ANTARCTICA: THE THIRTY-SECOND ANTARCTIC TREATY

UNCLAS STATE 048359


NSF FOR KERB
EPA FOR AHESSERT
USDOC PASS TO NOAA NMFS PTOSCHIK
COAST GUARD FOR CG-5211 BHAWKINS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC AY KSCA KTIA SENV TPHY
SUBJECT: ANTARCTICA: THE THIRTY-SECOND ANTARCTIC TREATY
CONSULTATIVE MEETING, BALTIMORE, APRIL 6-17, 2009


1. Begin Summary and Comment: The 32nd Antarctic Treaty
Consultative Meeting (ATCM) met in Baltimore, Maryland, on
April 6-17, 2009, to discuss a range of issues related to
Antarctica. The Meeting was convened initially at the
Department of State in Washington as part of the first-ever
joint meeting of the ATCM and the Arctic Council. The
Secretary hosted a ministerial session among the 28 Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties and eight Arctic Council
countries focusing first on the International Polar Year and
polar science, and then on commemorating the 50th anniversary
of the Antarctic Treaty. The participants adopted
ministerial declarations on each of these two topics.


2. At the ATCM, the United States successfully led efforts to
adopt a Measure making mandatory an earlier recommendation
that persons not be landed from tourist vessels carrying more
than 500 passengers. Additional binding restrictions were
adopted for the landing of passengers from smaller craft.
The Parties also supported a U.S. initiative to engage the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) in promoting vessel
safety in the Treaty area, including work toward adopting a
mandatory polar shipping code and stronger lifeboat
protections. Finally, the Meeting took action on a third
U.S. proposal recommending extension northward to the
Antarctic Convergence of IMO limitations on vessel discharges
in the Special Area of the Southern Ocean. In cooperating to
enhance environmental protection for the entire Antarctic
ecosystem, including marine ecosystems, the views of the
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources are being sought in considering next steps within
the IMO.


3. The ATCM made notable progress in a number of areas other
than those related to tourism and shipping. Prominent among
these was the adoption of 13 Measures establishing or
revising plans for Antarctic specially managed and protected
areas (including five proposed by the United States).
Capping eight years of negotiation, the Meeting also adopted
a Measure amending Annex II on Antarctic fauna and flora to
better reflect latest science. Efforts to adopt a new
approach to biological prospecting, including a potential
benefits sharing scheme (which the United States opposes)
were turned back in favor of a Resolution reaffirming the
Treaty system as the appropriate framework for managing the
collection of biological material and considering its use.
The ATCM,s Final Report noted the view that the Law of the
Sea Convention and other international and domestic law
should be taken into account in addressing this complex
matter. The ATCM also agreed to terms of reference for
Expert Meetings hosted by New Zealand and Norway,
respectively, on ship-borne tourism and climate change in
Antarctica.


4. Comment: Events surrounding the 32nd ATCM effectively
integrated several themes in U.S. polar diplomacy. They
reaffirmed principles contained in the Antarctic Treaty, the
first modern arms control accord and a model for successful
international cooperation on science. They also canvassed
the achievements of the 2007-09 IPY, and lent diplomatic
support for scientific research at the Poles critical to a
better understanding of Earth systems. Finally, they
showcased the potential for collaboration between the ATCM
and the Arctic Council as bodies which, while having evolved
in different legal and political circumstances, share
responsibility for regions both disproportionately affected
by and uniquely positioned to offer insights on climate
change.


5. The ATCM itself was unusually productive in generating no
fewer than sixteen Measures, eight Decisions, and nine
Resolutions ) all in fewer working days than any recent
ATCM. U.S. tourist and shipping-related initiatives were all
either adopted or meaningfully advanced. In a number of
areas ) including steps toward more coherent eco-system
management, better understanding cumulative environmental
impacts, updating Treaty texts to reflect current science,
and establishing prospective rules of the road for tourism )
the ATCM addressed long range issues pro-actively. The work
of a special 50th anniversary working group, in particular,
evinced growing appreciation among the Parties for more
strategic planning and the ATCM,s need, while acknowledging
its own special responsibilities, to work with other
international organizations on issues of common concern. End
Summary and Comment.

Attendance and Membership


6. The 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) was
held in Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland, on April
6-17, 2009. All 28 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties
attended the Meeting (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Chile, China, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany,
India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, the Russian Federation,
South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the
United States, and Uruguay),as well as 9 of the 19
Non-Consultative Parties (Belarus, Canada, Colombia, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Monaco, Romania, and
Switzerland). Observers attended from the Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR),
the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs
(COMNAP),and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
(SCAR). Experts also attended from the following
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations: the
Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC),the
International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators
(IAATO),the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO),
the International Program Office for the International Polar
Year (IPY-IPO),the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN),and United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP). Malaysia observed ATCM proceedings for the sixth
consecutive year and, after having detailed for Parties
progress made with a view to acceding to the Treaty, was
invited to observe the 33rd ATCM as well.


7. The 23-person U.S. delegation led by OES/OPA Deputy
Director Evan Bloom included USG representation from the
Department, the National Science Foundation (NSF),the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),and the U.S. Coast
Guard. The U.S. delegation also included one U.S.-based
non-governmental representative each from ASOC, IAATO, SCAR,
and Oceanites (an environmental monitoring group assessing
the status of wildlife in areas frequented by tourists). Two
Senate Commerce Committee staff observed parts of the
Meeting.

Joint Meeting of the ATCM and Arctic Council


8. The ATCM was convened in the Department of State,s Loy
Henderson Auditorium on April 6 by OES Acting Assistant
Secretary Reno L. Harnish as the first order of business in
the first-ever joint meeting of the ATCM and the Arctic
Council. Despite important historic, legal, and political
distinctions, these bodies are the premier diplomatic bodies
focused on their respective geographic regions. An important
function of both is promoting polar science of the sort
advanced during the 2007-09 International Polar Year (IPY),
which had just drawn to a close on March 31. Senior
representatives of all 28 Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Parties, all eight Arctic Council countries, and eight
Antarctic Treaty Non-Consultative Parties attended the
half-day session which had as its focus celebrating the
achievements of the IPY, lending diplomatic support to future
scientific research at the Poles, and observing the 50th
anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in
Washington on December 1, 1959. Among those attending were
one Head of State (Prince Albert of Monaco),eight foreign
ministers (Argentina, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New
Guinea, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay) and five other
ministerial-level officials (Australia, Belgium, Chile,
Denmark, and the Netherlands).


9. Secretary Clinton opened the joint meeting with remarks
noting the historic significance and continued relevance of
the Antarctic Treaty, especially in facilitating better
scientific understanding of climate change. She
characterized the Treaty as a blueprint for the kind of
international cooperation that will be needed to address the
challenges of the 21st Century, and an example of quote smart
power unquote at its best. The Secretary cited the collapse,
on April 5, of an ice bridge between the Wilkins Ice Shelf
and the western coast of the Antarctic Peninsula as a timely
reminder of the effect of global warming, and reaffirmed U.S.
commitment to working with other nations in the run-up to
climate talks later this year in Copenhagen. She cited
environmental changes in the Arctic and their ramifications
for shipping and energy exploration in affirming the
Administration,s commitment to ratifying the Law of the Sea
Convention. The Secretary also announced the President,s
having sent to the Senate, on April 3, Annex VI to the
Antarctic Treaty,s Protocol on Environmental Protection
which deals with liability arising environmental emergencies
in the Treaty area. She also encouraged Parties to act
favorably on several key U.S. environmental and tourist
initiatives at the upcoming 32nd ATCM. The text of the
Secretary,s remarks is at
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/04/12 1314.htm.


10. Norwegian Foreign Minister Store, whose country chaired
the Arctic Council, followed the Secretary with remarks
emphasizing the importance of international coordination of
polar research and the need for improved implementation of
the existing extensive framework for governance. He noted
that climate change is the ultimate political challenge of
our generation, and our legacy to future generations. Dr.
John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology then delivered a keynote address on the
significance of the IPY and the importance of continuing
international cooperation in building on its considerable
achievements. He affirmed U.S. commitment to supporting
science and using scientific findings to shape policy.


11. New Zealand Foreign Minister McCully and Uruguayan
Foreign Minister Fernandez then led meeting participants,
respectively, in a discussion of IPY accomplishments and
future priorities in polar science. FM McCully reviewed his
country,s IPY activities before inviting interventions by
colleagues from Australia, Argentina, Canada, France, and the
United Kingdom.

FM Fernandez cited several areas as priorities for future
scientific investigation, including ice-field dynamics and
regional changes in biodiversity, before ceding the floor to
interventions by representatives of Belgium, Monaco, China,
Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, Germany, and Iceland. During the
ministerial discussion period, Deputy Secretary Steinberg
noted the importance of strengthening regional observational
networks, providing research opportunities for a new
generation of polar scientists, and educating the public on
the importance of polar regions in better understanding
climate change. The text of all national interventions,
including several that were submitted in writing, will be
posted to the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat,s website at
http://www.ats.aq/index e.htm.


12. Memorializing the achievements and dedicating themselves
to sustaining the legacy of IPY, meeting participants then
adopted a Ministerial Declaration on the International Polar
Year and Polar Science. Language in the declaration
committed the Parties to reviewing key issues related to
scientific cooperation and recent scientific findings at
their future meetings, and to using science to help inform
the development of measures to address threats to the polar
regions. Parties recommended that their governments continue
efforts to create and link observational systems to improve
the modeling and prediction of climate change, both
regionally and over time, and encouraged states and
international bodies to harness IPY research in support
concrete initiatives to protect the polar environment. The
text of the IPY Declaration is at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/other/2009/121 340.htm.


13. In a concluding segment commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty, Treaty Parties adopted a
second Ministerial Declaration, which reaffirmed their
commitment to the objectives and purposes of the Treaty,
specifically including Article IV(freezing territorial
claims) and Article 7 of the Treaty,s Environmental Protocol
(banning Antarctic mining activities). The Declaration also
encouraged collaboration with other international
organizations whose expertise enhances the ATCM,s ability to
promote safety and environmental protection in Antarctica.
Text of the 50th Anniversary Declaration is at
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/other/2009/121 339.htm. Former
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, R. Tucker
Scully, who had been elected the ATCM Chairman at the
beginning of the joint Meeting, delivered remarks and
unveiled a commemorative plaque that will eventually be
placed near the Board Room of the National Academies of
Science Building, where Treaty negotiations were held.


14. After the joint meeting of the ATCM and Arctic Council,
the Secretary hosted a luncheon in honor of her counterparts
and other participants. The National Science Foundation then
sponsored a series of scientific lectures on key findings
made during the IPY. The day,s activities concluded with a
reception co-hosted by the Department and the Smithsonian
Institution at the recently inaugurated Sant Ocean Hall at
the National Museum of Natural History.

Procedural Matters


15. The ATCM reconvened in regular session at the Baltimore
Convention Center on April 7. During the opening plenary, 21
agenda items were distributed among three longstanding
Working Groups (WGs) and a special 50th Anniversary WG
established to reflect on a long-term agenda for the ATCM.
Olav Orheim of Norway was selected to chair the Legal and
Institutional WG which met concurrently during the ATCM,s
first week with the Committee on Environmental Protection
(CEP),which was chaired by New Zealand,s Neil Gilbert.
After meeting in Plenary on April 14 to adopt the CEP,s
report, the ATCM broke into a Tourism WG chaired by the U.S.
Head of Delegation and an Operational WG chaired by Jose
Retamales of Chile. The Tourism and Operational WGs met in a
special joint session during the second week to consider
several papers dealing with human safety and environmental
issues related to Antarctic shipping. The 50th Anniversary
Working Group met during both weeks under the chairmanship of
the ATCM Chairman.


16. During the opening plenary, delegates heard reports from
depositaries of several Antarctic instruments, including a
presentation by the United States which, as depositary of the
Antarctic Treaty, reported that Belarus had acceded to the
Protocol on Environmental Protection, all but one Party
(Brazil) had approved Measure 1 (2003) establishing the
Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, and that Spain and Poland had
joined Sweden and Peru in approving Protocol Annex VI on
Liability.


17. Several observers and expert organizations delivered
papers on their work during the past year. Notable among
these were presentations by 1) CCAMLR, (at which point, ASOC
and the United States expressed concern about lack of
consensus on achieving one hundred percent observer coverage
on krill fishing vessels in the Convention area); 2) SCAR,
which reported on its first IPY science conference in St.
Petersburg, Russia, in July 2008; and 3) COMNAP, which
reported on its new constitution which committed the
organization to developing and promoting best practices in
support of Antarctic scientific research.


18. IAATO reported a 16 percent decline in Antarctic tourism
during 2008-09 on account of the global financial crisis, and
projected that an estimated 39,000 tourists this year would
grow to fewer than 43,000 in 2009-10 ) below the record
46,000 reported in 2007-08. In its report to the Meeting, the
IHO expressed concern about slow progress among Parties in
assigning higher priority to charting in Antarctica, and
urged the adoption of national rules and guidelines similar
to those contained in SOLAS Chapter V, Regulation 9. In
presenting its report and related submissions to the ATCM,
ASOC called on Parties to move swiftly to approve Protocol
Annex VI (Liability),expedite efforts to deal with tourism
and biological prospecting, and develop a system of marine
protected areas and reserves in the Southern Ocean.

Legal and Institutional Issues


19. The Legal and Institutional WG opened its deliberations
with discussion of a U.S. initiative recommending that
Parties take action within the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) to extend the Antarctic Special Area, and
its restrictions on vessel discharges, northward from the
Treaty Area to the Antarctic Convergence. It proposed that
Parties assess the feasibility of individual vessels
observing Special Area provisions whenever they find, by the
measurement of seawater temperature, that the Convergence is
located further north than that northern limit set in the
CCAMLR Convention.


20. While there was broad support for measures protecting the
entire Antarctic marine ecosystem, questions were raised by
the United Kingdom and Russia, among others, about the role
and competency of the ATCM to recommend action north of the
Treaty area; i.e., 60 degrees South latitude. The United
States chaired discussion on the margins after which the
Meeting adopted a Resolution urging Parties to enhance
environmental protection of the entire Antarctic marine
ecosystem, to seek the views of CCAMLR on the proposed
recommendation to the IMO, and to consider at the next ATCM
the views of CCAMLR in deciding whether to recommend steps be
taken within the IMO to extend the Antarctic Special Area
northward to the Antarctic Convergence. The United States
and several other countries underscored that jurisdictional
concerns were unfounded and that the Treaty,s Environmental
Protocol commits all Parties to the comprehensive protection
of the Antarctic ecosystem and dependent and associated
ecosystems. It was also noted that the ATCM had previously
acted in support of measures before the IMO to extend
environmental protection to the Antaractic Convergence in
Resolution 3 (2006) on Practical Guidelines for Ballast Water
Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty area, where such exchanges
should occur outside the treaty area and north of the
Antarctic Convergence.


21. The Russian Federation proposed in a paper on the role
and place of COMNAP in the Antarctic Treaty system a Decision
approving COMNAP,s new constitution and providing the body
additional formal recognition. While the United States did
not consider such additional recognition necessary given
COMNAP,s observer status at the ATCM, it joined in adopting
a Resolution noting the important role that COMNAP plays in
supporting the Antarctic Treaty Parties.


22. The Parties finalized an eight-year effort to revise
Annex II of the Treaty,s Environmental Protocol and ensure
that it comports with latest science. Australia proposed in
a working paper language drawing on progress made at the 31st
ATCM and, on the margins, led discussions that led to the
adoption of a Measure that will replace the original Annex II
once it is approved. Notable amendments to the original text
included (1) extending protections afforded by the Annex to
include native terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates, (2)
strengthening protections for those species designated as
Specially Protected Species pursuant to the Annex, and (3)
further developing the procedures for listing a species as a
Specially Protected Species. The United States cited during
negotiations the complex interaction between Annex II and the
Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, and
noted the need for additional discussions on how two
agreements would now relate to each other.


23. In accordance with Article 9 of the Annex, the amendments
will be deemed to have been approved and will become
effective one year from the close of the Meeting, unless one
or more Consultative Parties notifies the depositary that it
needs an extension or that it will be unable to approve the
Measure. At this juncture, the United States must determine
whether Senate advice and consent will be needed to approve
the Measure or whether it can be concluded as an executive
agreement. Additionally, some edits and additions to the
existing implementing legislation for Annex II will be
required before the United States can approve the Measure.


24. Norway proposed and the ATCM adopted a Decision convening
an Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts. Among topics to be
discussed at the meeting, which will be hosted by Norway on
April 6-9, 2010, are 1) key scientific aspects of climate
change and their consequences for Antarctica,s environment,
2) their implications for managing Antarctic activities, and
3) the relevance to Antarctica of conclusions reached at the
upcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change. In addition
to the Parties, a range of ATCM observers and expert
organizations were invited to attend, including
representatives of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate
Change (IPCC).


25. The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat submitted several papers
which described its activities in 2008-09, proposed a
Secretariat program for 2009-10, and presented its budget for
the years 2007-2011. The Executive Secretary reviewed
progress since the last ATCM on a range of tasks with
emphasis on the establishment of an Electronic Information
Exchange System (EIES),and making available a comprehensive
electronic archive of ATCM documents, final reports, and
measures adopted over the past 50 years. He cited an updated
version of the Antarctic Treaty Handbook, heretofore prepared
by the United States as the Treaty,s depositary, as the sole
area on which meaningful progress had not been made. The
United States asked for and received information concerning
the status of efforts to develop on the Secretariat,s
website a dynamic database of Antarctic specially protected
and managed areas, for which OES had provided funding during

2008.


26. The heads of delegation participated in interviews of
five leading candidates for the position of Executive
Secretary of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat. After several
rounds of voting, heads of delegation decided to extend to
German Antarctic scientist and program administrator Dr.
Manfred Reinke an offer to serve as Executive Secretary for a
four-year period beginning on September 1, 2009. In his new
capacity, Dr. Reinke will implement a Secretariat program
over the next year which will include full implementation of
the EIES and further development of the protected areas
database, as well as preparation of a final report of the
32nd ATCM and logistical support for the 33rd ATCM.


27. Secretariat finances were a major focus of work in the
Legal and Institutional WG. There was broad agreement among
Parties that further cuts, especially in areas of IT
equipment and staff training, could undermine the
Secretariat,s ability to do its work. Modest additional
savings were nonetheless achieved through the adoption of
revised guidelines for submission, translation, and
distribution of ATCM and CEP documents.


28. Parties discussed the implications of pending approval by
all Parties of Measure 1 (2003),which will shift the burden
of paying for ATCM interpretation from the hosting Party to
the Secretariat. If its assumption of new fiscal
responsibilities occurs during the next year, the Secretariat
budget is expected to grow from approximately USD 900,000 to
USD 1,300,000. The annual U.S. assessment, currently pegged
at $40,500 for 2010-11 could grow to $58,300 as early as the
payment made in January 2011 for 2011-12. With a view to
anticipating possible budgetary shortfalls in paying for ATCM
translation, a Decision approving the Secretariat,s program
and budget for 2009-10 also provided for creation of a USD
30,000 Translation Contingency Fund.


29. Thirteen Parties (including the United States) reported
on progress having been made during the past year on
approving Annex VI of the Treaty,s Environmental Protocol,
which deals with liability arising from environmental
emergencies in the Treaty area. Several of those Parties
indicated that it was likely that they may be able to approve
Measure 1 (2005) before the 33rd ATCM. Legal representatives
and others held an informal meeting at which they discussed
their experience in crafting domestic legislation needed to
implement the Measure.


30. The Legal and Institutional WG devoted considerable time
to a discussion of the ATCM,s role in regulating biological
prospecting. Australia, joined by New Zealand, submitted a
paper describing current controls over Antarctic biological
prospecting and recommending that the ATCM adopt a Resolution
noting that the Antarctic Treaty was the appropriate
framework for governing biological prospecting in the Treaty
area and highlighting existing regulatory arrangements. The
United States expressed support for this initiative which
closely tracked its position that the Treaty,s existing
legal framework (with its focus on environmental protection)
is adequate, and that the free exchange of scientific
information under Article III of the Treaty is not
unconditional, but rather subject to what is feasible and
practical.


31. The Australian initiative recast debate that might
otherwise have been driven by a paper submitted by the
Netherlands. That latter paper reflected discussions among
19 Parties (not including the United States) who attended a
meeting hosted by the Netherlands without an ATCM mandate on
Antarctic biological prospecting in February 2009. Purporting
to conduct a gap analysis for managing biological prospecting
under the Antarctic Treaty system, the Dutch paper was
coordinated with separate submissions by Belgium and Sweden
which respectively attempted to address the current scope and
definition of biological prospecting in the Treaty area.
Chile independently submitted a paper which addressed
elements of a possible Antarctic biological prospecting
regime, including its proper scope and the complicated issues
of benefit sharing. SCAR reported on halting progress it had
made in canvassing Parties, pursuant to a request from last
year's ATCM, for input on their biological prospecting
activities. Argentina and Brazil submitted papers reporting
independently on their national activities.


32. After consultations on the margins of the Meeting, the
Parties adopted a Resolution based on the Australian proposal
which reaffirmed that the Antarctic Treaty system is the
appropriate framework for managing the collection of
biological material in the Treaty area and for considering --
as opposed to also managing -- its use. While more forward
leaning than the original draft or what the United States
would have preferred, the final Resolution stopped well short
of reflecting positions taken by Sweden and South Africa that
the ATCM needed to look to other international forums and be
pro-active in considering the sharing of monetary benefits of
biological prospecting. The United States and Australia
responded to such arguments by underscoring how regulation of
biological prospecting should not discourage research and
innovation, and questioning why biological prospecting should
be treated differently than other commercial activities such
as fishing or tourism.


33. The ATCM established terms of reference for an
intersessional contact group which would examine and report
to the next Meeting on a range of issues including both those
carefully crafted by the Dutch to frame their call for a
comprehensive regulatory scheme, and others volunteered by
New Zealand. The latter include identifying which activities
qualify as biological prospecting, practical limits on the
sharing of scientific information, and the relevance of
applicable intellectual property regimes. While unenthused
about establishment of the ICG, the United States favored
broad discussion enabling it and others to dispute freely the
merits of overly broad regulation. Importantly, the United
States successfully turned back calls for a formal Antarctic
Treaty Meeting of Experts where discussions would be less
manageable than in a web-based discussion group.

Meeting of the Committee on Environmental Protection


34. The twelfth meeting of the Committee met concurrently
with the Legal and Institutional WG during the ATCM,s first
week. The Rules of Procedure for the Committee were amended
via a Resolution to reflect changes to work practices that
have occurred since the Protocol on Environmental Protection
to the Antarctic Treaty came into force. Changes included
creation of means to establish intersessional work for the
Committee, which would allow the Committee to better respond
to requests from the ATCM and to emerging issues.


35. The five-year work plan of the Committee was updated.
Topics of high priority include the introduction of
non-native species, the environmental impacts of tourism
activities, the impacts of global climate change and of
global pollution, and the processing of new and revised
protected area management plans, including marine spatial
protection and management.


36. The Committee agreed to undertake a study of the
environmental aspects of tourism and non-governmental
activities in Antarctica. The study will include a status
report on current activities, an assessment of potential
environmental impacts, an assessment of the effectiveness of
existing management measures, and the identification and
assessment of on-going research and monitoring. New Zealand
offered to staff the study, which will be directed by a CEP
Management Group.


37. The ATCM adopted thirteen new or revised protected or
managed area management plans. The Committee,s Subsidiary
Group on Management Plans (SGMP) reviewed three of these
plans, which had been referred to it for intersessional
review at the 2008 Committee meeting. Five of the plans were
submitted by the United States, including two which are the
only fully marine Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.


38. The work of the SGMP over the next two years will include
a revision of the Guide to the Preparation of Management
Plans for Antarctic Special Protected Areas and the
development of similar guidance for the development of
Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA) management plans.
The U.S. expects to play a significant role in the guidance
document for ASMAs. Of the seven ASMAs in place, the
management plans for four of the sites were developed or
co-developed by the United States.


39. The ATCM also adopted a Resolution providing new
guidelines for managing the list of Historic Sites and
Monuments; these were aimed at improving the quality of
protection afforded to present and future sites. A Measure
added two new sites to the list.


40. Seven new Site Guidelines for visitor sites were approved
by the ATCM. An intersessional contact group, chaired by
Chile, was formed to review the current Site Guidelines and
to develop revised and updated guidance for visitors,
including the development of a common format where
appropriate.


41. Marine spatial management and protection was given a
priority by the CEP. Plans were made to develop a strategy
for the establishment of an effective, representative and
coherent spatial protection of marine biodiversity with the
Antarctic treaty Area, within the next three years, through
the designation of specially protected and managed areas
under Annex V of the Protocol. As far as possible,
cooperation was encouraged with SCAR and CCAMLR, including
focusing work on those priority areas of the Southern Ocean
agreed by CCAMLR.


42. The Committee established an intersessional contact
group, chaired by France, to address the issue of non-native
species in Antarctica, one of the Committee,s high priority
areas. Over the next two years, the group will develop an
overall objective and key guiding principles for Parties,
actions to address concerns, develop a suggested set of
generally applicable set of guidelines to prevent the
introduction of non-native species, and identify areas of
operations in which further work is needed.


43. The Committee welcomed SCAR,s advice on its summary
report on persistent organic pollutants in the Antarctic
region, which was prepared in response to a request from the
Stockholm Convention Secretariat in 2008. The Meeting
authorized the Secretariat to forward the final edited report
to the Stockholm Conventional Secretariat when completed in
the near future.


44. The first joint meeting of the CEP and the Scientific
Committee of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (SC-CCAMLR) was held prior to the CEP
meeting (April 3-4) to discuss five key areas of overlapping
interests. The aim of the workshop was to develop a shared
understanding of conservation objectives and priorities of
the two bodies, identify areas of common interest, define
mechanisms for practical cooperation, and identify lead
bodies on issues of mutual interest. Shared objectives and
priorities include climate change, non-native species,
species requiring special protection, spatial marine
management, and environmental monitoring. Lead groups were
identified for several topics and future joint meetings are
planned with the aim of coordinating efforts.


45. The Committee elected Veronica Vallejos of Chile to the
position of first Vice-Chair. The positions of second
Vice-Chair and Chair of the CEP will be the subject of
elections at the fourteenth meeting of the CEP in 2010. The
Committee thanked Yves Frenot for his two terms as first
Vice-Chair and congratulated Neil Gilbert for a shortened yet
highly productive meeting.

Operational Issues


46. The Operations WG met concurrently with the Tourism WG
after adoption of the CEP Report by the ATCM sitting in
plenary at the beginning of the Meeting,s second week.
COMNAP presented a paper on improving search and rescue
coordination and response in the Antarctic. That document
informed the meeting on the outcome of a workshop on that
subject held in Chile in August 2008. COMNAP asked the ATCM
to consider adopting a Resolution incorporating those
recommendations from the workshop that were directed to
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. Although the Parties
were generally encouraging of the work of COMNAP, some
Parties expressed concern about adopting a resolution and it
was agreed instead to continue working intersessionally on
the issue.


47. Uruguay presented a paper offering hydrographic experts
from its Antarctic Program to vessels of opportunity
operating in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Services of a
hydrographer would be free of charge to train crewmembers on
guidelines for the collection of hydrographic data issued by
the IHO Hydrographic Commission on Antarctica.


48. SCAR made a presentation on the accomplishments and
challenges of the just completed International Polar Year.
The Parties strongly supported continuation of IPY work,
particularly in the arena of long-term observation systems,
data and information gathering, storage and exchange, and the
encouragement of young scientists. The Meeting adopted a
Resolution on ensuring the legacy of the International Polar
Year along these lines.


49. Several papers were submitted concerning inspection
protocols for permanent Antarctic stations and installations.
WG discussion focused on the work of an intersessional
contact group led by Argentina which had made significant
progress on improving inspection procedures. The ATCM agreed
to extend the work of the contact group for an additional
year.

Tourism


50. While visitor numbers in 2008-09 had declined from record
year-earlier levels, the ATCM remained deeply concerned about
the safety and potential environmental impact of tourism
within the Treaty area. Grounding incidents off the
Antarctic Peninsula involving the M/V Ushuaia in December
2008 and the M/S Ocean Nova in February 2009, underlined for
Parties the need for vigilance in ensuring the safety of
passenger vessels and the sufficiency of search and rescue
assets and protocols. Both IAATO and ASOC presented papers
responding to concern at the 31st ATCM about possible growth
in land-based tourism facilities. Argentina restated that it
reserved its right to install land infrastructure at bases
similar to those already existing in Antarctica and
encouraged, with support from others, the deploying of
national observers on vessels either flagged by or carrying
expeditions regulated by Parties.


51. The United Kingdom presented, in follow up to its
undertaking at the 31st ATCM, a proposed strategic vision for
Antarctic tourism over the next decade. It incorporated
elements suggested by several other Parties, including the
United States, during informal consultations over the
intersessional period. Discussion of the proposed vision for
tourism focused on the distinction between general principles
and prescriptive action, the value of tourism in general and
type of tourism the Parties wished to encourage. The United
States joined others in noting that a properly worded
statement of principles could be useful, especially as the
ATCM reflected on its future agenda during this anniversary
Meeting. The United States argued that a vision document
should be aspirational in nature and acknowledge the positive
role of tourism in promoting public appreciation for
Antarctica,s unique aesthetic, scientific, and other values.
There was broad consensus that tourism should be organized
so as to minimize its environmental impact and maximize the
safety of operations. Parties also agreed that it should not
interfere with scientific research.


52. After informal consultations, the ATCM adopted a
Resolution noting the value of properly managed tourism and
asserting that it should not be allowed to contribute to the
long-term degradation of the Antarctic environment, or its
wilderness and historic values. In the absence of adequate
information about potential impacts, Parties agreed that
decisions on tourism should be based on a pragmatic and
precautionary approach which incorporates an evaluation of
risks. This Resolution incorporated only part of the UK
proposal, and did not break much new ground from a policy
perspective.


53. Russia presented a paper which highlighted problems of
uneven or occasionally absent national regulation of
Antarctic tourism which resonated with the Parties and
spurred discussion of better implementing the pre-season
exchange of information. Russia cited as areas of special
concern tour operators seeking to flag vessels and/or
organize activities in nations with more lenient laws, and
their possible use of subchartering arrangements to escape
proper regulation.


54. In the first of two signature initiatives on Antarctic
tourism, the United States proposed a Measure making
mandatory guidelines in Resolution 4 (2007) ) a U.S.
proposal adopted at the New Delhi ATCM ) which discouraged
the landing of persons from vessels carrying more than 500
passengers, the simultaneous presence of more than one
tourist vessel at any landing site, the debarkation of more
than 100 passengers at a time, and a ratio of less than one
guide for every 20 landed passengers. Many parties welcomed
the U.S. initiative as an important step toward more
proactive management of tourism. The ATCM ultimately adopted
a Measure which maintained the substance of the US proposal
but took into account certain technical concerns of the
Japanese delegation.


55. Chile proposed that the ATCM curtail, as a priority
matter in the regulation of Antarctic tourism, the staging of
marathons which it viewed as potentially unsafe,
environmentally damaging, and disruptive to scientific
activities. Its submission of a paper on this topic won
support among other Parties concerned about the growth of
adventure tourism to the continent. The United States noted
how proper planning of marathon activities, as well as close
regulation by responsible national authorities, would address
these concerns. The ATCM agreed to establish an
intersessional contact group tasked with reviewing the
management and proposing to the 33rd ATCM means of better
regulating large-scale sporting and marathon running events.
The United States noted that industry had drafted guidelines
for conducting marathons that would be relevant to
intersessional work.


56. Shipping safety was the subject of a joint session of the
ATCM,s Tourism and Operations WGs. The group,s first order
of business was hearing and responding to a presentation on
the November 2007 sinking of the M/V Explorer by a
representative of the Liberian International Ship and
Corporate Registry. An investigative report dated March 26,
2009, had just been submitted to the IMO, where Parties hoped
that its findings on the competence of the ship,s master,
adequacy of lifesaving equipment, the sufficiency of vessel
construction, and evacuation protocols would be reviewed in
detail. Argentina and Chile took strong exception to the
report,s allegation of deficiencies in rescue coordination.


57. Following on this discussion, the United States
introduced its second tourism-related initiative which
recommended that Parties cooperate at the IMO to require that
passenger vessels operating in the Treaty area carry
sufficient and suitable lifeboats for all passengers and
crew, and ensure that those lifeboats are outfitted with
equipment to facilitate timely search and rescue. The U.S.
proposal was broadly welcomed by Parties as an important step
in more pro-active ATCM involvement in minimizing the
possibility of a maritime disaster. Given the technical
complexity, practical obstacles to implementation, and
broader vessel safety issues currently under consideration in
the IMO, the Parties decided to broaden the U.S. initiative
into a more general endorsement of mandatory shipping rules
for vessels operating in Antarctic waters. A Resolution
directed the ATCM chairman to write to the IMO and welcome
its progress to date in developing Guidelines for Ships
Operating in Polar Waters. He was further directed to
request that the IMO commence as soon as practicable the
development of mandatory design, construction, and
provisioning requirements including but not limited to
survival craft and lifesaving equipment.


58. U.S. leadership in the matter of Antarctic maritime
safety was further underscored in the work of an
intersessional contact group asked by the 31st ATCM to
continue its examination of issues concerning passenger ship
operations in the Treaty area. Norway presented a report
that identified potential regulatory gaps which, if closed,
might lessen the risks posed by certain hazards of priority
concern. The contact group suggested as the possible focus
of more detailed gap analysis potential inadequacies in
training, search and rescue, lifesaving equipment, vessel
construction, and other items such as more accurate charting
and weather forecasting. Given the need for broader
participation and greater interaction among maritime experts
than could be facilitated through a web-based discussion
forum, the ATCM chose not to renew the contact group.
Norway, however, undertook to submit its conclusions to the
IMO,s Maritime Safety Committee.


59. New Zealand reiterated its offer at the 31st ATCM to host
in Wellington on December 9-11, 2009, an Antarctic Treaty
Meeting of Experts focused on humanitarian and environmental
risks associated with an increase in ship-borne tourism in
the Treaty area. The Parties adopted a Resolution setting
the terms of reference for that meeting and decided that it
would examine 1) trends in Antarctic ship-borne tourism, 2)
relevant developments at the IMO and enhanced cooperation
with the IHO, 3) a range of topics bearing on the prevention
and mitigation of a maritime accident, 4) environmental
safeguards and emergency response, and 5) problems posed by
vessels flagged to non-Parties. The ATCM anticipated further
discussion and possible elaboration on work of the contact
group on passenger vessel issues when maritime experts meet
in Wellington later this year.

Future Agenda


60. In a specially constituted 50th Anniversary WG, Parties
discussed a range of systemic issues and a future agenda for
the ATCM. Their interventions were framed in part by a U.S.
paper on those topics submitted at the 31st ATCM and a
Russian paper submitted this year on the strategic role of
the Antarctic Treaty. Parties canvassed as future priorities
for the ATCM issues including climate change, advancement of
science, establishment of marine protected areas, promotion
of renewable energy, and review of biological prospecting.
They emphasized the ATCM,s need to coordinate with other
international bodies, and the Parties, obligation to
implement and comply with the Treaty and all approved ATCM
Measures. Approving the Environmental Protocol,s Liability
Annex, and effectively managing Antarctic shipping, aviation,
and tourism were all identified as priority concerns.


61. The Parties discussed -- but took no formal action to
adopt ) a number of proposals to streamline and better focus
their work. Foremost among these was the need for strategic
planning, possibly in the form of a work plan keyed to the
next five to ten years. Also discussed were the benefits of
more issue-specific ATCM agendas, adjusting the frequency and
duration of future ATCMs, and making better use of smaller,
more technical, and intersessional forums. The Parties
endorsed expanding ATCM outreach to the general public and
strengthening ties to other polar entities, including the
Arctic Council and CCAMLR.


62. The 32nd ATCM closed on a positive note with Parties
celebrating the Treaty,s achievements over the past five
decades, but also taking stock also of the challenges the
ATCM faces in rapidly changing world. There was consensus
that the Meeting had been among the most productive and best
run in recent memory. Participants greeted with the
enthusiasm Uruguay,s announcement that it would host the
33rd ATCM in Punta del Este on May 4-15, 2010. Argentina
announced that the 34th ATCM would convene in Buenos Aires on
June 20-July 1, 2011, and Australia confirmed its intention
to host the 35th ATCM in 2012 at a place and time to be
determined.


CLINTON