A Glimpse into the Environmental Legacy of the International Polar Year

Transcription

1 Agenda Item: ATCM 7, ATCM 10, ATCM 11, CEP 5, CEP 6b Presented by: ASOC Original: English A Glimpse into the Environmental Legacy of the International Polar Year

2

3 A Glimpse Into The Environmental Legacy Of The International Polar Year Submitted by ASOC to the XXIX ATCM 1 (CEP Agenda Items 5 and 6, ATCM Agenda Items 7, 10 and 11) I. Introduction An initial 2 analysis of the Expression of Interests (EOIs) submitted to the International Polar Year (IPY) International Program Office provides an indication of what to expect of the environmental legacy from the two years of intense activity associated with the IPY. The current list of EOIs on the IPY website ( contains submissions received in the period November 2004 to January 2005, during which projects requiring complex logistics or extended preparations were especially solicited. Not all EOIs will be developed into real projects, while there will be projects taking place during the period of IPY that will not have submitted EOIs at this stage. This paper reviews the current list of EOIs to assess the likely legacy of infrastructure of the IPY , and related submissions of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) under Art. 8 and Annex I of the Protocol of Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. II. Legacy of Infrastructure About three-quarters of the 240 Antarctic EOIs will have fieldwork components that will take place partly or fully during the IPY period of (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). The majority of these projects involve international collaboration and sharing of logistics, which is highly commendable. Of the approximately 180 projects with field components, about one-third are planning to leave a legacy of physical infrastructure in Antarctica. The majority of the physical infrastructure will result immediately from the IPY project. In a few cases the IPY project will act as a scouting exercise for a much longer project and construction will begin after the IPY period, so that the legacy of infrastructure will be delayed with respect to the IPY (Fig. 2). Physical infrastructure to be left behind can be roughly divided into three categories: buildings, large-scale instrumentation and medium-scale instrumentation. Large-scale instrumentation includes permanent instrumentation networks such as Project Ice Cube of the U.S. Antarctic Program and the penetration of Lake Vostok. Medium-scale instrumentation includes individual seismic stations, automatic weather stations and permanent permafrost boreholes. III. Environmental Impact Assessments for IPY Like all projects taking place in Antarctica, IP-related projects should be preceded by submissions of EIAs according to the three-tier system established by the Protocol, depending on the likely impacts of the 1 ASOC thanks Tina Tin for conceptualizing this paper. 2 The database of Expressions of Intent for IPY activities was accessed in April and May According to the documentation on the web site, the database was last updated on April 26, Only the 311 projects listed under Browse Antarctic EOIs were examined. Out of 311, we found that only 240 were related to Antarctica. Only legacy of physical infrastructure was counted. The present analysis does not aim to be definitive. Due to the different styles in which EOIs are described, some interpretations had to be made with regard to the project s intentions and outcomes. 3

4 proposal as assessed and on the implementation legislation of the countries involved. Based on the current list of EIOs, 47 projects are planning to leave a legacy of physical infrastructure (Table 1). Projects involving the installation of medium-scale instrumentation (24) are likely to require EIAs at the level of Preliminary Environmental Evaluation (PEE) or Initial Environmental Evaluations (IEE). Projects involving building construction, the installation of large-scale instrumentation, and support infrastructure (23), are likely to require EIAs at the level of IEE or Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE). Since only two final CEEs have been completed (for Dome C and the Ice Cube Project), it would appear that a minimum of 21 EIAs to the level of IEE or CEE would need to be submitted before the commencement of IPY. The EIA status of some key projects is as follows: For the construction of the Belgian research station and the drilling into Lake Vostok Belgium and Russia have submitted draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations (CEEs) that will be discussed during CEP IX. The draft CEE for the drilling of Lake Vostok was discussed at CEP VI. It received many critical comments from SCAR, the CEP and individual Antarctic Treaty States. These comments should be addressed by Russia before drilling commences. The construction of an airstrip is also planned as part of the Lake Vostok drilling project, which will require its own separate EIA. The construction of a new Chinese research station and the drilling of a deep ice core at Dome A are also expected to begin during the IPY period, and require preparation of CEEs beforehand. This analysis excludes projects that involve deep ice drilling or long-distance traverses, which would also require prior EIAs. Table 1: Legacy of physical infrastructure proposed and environmental evaluations needed for IPY EOIs Type of project Activity Number of projects IEE / CEE status LEGACY OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Building construction (*) 14 1 draft CEE submitted to CEP (Belgium New base) 1 final CEE submitted to CEP (Italy and France - Concordia) Large-scale instrumentation 8 1 draft CEE submitted to CEP (Russia - Lake Vostok) 1 final CEE completed (USA - Project Ice Cube) Medium-scale instrumentation 24 Unknown SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Airstrip construction 1 Unknown Total projects (**) 47 At least 21 IEEs or CEEs still to be submitted (***) (*) (**) Includes the construction of three new research stations (by Belgium, Italy, France and China) Excludes large-scale research projects such as deep ice drilling and traverses (***) Excludes medium-scale instrumentation 4

5 IV. Opening up of the Antarctic Wilderness IP 64 Another more far-reaching impact of some IPY EOIs is the opening up of the Antarctic wilderness. Examples include: Establishment of a research station, deep ice drilling site 3 and astronomical observatory 4 at Dome A, open[ing] up one of the last frontiers on our planet to human exploration 5 ; Development of a network of observatories in Dronning Maud Land 5, one of the least explored areas of Antarctica 6. Intense field camp, air and ship research in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica where to date the great distances to established national bases have hampered accessibility for research 7. A race from Patriot Hills to the Pole using zero emission technology. This is an event that can take place anywhere on earth and in ASOC s view it should not be considered as a priority activity in the Antarctic wilderness. Part of the value and uniqueness of the Antarctic wilderness lies in its immensity, integrity and abundance. If the Antarctic wilderness is fragmented in the ways outlined in these proposals, its wilderness values will be diminished. Before embarking on any large-scale activity in a hitherto little-frequented region of Antarctica, it is essential that its short- and long-term, direct and cumulative impacts on the wilderness values of Antarctica as a whole are examined carefully. V. Legacy of Environmental Conservation A small number of EOIs touch on their environmental legacy: VI. Four projects specifically indicated that the project site will be cleaned up or the equipment will be removed from Antarctica at the end of the project. Some facilities of the former Japanese station Asuka will be used for the new Belgian station. Three projects propose to examine the impacts of human activities on the environment. Their findings can be used in the environmental protection of Antarctica, such as pollution control, protection from invasive species and establishment of marine parks. Conclusions The IPY aims to utilise the vantage point of the polar regions to carry out an intensive and internationally coordinated burst of high quality, important research and intends to leave a legacy of observing sites, facilities and systems to support ongoing polar research and monitoring 8. However, polar research and monitoring depend on the quality of the environment, which is increasingly compromised in the wake of human activities. Recent scientific research suggests the Antarctic can no longer be considered as a pristine environment because contaminations have affected many coastal marine and terrestrial areas. Of all the different types of contamination reported up to now in Antarctic zones, petroleum has been identified as the most significant problem. 9 It is increasingly important that after the intense burst of activity of the IPY , the Antarctic wilderness which has offered such great scientific opportunities for the benefit of humankind should not deteriorate further. In this way, the world s largest remaining wilderness can be left as a legacy for future generations to come scientists and non-scientists alike. 3 EOI No. 440 Antarctic Convergence Zone -- Dome A (ACDA) Program 4 EOI No. 348 Dome A evaluating the world s premier site for observational astronomy 5 EOI No. 123 Proposal of Integrated International Stations in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica 6 EOI No. 586 The Dronning Maud Land Initiative: mapping bed topography & past ice sheet limits to provide a legacy for numerical modelling 7 EOI No. 112 Amundsen Sea Embayment Plan 8 Objectives of the IPY. 9 EOI No. 953 Polar Microbial Observatories in Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic coastal zones 5

6 Appendix 1 Fig. 1 Fieldwork component of IPY EO Is No fieldwork 26% Fieldwork 74% Fi Legacy of physical infrastructure Immediate legacy 26% None 70% Likely delayed legacy 4% Fig. 3 Conservation-related Clean up / Equipment removal 1.7% Impacts of human activities / Conservation 1.3% Material Reuse 0.4% All other projects 96.7% 6