U.S. Antarctic Treaty Inspection 2006

From November 12 to December 1, 2006, the State Department led an interagency team to inspect foreign stations and ships. This inspection tour of the Antarctic Peninsula came under the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. This was the 12th treaty inspection by the United States since the Antarctic Treaty was signed. The last U.S. inspection was conducted in 2001.

The United States conducts these inspections to promote peace and security in Antarctica, and to determine whether –the countries that have signed the Antarctic Treaty (the parties to the treaty) are meeting their obligations generally and under the Environmental Protocol. The treaty gives a right of inspection to each country with activities on the continent, called “Consultative Parties.” This inspection is part of U.S. efforts to verify compliance with the terms of the treaty and protocol(s).The U.S. inspection program helps emphasize that the Antarctic continent is open to access by all countries.

The U.S. State Department coordinates Antarctic policy within the U.S. Government. It led this interagency effort in close cooperation with the National Science Foundation (NSF), which operates the U.S. Antarctic research activities. The NSF manages three year-round research stations in Antarctica. On this occasion, for the first time, the U.S. conducted inspections of ships that conduct tours of Antarctica. Tour operations were included because of the increasing number of tourists visiting that continent and efforts being taken among treaty parties to develop sound policies related to tourism. Observations made in this report will help the United States and Treaty Parties at future Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings assess and weigh policies related to tourism in Antarctica.

The 2006 U.S. Inspection Team consisted of U.S. officials from the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation.

The U.S. inspection team arrived in the Antarctic Treaty area (everything South of 60 degrees South latitude, on November 14, having departed Punta Arenas, Argentina, on November 12, 2006 on the National Science Foundation ship M/V Laurence M. Gould. The Inspection Team inspected the following stations: Rothera (U.K.), O'Higgins ( Chile ), German Receiving Station at O'Higgins ( Germany ), Esperanza ( Argentina ), Bellingshausen ( Russian Federation ) and Great Wall ( China ). The Team inspected the following vessels, with the permission of the masters of each: M/S National Geographic Endeavour, M/S Lyubov Orlova, M/S Explorer II. The team also visited the U.S. science field camp at Petermann Island to review how tour operators would comply with site guidelines agreed by the Treaty Parties regarding that area, and U.S. 's Palmer Station. The Inspection Team returned to Punta Arenas on December 1, 2006.

Results of the Inspection Trip Report

On the basis of its observations, the Inspection Team reached a number of general conclusions, summarized below. It also reached a number of conclusions and recommendations related to individual stations, and those are contained at the end of the chapters in the report itself covering those stations.

A. Antarctic Station Operations

The inspectors found a high degree of knowledge of, and respect for, the Antarctic Treaty and the Environmental Protocol, in addition to applicable measures, guidelines, and domestic laws implementing those instruments. There was also a good understanding at stations of the role and importance of inspections, as shown by the universal cooperation and assistance provided to the Team by all stations visited.

All station leaders expressed support for scientific research at Antarctic facilities, which is the cornerstone of cooperation among parties to the Antarctic Treaty. In addition, all station personnel spoke of significant cooperation with other stations and Antarctic programs with respect to science, safety, logistics and equipment. It is clear that the stations form part of a community, and this attitude among station managers fosters international cooperation within Antarctica and beyond.

The Inspection Team found no arms violations, storage or disposal of hazardous or radioactive materials, or activities with military implications. All stations appeared to be in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty reserving Antarctica exclusively for peaceful purposes.

The Inspection Team found that several stations did not seem to be fully aware of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and pointed to decisions made by the responsible agency in their home countries -- decisions that were apparently not shared with the station manager. Given that the activities that might have an impact on the environment take place at the station itself, and that implementation of EIA's, including monitoring of environmental impacts, will be performed by personnel at the station, it is important that stations be more directly involved in the EIA process. The Inspection Team recommends that governments involve stations in all aspects of the EIA process, including the determination of whether an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) should be prepared, the preparation of an IEE, the preparation of a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE), and the monitoring of the environmental impacts of station activities.

Several stations had barrels of waste oil sitting exposed to the environment, without any secondary containment. In one case, the Inspection Team found a barrel of waste oil leaking its contents into the ground. The Inspection Team recommends that stations store such waste oil, prior to its removal from the Antarctic Treaty Area, in containers that will prevent leakage into the environment. In addition to waste fuel containment, the Inspection Team noted at several stations that clean, operational fuel for station, vehicle and aircraft use was either stored in permanent tanks or temporary drums that did not have secondary containment. Some permanent tanks were in need of sandblasting, ultrasonic or other testing, and re-coating. The Team recommends that all fuel storage containers, whether permanent or temporary, have secondary containment and that all permanent fuel storage tanks be subject to a regular testing and coating maintenance program. In addition, all stations should have a ready supply of absorbent pads, booms and other clean-up material to be used in the event of both small and large oil spills.

In two instances, the Inspection Team found large piles of paint and chemical cans, twisted scrap metal and other assorted solid waste stored in a haphazard manner. Annex III of the Environmental Protocol requires the removal of such waste from the Antarctic Treaty Area. The Inspection Team recommends that all stations review whether such waste exists on their premises, and that they expeditiously arrange safe and prompt removal of such waste from the Antarctic Treaty Area.

A vital aspect of promoting safety of passengers on tour vessels in Antarctica involves ensuring that vessels can reach Antarctic stations in the event of emergency. During the inspection, the Team had considerable difficulty reaching some stations, despite the use of advanced communications equipment on board the NSF research vessel M/V Laurence M. Gould. As a result, the Team developed, in consultation with communications specialists, a series of proposals that could help improve communications between vessels and stations. These include improvements in how stand-by frequencies are monitored, recommendations related to equipment, and a recommendation that COMNAP verify annually information submitted for the Antarctic Telecommunications Manual (ATOM). (The specific proposals are described in the report.)

B. Tourist Vessels

The Inspection Team was impressed by the dedication of the tour companies to ensure that the impacts of their operations on the Antarctic environment are no more than minor or transitory. The Inspection Team observed organized and well-managed landing and activities ashore conducted by three companies at two sites on the Antarctic Peninsula. The expedition staff implemented appropriate plans and guidelines at these sites and worked to ensure that passengers avoided restricted and sensitive areas. The activities observed were designed both to give tour passengers an enjoyable Antarctic experience and to avoid impacts on the Antarctic environment.

The Inspection Team also reviewed the operations of the tour ships and took note of two maritime incidents that had occurred in the past two years. While navigating through brash ice, one ship struck a growler (small iceberg) which caused minor damage to its hull. Another ship was caught on a sand bank for a number of hours and had to be pulled free by another ship. While the incidents are not necessarily representative of the Antarctic tour industry as a whole, and we understand that the number of such incidents overall is small, governments at the ATCM may wish to give further consideration to addressing the safety and environmental risks of tour ships in Antarctica.

The Team did not have the opportunity to inspect large vessels carrying over 500 passengers, which by and large do not land their passengers in Antarctica. Such vessels have been a major source of publicity and attention, and whether such vessels (as well as smaller vessels) pose particular safety and environmental risks is a matter that the ATCM may wish to consider.

C. Other Observations

The Team observed a number of dilapidated huts and refuges in several locations. Examples were the huts at Petermann Island and Neko Harbor. In the view of the Inspection Team, an effort should be made by those responsible for such huts to either repair them fully for some reasonable use (such as support for science) or remove them. There is no basis for old structures without historic designation to be left in such places simply on the basis that they might at some point provide a bit of safety to someone; if that were an appropriate basis for building and retaining huts, they would dot the landscape in contravention of basic environmental principles, if not the Environmental Protocol itself.

In addition to the aforementioned refuges, the Team passed by (but did not inspect closely) the following facilities that were unoccupied at the time: 1) a hut near Esperanza of uncertain ownership (the hut was referred to by Esperanza personnel as belonging to the UK but it had a Uruguayan flag painted on it), 2) Almirante Brown Station (Argentine, Paradise Bay) and 3) Deception Station (Argentine, Deception Island). If these facilities, and other similar ones reported, but not observed, are expected to remain unoccupied, consideration should be given to their removal.

The Inspection Team found value in visits by tourist ships to stations, especially to increase knowledge of scientific pursuits in Antarctica. Nevertheless, in light of the central role of science in Antarctica, the Team found it curious that some stations (including ones not visited by the Team) seemed to be going out of their way to attract tourist vessels. While there is nothing wrong with focusing attention on the historic aspects of stations and their locales, and visits by tourists can increase general understanding of the role of stations in Antarctica, the Team felt that resources might be better focused on expanding science programs than attracting tourists.

About the Treaty

The United States was a founding member of the Antarctic Treaty. The Antarctic Treaty has 45 Parties, 28 of which are conduct substantial scientific research on the continent, thus entitling them to the status of Consultative Party with the right to name inspectors.

Article VII of the Treaty and its provision for the right to inspect was precedent setting in international diplomacy and has been a cornerstone of the Treaty. It established the right of all Parties to conduct on-site unannounced inspections of all installations and facilities in Antarctica, in order to monitor compliance and ensure observance of all of the Treaty's provisions. The Treaty reserves Antarctica as an area exclusively for peaceful purposes. Moreover, it places science at the heart of international cooperation on the continent by guaranteeing freedom of scientific research, including the sharing of research and scientific information. It prohibits all military activities, including the testing of weapons, the explosion of nuclear materials and the storage or disposal of radioactive waste.

The Treaty also provided a framework for environmental protection of the Antarctic region. Over the years, the Consultative Meetings adopted agreed measures and recommendations to elaborate and enhance environmental protection, and in Madrid in 1991, the Parties adopted the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This was the second U.S. inspection since the entry into force of the Madrid Protocol in 1998.

The inspection was carried out from the National Science Foundation's 230-foot, ice-strengthened vessel, the M/V Laurence M. Gould, shown here docked at the United States' Palmer Station. Department of State Photo.	Members of the U.S. Inspection Team at Petermann Island in Antarctica. Department of State photo.	Chile's O'Higgins Base as seen from the sea in the photo above, was visited by the Inspection Team on November 23, 2006. Department of State photo.