Quick, Before It Melts: New Rules Are Needed For Antarctic Research

(The Scientist, Vol:5, #8, pg. 11 and 13, April 15, 1991) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) ---------- Nobody disputes the importance of Antarctic research to understanding the earth's global cycles and systems. But increasing public concern about strengthening Antarctica's environmental protection has raised fear among scientists that overregulation will impede their investigations. They point out that any adverse impacts from scientific research carried out in Antarctica are at worst quite localized and that much of the public mistakenly assumes that such research causes global environmental damage. An example is the ozone hole, which many people believe results from activities in Antarctica even though it actually stems from those occurring outside the region. Still, Antarctic research--and, particularly, associated transport and supply operations--is not impact-free. The near-pristine nature of Antarctica is one of the things that makes it such a valuable research laboratory. In a land where traces of natural and human events are frozen in virtual perpetuity, even localized contamination can distort research results. A recent accident proves the point. In early 1989, the Bahia Paraiso, used both as a tour ship and a supply boat in the Argentine research program, ran aground off the Antarctic Peninsula, spilling its cargo of fuel oil bound for Argentine research stations. Although the spill's effects are still under study, long-term research on Antarctic species--including investigations of how increased ultraviolet radiation penetrating through the Antarctic ozone hole affects marine life--has apparently been compromised. Obviously, the goal of Antarctic research should be to minimize harmful effects without curtailing significant scientific activities that contribute to global understanding and well-being. But who draws the line? And what criteria should be used? What ground rules make the most sense? First, we need to strengthen the environmental impact assessment procedure for scientific research and associated logistics operations in Antarctica. Focused not only on potential adverse impacts, but also on feasible alternatives, a review should reveal whether the research in question can be carried out as effectively and with less impact by other means outside of Antarctica. Key here is making this procedure subject to open and widespread review. Second, to make sure that the research carried out in Antarctica remains environmentally benign and complies with all applicable regulations, follow-up evaluation and oversight must be provided for. Third, we need well-defined principles for determining whether research proposals would extend the range of human knowledge and understanding as well as satisfy accepted performance standards. Essentially guidelines for international peer review, these principles could help weed out poorly designed or unnecessarily duplicative research. Next week, when parties to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty meet in Madrid, they will focus on a draft protocol dealing with comprehensive environmental protection of Antarctica. The draft's provisions on environmental impact assessment would create new opportunities for widespread review and comment before final decisions are made on proposed activities. The protocol would also strengthen institutional mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and oversight of the adequacy of these protective measures, including establishment and maintenance of a regional data base. Means to increase international cooperation in avoiding ad- verse environmental impacts-- whether through increased sharing of information on appropriate procedures and technologies or the establishment of shared research and logistics facilities to avoid concentrating research stations and programs in specific regions--will also be considered at the meeting. The physical isolation of Antarctica has fostered a collaborative spirit among investigators perhaps unequaled here in the world. That a scientific organization--the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)--has grown up around the broad range of Antarctic science issues, rather than in accordance with the normal breakdown along scientific disciplines, helps perpetuate that spirit. Contacts made at SCAR meetings form the basis of frequent, year-round communications. In 1987, SCAR collaborated in a seminar on the Southern Ocean with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations family of organizations. More recently, SCAR developed a report on global change research in Antarctica--its contribution to planning for the worldwide International Geosphere/Biosphere Program (IGBP), a far-reaching effort to describe and understand the interactive physical, chemical, and biological processes that regulate the earth's systems and human effects on them. Antarctic scientists are beginning to emphasize the importance of designing top-notch monitoring protocols that would make such global process studies easier to conduct. One idea on the table is to let SCAR take the lead in producing these protocols, drawing on its long-standing interdisciplinary composition. Specifically, SCAR could identify information needs and gaps, agree on baselines for monitoring, and define the kind, location, and frequency of indicators to be monitored. In turn, these indicators could be incorporated into widely accepted monitoring protocols that reflect global aims and priorities and draw on models developed by the world meteorological community. Equally important is the question of integrated data management. Whether for Antarctica alone or as part of global scientific investigations, data collection and management programs need to be better integrated so that all findings can be compared and shared--already a high priority within Antarctic circles, including SCAR. By allowing nations to merge research objectives and split total program costs, international cooperation can also help secure funding for long-term initiatives in global monitoring. Following the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources model, the scientific committee meets annually to evaluate five-year projected research plans, to define priorities, and to coordinate national research efforts to achieve them. Although each nation ultimately sets its own research agenda and level of funding, endorsements by the decision-making commission can sway national decisions. In a more formal arrangement, the 1984 Long-Term Financing of the Cooperative Program for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-Range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe, a protocol to the 1979 Economic Commission for Europe's Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, establishes a monitoring program that its parties collectively agree to fund. As the Antarctic component of IGBP is elaborated, similar funding commitments might be sought. Lee Kimball is a senior associate at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., and the author of Southern Exposure: Deciding Antarctica's Future (Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute, 1990), from which this essay is adapted. (The Scientist, Vol:, #, pg 11, ) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) WE WELCOME YOUR OPINION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS STORY, PLEASE WRITE TO US AT EITHER ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu 71764.2561@compuserve.com The Scientist, 3600 Market Street, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19104 U.S.A.

Quick, Before It Melts: New Rules Are Needed For Antarctic Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of