permanent. The main problem is that human activities during the Antarctic summer often take place at those sites that are used by birds and seals for breeding, and during the reproductive season.

The literature is scarce and contradictory on the results about human interference in penguin colonies. Results are conflicting as penguin populations have increased in some places close to stations while in other areas that are undisturbed they have decreased. Many times it seems that penguins and seals have become habituated to visitors.

One can conclude that there are certainly different stressors of the environment that can cause natural fluctuations in the population as consequence of food availability, climatic factors or ice cover. In different stages of development the vulnerability to environmental stressors or to human interference varies and different species of birds have different susceptibilities and reactions to human proximity or actions and that generalizations cannot be made on the basis of existing data.

Less information is available in the literature about human interference on the six species of seals that occur in Antarctica. Increase in the heart rate, respiration rate, changes in the body temperature and pup abandonment have been reported.

Discussions also took place about the significance of helicopter over-flights on bird colonies, the altitude, the noise and the type of aircraft, about mortality caused by egg cooling versus increase of predation of the eggs by skuas when the parents leave the nest. The Group will enquire of the Subcommittee on Bird Biology what data are available on egg cooling and loss of vitality.

It was concluded that: birds and seals are not adequate indicators for monitoring purposes as variability in the reactions to human presence is high;

6.3.3 Monitoring organic and inorganic pollutants

M C Kennicutt distributed a paper entitled "Research in support of improved monitoring techniques: chemical contamination" and summarized three research areas related to the monitoring of chemical contamination in general. The first area is the development of simple cost-effective techniques of initial screening, which are semi-quantitative or quantitative in nature. Initial screening is quite useful to decide whether further high-cost analyses, such as gas-chromatography, are warranted. Simple and cost-effective immuno-assay techniques for organic contaminants are commercially available. The second area is a requirement for continuous or near-continuous measurements. Buoys and moorings are routinely used in the oceanographic field to measure relevant environmental variables. New sensors that are more applicable to monitoring need to be developed. The third area is to develop a better understanding of the linkages between levels of contaminants and the consequent biological effects.

6.4 Inventories of past activities

The Convenor drew attention to Article 8.3 of Annex III of the Protocol (on Waste Disposal and Management) which states:

3. Each such Party shall, as far as is practicable, also prepare an inventory of locations of past activities (such as traverses, field depots, field bases, crashed aircraft) before the information is lost, so that such locations can be taken into account in planning future scientific programmes (such as snow chemistry, pollutants in lichens or ice core drilling).

It was observed that to gain any value from this activity, the information gathered would need to be disseminated beyond national programmes. It was agreed that SCAR should be asked to discuss with COMNAP:

a. progress on efforts to prepare national inventories:

b. means for making the information available to the scientific community.

7. Environmental impact of visitors
7.1 Codes of conduct

There is limited agreement among the different codes of conduct issued by various organizations that attempt to provide guidelines for visitor behaviour in Antarctica.

Although Antarctic ornithologists have given some indications of minimum distances which should be used for approaching some bird species (mainly Adélie penguins), the Antarctic Treaty Recommendation (XVIII-1) is more general and could be interpreted by visitors in different ways. Differences due to species-specific behaviour or breeding patterns were not reflected in current codes.

Two new papers by Melissa Giese were tabled concerning visitor impacts on Adélie penguins. Her recommendations, based on physiological measurements, were for 30 m for a precautionary approach distance to Adélie penguin breeding groups to avoid disturbance.

One problem noted by the Group is that most of the existing literature concerns Adélie penguins, and the data do not even show coherence between different colonies for this species. The Group noted that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to establish a generic code of conduct for people approaching birds in Antarctica. It was also noted that there could be merit in avoiding visits to the bird colonies during breeding periods. It was suggested that the most sensitive breeding periods should be identified by the SCAR Subcommittee on Bird Biology. Meanwhile, a precautionary proposal was to keep 30 m distant from bird colonies because there is some agreement in this respect in most of the published literature on penguins.

For helicopter over-flights of bird colonies in the Antarctic, the CEMP had proposed a lower limit of 800 m. However, it seemed difficult to make generalizations because different helicopter types and different environmental conditions produce different effects. The Group agreed to seek advice from the SCAR subcommittee on Bird Biology.

The Convenor tabled the United States "Code of Conduct for the McMurdo Dry Valleys" and the Group agreed that it provided a good example of management of scientific field activities for this area. The Group considered that there could be a strong case for a SCAR code of conduct for field work. The Group also considered that the model management programme presented by Dr Snyder at the First Antarctic Environmental Management in Denver, USA, 1998 was a useful initiative in the field of tourist management.

7.2 Cumulative impacts
It was noted that the only meeting on this matter in the Antarctic was that held by IUCN in 1996.

It was considered that, in order to evaluate the possible cumulative impacts at any site, all visits to the site need to be considered as a single activity to be evaluated in the EIA process, but there is at present no mechanism to ensure this.

The Group suggested that the management plan for the Brazil&emdash;Poland ASMA in Admiralty Bay, King George Island, could be used to evaluate cumulative impacts as a pilot study. E S E Fanta agreed to take this further.

8. Report from the Hobart Workshop on the Introduction of Diseases to Antarctic Wildlife
At XXII ATCM in Tromsø, the Australian Delegation announced its intention to host a workshop on "Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife". This was held in Hobart, Tasmania, 25&emdash;28 August 1998. The intention of the Workshop was to develop a report and to transmit recommendations to XXIII ATCM. The full report of the Workshop was not available and thus the Group was not able to form an opinion on the reliability of the data used by the Workshop. However, a poster summarizing the Workshop conclusions was tabled for the Group. The Group considered that the natural pathways of introduction of diseases to Antarctic wildlife are probably underestimated and that the workshop over-emphasized anthropogenic introductions. The risk of such introductions was considered to be low, especially in the context of documented historical introductions. Most recommendations of this workshop related to prevention, response and monitoring, and these were considered to be excessive in the light of the perceived risk.

The Group considered that, as with most preventive approaches, "zero tolerance" is not warranted and is considered to be unattainable. Prevention measures such as quarantine and "gateway state" assumption of responsibility were judged to be extreme. More realistic preventative measures were considered to be covered by existing Treaty and Protocol requirements. In the workshop conclusions, various responses were proposed both prior to and during a postulated mortality event. The proposed response activities were judged to be excessive at this stage and would entail commitment of significant resources that would not be commensurate with the known risks. It was also considered that the response mechanisms were not in agreement with conservation of wildlife practices and the known intensity of human presence. Proposed monitoring activities were also considered to be excessive in the light of the perceived risk and to entail a significant commitment of resources. Identification of indigenous or natural infestations were believed to have been underestimated.

Investigation of causes of mass mortalities was encouraged and would aid in providing more compelling information related to the risks associated with possible anthropogenic introductions of diseases. It is also clear that these recommendations have wide-ranging implications for all scientific activities in Antarctica, well beyond just biology, that need to be considered. The Convenor will provide a more detailed report, listing the various concerns, for consideration by the SCAR Working Group on Biology.

9. Protected and Managed Areas
9.1 Protected Areas Workshops at XXII ATCM and XXIII ATCM

The Report of the Tromsø Workshop (XXII ATCM/WP26) was tabled together with the SCAR paper "Developing the Protected Area System in Antarctica" (XXII ATCM/WP27). The Convenor reported that comments from various sources suggested that the outcome from this workshop was not entirely satisfactory. Therefore GOSEAC should look critically at this issue and, at the same time, if possible provide advice to the SCAR Executive Committee on the organization and structure of the Protected Areas Workshop to be held at XXIII ATCM in Lima. J Valencia reported on two preparatory meetings for that workshop and tabled the presently planned structure, themes and suggested keynote speakers for that workshop. A further paper was tabled by J M Acero listing existing SPAs and SSSIs against requirements laid down in Annex V - Article 3, as a useful working document.

After thorough discussion the following points can be summarized

GAP analysis is not necessarily the best possible tool to help in the development of the Protected Area system, because identifying Protected Areas mechanistically (filling gaps) may not result in scientifically adequate system; it was noted that the Working Group on biology had suggested more sophisticated analytical tools for this.

The terms of reference for the Lima Workshop offer opportunities to highlight the present Protected Area system and show inconsistencies with the objectives laid down in Annex V. However it may be difficult for the appropriate experts to attend this workshop in the absence of adequate funding; it was proposed that SCAR should approach the CEP Chairman to consider this problem.

There is a marked difference in objectives between SPAs and SSSIs which confuses their amalgamation into a single category. Whereas SPAs were designated primarily for their conservation values, SSSIs were designated to protect one or more special scientific values. Since Annex V does not make such a distinction except in the management plan, the present approach to rationalizing the system appears to favour only the conservation aspect.

It was further agreed that the Convenor would develop some of the ideas raised during discussion and will circulate this to members of GOSEAC for comment. The outcome will be presented to SCAR Executive Committee.

9.2 Revision of existing SSSI and SPA management plans
9.2.1 Guide for the preparation of Management Plans for ASPAs

XXII ATCM/WP5 was tabled for information (see also item 4.3).

9.2.2 Svarthamaren SSSI 23
The draft management plan was tabled and the Convenor noted that this had already been seen by the Working Group on Biology. This had resulted in some proposals for changes that were discussed and further developed.

Specifically it was noted that

The Convenor will bring these and a range of other scientific points to the attention of the proponents.

A discussion ensued about the necessity for the prohibition of the introduction of poultry products. In particular the scientific basis for that restriction is in question. The origins of this need closer examination in the light of the current understanding of wildlife diseases.

9.3 RAPAL Meeting on "associated and dependent ecosystems"
A document was tabled by J Valencia who reported on this meeting organized by South American COMNAP members at Concepción. It was deemed a timely and important meeting. A full report will be available. Both scientific and legal aspects were discussed in plenary and in working groups. From a scientific point of view there is a difficult problem because, according to ecological theory, ecosystems are dimensionless in time and space and dependencies and associations cannot be defined. Questions of management must therefore be purely legalistic and questions such as management of activities within legally defined areas and their linkages to the outside (ie national areas vs international areas) must be solved through international laws or rules.

Defining Codes of Conduct may be the way forward. E S E Fanta reported on a booklet produced by CCAMLR which explains, in simple layman's language, mitigation procedures for longline fishing. This has been translated in various languages and is used for educating fishermen. It will be effective at least in Brazilian waters. The Group was reminded that CCAMLR has an extensive monitoring programme on associated and dependent species.

This general question will need further discussion between scientists and legal experts to develop future solutions.

9.4 Report on the operation of the Admiralty Bay ASMA
E S E Fanta tabled a paper on the implementation of the Admiralty Bay management in which she reported on the management and inspection activities carried out by the Brazilian programme, which at present is the responsible agency for management. Overall the management plans seem to be working well although areas for improvement were identified. In particular, the need for adequate information and education of every Party operating in the Area was recognized in order to ensure compliance with the established Code of Conduct. Brazil has attempted, together with Peru, to elaborate a document pointing to improvement of the Area's management.

The Group felt this to be an excellent example of good management practice and commended Brazil for its positive role. It seems important that such activities be summarized in information papers to the Treaty in order to ensure future plans for Managed Areas are based on best practice.

9.5 Management plans for subantarctic islands
The Convenor reported that Management Plan for South Georgia will be ready in Spring 1999 and a Management Plan for Iles Kerguelen has been prepared but is not yet available.

10. Reports
10.1 Relevant SCAR groups
The Executive Secretary reported briefly on recent SCAR activities that have some relevance to the work of GOSEAC.

All the SCAR Working Groups, except the Working Group on Glaciology, met at XXV SCAR, together with the Group of Specialists on Seals. The Working Group on Glaciology met in Lanzhou, China, during September 1998, and the Group of Specialists on Global Change and the Antarctic (GLOCHANT) met in Cambridge, United Kingdom, during April 1998.

Matters raised by the Working Group on Biology are discussed at item 4.3.

The Working Group on Geodesy and Geographic Information have three on-going projects of universal interest:

a. the Antarctic Digital Database (ADD) that provides a digital topographic map of the Antarctic and associated information is being revised and will be published on the World Wide Web;

b. the SCAR Gazetteer of Antarctic Place-Names was distributed in its first edition at XXV SCAR and is available on the World Wide Web. A second, annotated edition is being prepared.

c. the SCAR Catalogue of Antarctic Maps and Charts is being revised and a new edition is planned for presentation at XXVI SCAR.

The Working Group on Geology re-instated its recommendation (SCAR XXIV-6) that management plans for protected areas with specific geological interest should include a geological map as appropriate.

10.2 CCAMLR
A report on CCAMLR XVI was tabled by E S E Fanta. Of particular concern to CCAMLR is the fact that illegal fishing may be depleting stocks of particular species to such a level that recovery may become impossible. In particular the total catches of Patagonian toothfish of 130,000 tons are more than 10 times the maximum sustainable yield. Much emphasis is put on the question of marine debris and monitoring studies are continuing on this matter under CCAMLR auspices. Krill census is continuing as well as CEMP site monitoring In general GOSEAC activities are well-received at CCAMLR and in the areas of overlap good coordination and cooperation is achieved. The CCAMLR group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management is interested in closer ties between the groups.

11. Any other business

E S E Fanta reported that a Workshop on Evolutionary Biology of Antarctic Organisms will be held in Curitiba, Brazil, 11&emdash;15 May 1999 to discuss the state of the art in adaptation, gene flow, evolution, biodiversity and new techniques, in order to establish trends and requirements of groups within SCAR and CCAMLR. This is brought to the attention of GOSEAC because it will discuss matters on biodiversity, gene flow and population distributions that are considered for monitoring and conservation purposes and for the development of integrated programmes.

J Valencia reported on an International Symposium on Antarctic and Arctic issues to be held in Punta Arenas, Chile, 1&emdash;5 November 1998. This symposium is organized with the collaboration of Chile and Canada. The programme covers a wide range of topics and is geared to make comparisons between and to draw on experience from both polar regions.

A workshop has been held in the Czech Republic to prepare for an engagement in the Antarctic and to define a research program. A wide range of scientific research is envisaged from studies of the periglacial environment to terrestrial ecology from a small field station alongside Lions Rump. It is expected that field activity will begin in November 1998.

12. Time and Place of Next Meeting

The Convenor noted that there is no fixed venue yet for the meeting. He is looking into various possibilities. The time frame should be around the middle of July 1999 in order to fit other schedules.

GOSEAC Recommendations to the SCAR Executive Committee

GOSEAC recommends:

  1. That a microbiologist is supported by SCAR to attend all Vostok Lake workshops.
  2. That a SCAR paper is prepared for XXII ATCM dealing with introduced organisms in general and the recommendations from the
    Hobart Workshop on diseases in particular.
  3. That the Executive considers the potential scientific value of a State of the Antarctic Environment report.
  4. That SCAR continues to contribute to discussions on the development of Environmental Impact Assessment.
  5. That SCAR should review the scientific content of CEEs whenever they are reviewed by the CEP.
  6. That GOSEAC prepares a draft working paper for SCAR on Environmental Monitoring for agreement with COMNAP.
  7. That the Executive Secretary pass the recommendations on monitoring variables to AEON for inclusion in the Technical Handbook
    for Station Monitoring.
  8. That SCAR discuss with COMNAP how details of national inventories of previous activities could be made available to the
    scientific community.
  9. That SCAR Executive consider if it would be advantageous to draw up a Code of Conduct for Scientific Research in Antarctica.
  10. That SCAR forward to the Norwegian National Committee on Polar Research the comments from the Working Group on Biology
    and GOSEAC on the revised management plan for SSSI no 23, Svarthamaren, Mühlig-Hofmannfjella, Dronning Maud Land.

In addition it was agreed that two other items would be prepared for the SCAR Executive:

  1. A revised Terms of Reference for GOSEAC together with a critical review of outputs and their value over the past 10 years.
  2. Recommendations on possible SCAR contributions to the Protected Areas Workshop in Lima immediately prior to XXIII ATCM.

Appendices