Antarctic Treaty Insp 2005

139 Pages·2005·1.12 MB·English

ANTARCTIC TREATY INSPECTIONS 2005
Report of Antarctic Treaty Inspections undertaken jointly by the United
Kingdom, Australia and Perú in accordance with Article VII of the Antarctic
Treaty and Article 14 of the Environmental Protocol.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, UK
Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia
Instituto Antártico Peruano, Lima, Peru
ANTARCTIC TREATYINSPECTIONS 2005.
Report of Antarctic Treaty Inspections undertaken jointly by the United Kingdom,
Australia and Peru in accordance with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and
Article 14 of the Environmental Protocol.
Contents Page Number
Introduction 3-5
Acknowledgements 8
General Remarks and Conclusions 9
Major Recommendations 14
Stations
1. Vice Comodoro Marambio Argentina 16
2. Petrel Argentina 24
3. Esperanza Argentina 28
4. Comandante Ferraz Brazil 34
5. King Sejong Republic of Korea 40
6. Bellingshausen Russian Federation 46
7. Great Wall Peoples Republic 54
of China
8. St Kliment Ochridski Bulgaria 61
9. Juan Carlos I Spain 66
10. Gabriel de Castilla Spain 71
11. Base Decepción Argentina 77
12. Akademik Vernadsky Ukraine 82
13. Rothera Research Station United Kingdom 88
14. San Martin Argentina 94
Unoccupied Stations
15. T/N Ruperto Elichiribehety Uruguay 98
16. Pedro Vicente Maldonado Ecuador 99
17. Capitán Arturo Prat Chile 100
18. Risopatron Chile 102
19. Almirante Brown Argentina 103
20. Presidente Gabriel Gonzalez Videla Chile 104
21. Yelcho Chile 105
22. Teniente Luis Carvajal Villaroel Chile 106
Station Under Construction
23. Unnamed Czech Station Czech Republic 107
(James Ross Island)
1
Contents Page Number
Historic Sites and Monuments
24. ‘Base A’, Port Lockroy United Kingdom 109
25. ‘Base F, (Wordie House), Winter Island United Kingdom 112
26. ‘Base Y’, Horseshoe Island United Kingdom 113
27. Stonington East Base United States of 115
America
28. ‘Base E’, Stonington Island United Kingdom 116
Vessels
29. M/V Professor Molchanov Russian Federation 117
Visits and Miscellaneous
30. Eco-Nelson Private (Czech 121
national)
31. Yachts 123
32. Presidente Eduardo Frei Chile 125
Appendix 1 Responses received 127
Cover picture: View of the Osterrieth Range, Gerlache Strait
2
ANTARCTIC TREATYINSPECTIONS 2005.
Report of Antarctic Treaty Inspections undertaken jointly by the United Kingdom,
Australia and Peru in accordance with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and Article
14 of the Environmental Protocol.
Introduction
Inspections were conducted jointly during February and March, 2005 by the United
Kingdom, Australia and Peru in the Antarctic Peninsula region.
The Inspections were undertaken by Observers designated by their respective
governments in accordance with the notification procedures of Article VII (1) of the
Antarctic Treaty.
Observers so designated were:
For the United Kingdom:
• Dr. M.G. Richardson (MR), Head of the Polar Regions Unit, Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, London.
• Mr. R.H. Downie (RD), Environmental Manager, British Antarctic Survey,
Cambridge.
For Australia:
• Mr. T. R. Maggs (TM), Environmental Manager, Australian Antarctic Division,
Kingston, Tasmania.
For Peru:
• Mr. J.C. Rivera (JR), Environmental Officer, Instituto Antártico Peruano.
The logistic platform for the Inspection Programme was provided by the United
Kingdom’s Ice Patrol Vessel HMS Endurance. Most Inspections were made using the
ship’s two Lynx helicopters, with a few exceptions which were made by small boat.
Helicopter support allowed for flexible and speedy logistics without which far fewer
Inspections would have been possible in the time available.
The core Inspection Team consisted of Richardson, Downie, Maggs and Rivera. In
addition, some Inspections were augmented, on a rotational basis, by Officers from HMS
Endurance who had also been designated as Observers through diplomatic channels. The
identity of the core Observers involved in particular Inspections is indicated at the end of
each report by their initials.
3
The Inspection Team on the flight deck of HMS Endurance with a RN Lynx Helicopter.
From left to right: Tom Maggs, Rod Downie, Mike Richardson, Lt Simon Collins, RN,
Lt Mark Jameson, RN, Juan Carlos Rivera.
The Inspections, undertaken between 10 February and 9 March, consisted of nine
permanent (year-round) stations, five summer-only stations, three unoccupied stations,
one station under construction, five Historic Sites and Monuments and one tourist vessel.
In addition, five further unoccupied stations were overflown by helicopter but not actually
visited. This was due to the large numbers of penguins or Fur Seals present in and around
the stations concerned - landing a helicopter in the vicinity would have caused
unacceptable disturbance to wildlife and would have been in contravention of Annex II to
the Environmental Protocol. Stations which were unoccupied at the time of visits are dealt
with separately in this Report.
In total, the stations or facilities of 13 Consultative Parties and one non-Consultative Party
were inspected during this programme.
Brief visits were also made to the non-governmental ‘Eco-Nelson’on Nelson Island, South
Shetland Islands, and the Australian-flagged yacht Australis whilst at anchor in Port
Lockroy. Comments on these visits are included within this Report. Because of their brief
duration and informal nature these visits should not be considered as Inspections.
To ensure impartiality, UK-designated Observers did not take part in the Inspections of
operational UK stations or Historic Site and Monument No. 61 (‘Base A’, Port Lockroy),
nor in the writing of the respective Inspection Reports. UK-designated Observers were
however involved in the Inspections of unmanned Historic Sites and Monuments No. 62
(‘Base F’, (Wordie House), Argentine Islands), No. 63 (‘Base Y’Horseshoe Island) and
4
No. 64 (‘Base E’, Stonington Island).
All Inspections were undertaken in accordance with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and
Article 14 of the Environmental Protocol.
In line with Article 14(4) of the Protocol, reports of all Inspections undertaken were
forwarded to the Treaty Parties concerned for comment. Where responses from Parties
were of a minor drafting nature the proposed changes were incorporated in the relevant
report. Responses of a more substantial nature are included within this report at Appendix
1. The report of the Inspection of the tourist vessel was also sent to the respective tourist
operator and IAATO as well as the flag-State.
5
Itinerary
HMS Endurance departed Mare Harbour, Falkland Islands on 8 February. Thereafter, the
dates of Inspections were:
1
Date (2005) Station/facility/vessel Country Status
10 February Comandante Ferraz Brazil P
11 February Esperanza Argentina P
11 February T/N Ruperto Elichiribehety Uruguay UO
14 February King Sejong Republic of Korea P
15 February Great Wall Peoples Republic of P
China
16 February Bellingshausen Russian Federation P
‘Eco-Nelson’ Non-governmental
17 February Capitán Arturo Prat Chile UO
Pedro Vicente Maldonado Ecuador UO
Risopatron Chile UO
20 February Gabriel de Castilla Spain SO
Base Decepción Argentina SO
21 February Juan Carlos I Spain SO
St. Kliment Ochridiski Bulgaria SO
25 February Petrel Argentina SO
Vice Comodoro Marambio Argentina P
26 February Unnamed Czech Station, Czech Republic UC
James Ross Island
27 February MV Professor Molchanov Russian Ferderation V
28 February Yelcho Chile UO
Almirante Brown Argentina UO
Gabriel Gonzalez Videla Chile UO
Base A, Port Lockroy UK HSM
1 March Akademik Vernadsky Ukraine P
‘Base F’(Wordie House) Winter UK HSM
Island
3 March Teniente Luis Carvajal Villaroel Chile UO
San Martin Argentina P
‘Base E’, Stonington UK HSM
Stonington- East Base USA HSM
4 March ‘Base Y’, Horseshoe Island UK HSM
5 March Rothera Research Station UK P
1
Key:
P Permanent (year-round) station
SO Summer-only station
UO Unoccupied station
UC Station under construction
HSM Historic Site and Monument
V Vessel
6
7
All Inspections were undertaken using the Inspection Checklists adopted by the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Meeting, viz:
Checklist “A” for permanent and summer-only stations (agreed in 1994, ATCM
XVIII)
Checklist “B” for vessels within the Antarctic Treaty Area, and
Checklist “C” for abandoned stations and associated installations.
These checklists were adopted through Resolution 5 (1995) at ATCM XIX.
The checklists were used as an aide-memoirewhilst undertaking Inspections rather than as
exhaustive questionnaires. However, to ensure that the information collected on each
station was recorded in a consistent fashion, a definitive checklist was completed
immediately following each Inspection using the notes compiled by each Observer. These
completed checklists have been retained for archival purposes.
Prior to undertaking any Inspections, the credentials of the designated Observers were
shown to the Station Leader (or in the case of the vessel inspected to the Expedition Leader
and Master), and copies of such designations were provided.
The Inspection Team was based onboard HMS Endurance throughout the duration of the
programme, and disembarked at the UK’s Rothera Research Station on 4 March. From
there the Team flew back direct to Punta Arenas, Chile on 8 March.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Without exception, the Inspection Team was afforded unlimited access to all facilities of
each station and the Team would like to extend its sincere gratitude to the Station Leaders
and staff who provided invaluable assistance and very generous hospitality – often at
short notice.
These Inspections would not have been possible without the great support provided by the
Commanding Officer (Captain T. Karsten RN), Officers and crew of HMS Endurance. In
particular the Flight Crew of the vessel’s two Lynx helicopters spent many hours, often in
adverse weather conditions, safely transporting the Observers to the numerous Inspection
locations.
8
GENERALREMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS
At the end of each station or facility report we have, as appropriate, set down
recommendations specific to that site. In addition to those recommendations, more
general points, common to a number of, or many, stations are set out below as follows:
• Scientific Research:
Although some stations were undertaking world-class scientific research into a wide
variety of disciplines (though many geared to climate change), a larger number of
stations appeared to have relatively modest, or even rudimentary, science facilities.
This was particularly so when viewed against the substantial size of some stations’
infrastructure. In many situations science programmes appeared to consist of no more
than routine data observations involving technicians collecting e.g. meteorological, or
tidal measurements. In consequence, stations in close proximity to each other were
often collecting similar data on the same parameters.
The Inspection Team believe, in the circumstances, that there would be virtue in SCAR
undertaking an audit of science being carried out in Antarctica. Such an assessment
might examine issues in-situ such as science priorities, duplication of data collection,
as well as identification of areas of scientific research which need to be strengthened.
• Scientific Co-operation:
The Team found relatively little co-operation on science between stations, even
including those sited in close proximity. Even where they co-operated logistically or
interacted socially there appeared to be a lack of scientific dialogue between adjacent
stations. This seemed particularly so on King George Island (Maxwell and Admiralty
Bays). Furthermore, given the significant cost of establishing and running a scientific
station in Antarctica, it was not clear to the Team why greater consideration had not
been given by some new entrants to the Antarctic Treaty System to share resources and
thereby ensure that joint operations would produce a more cost-effective delivery of
science and a significantly smaller human footprint.
• Abandoned/Unoccupied Stations:
During the course of this Inspection Programme, a significant proportion (25%) of
stations (previously recorded as either permanent or summer-only) were unoccupied.
It was not apparent to the Inspection Team whether any of these stations had been
occupied earlier in the 2004/05 summer season. In most situations it appeared
however as though the facilities had not been utilised, at least for the past two-five
years, or longer in some cases. Yet some of the facilities visited or overflown were
clearly in a sound state of repair and capable of being utilised. Others however had
suffered storm damage.
9