The big picture

Recently at the South Pole a group of scientists, diplomats, academics, international lawyers, journalists and environmentalists had the opportunity to view a graph of the increase in carbon dioxide levels during the past 20 years – over 25%, in a straight line. The data on which that graph is based underpins the so-called greenhouse effect theory.

This chapter is founded on the belief that it is important to keep Antarctica in perspective, against the backdrop of other developments in the world community, when determining policies for its future. For example, if scientists such as those responsible for a 1984 study by the US National Academy of Science are right about the implications of a continued build-up of carbon dioxide levels and the theory of the greenhouse effect, temperatures on earth will rise by 2 or 3 deg C during the next 75 years. That could cause the west Antarctic ice sheet to melt, raising the ocean levels by a significant – even radical – degree. What energy policy would it be prudent for world leaders to follow?

If those scientists who are concerned about the phenomenon of acid rain are correct that it will continue to bankrupt various components of the global ecosphere, and that its primary cause is the increased burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants and smelters, the question arises as to the conservative approach which the world community should take concerning continued reliance on such energy sources.

Antarctica is the coldest, windiest and most inhospitable continent in the world, which differs from the Arctic in being a land-based continent and in having no indigenous population. Dr Phillip Law describes Antarctic activities as occurring during four periods: the trading, imperialist, scientific and resource eras ((1985) 10 (4) Interdisciplinary Science Review, 336–8). International interest in Antarctica began with commercial whaling and sealing expeditions through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This trading era was followed by an imperialist era from 1890 to the 1940s which was a period of high adventure, heroism and colonial territorial aggrandisement, though predominately of a marine nature. Expeditions during this period were amateur and were engaged in preliminary scientific work collecting, describing and classifying information. It was not until the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–8 that scientific interests were generated in earnest. During the IGY, 50 stations were set up over the Antarctic continent and comprehensive scientific work was undertaken. Research during the IGY was subsequently maintained through a permanent committee of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), the Special Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). One of the dominating forces for the negotiation of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 was to ensure that territorial claims should not retard comprehensive scientific research. With this objective, the Parties agreed that:

It was further agreed that all information regarding scientific programmes in Antarctica should be exchanged, that scientific personnel should be exchanged between expeditions and stations and that scientific observa-tions and results should be exchanged and made freely available.

Antarctica, known to most people as an ice blue and beautiful but isolated and fragile continent, has long been of interest to scientists, explorers and a handful of diplomats. Its history is redolent with dramatic images of courage and comradeship, tragedy and triumph. The exploitation of marine living resources, and more recently mineral and oil resources have, however, been the dominant forces behind international interest in Antarctica. Enticed by Cook's voyages, seal hunters explored the South Antarctic islands in the late eighteenth century. Over-exploitation of seal herds lead others in the 1830s to move closer to the Antarctic continent for elephant seals and whales. Today, the depletion of fish stocks and the expansion of coastal state sovereignty over 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones has again focussed attention upon the southern oceans, this time to harvest krill. Extravagant hopes for mineral and oil wealth, inflamed by negotiations for an Antarctic minerals regime, have directed international attention to Antarctic non-living resources, thereby prompting fears for the conservation of this fragile and beautiful continent.

It was at a time when commercial interests in Antarctica had declined, and when individual scientific research was highly esteemed, that 12 states were able to negotiate the Antarctic Treaty in 1959. Compelled by the need to avert tension and disorder and by a determination that scientific research should continue unimpeded, these states successfully avoided the formidable legal issue of sovereignty and created the Antarctic Treaty regime of interlinked conventions and recommendations. This regime is justifiably hailed as a remarkably effective international system which has largely achieved its relatively modest objectives. Times, however, have changed.

The Treaty system as an alternative to sovereignty and universality

The current debate about the various alternatives for the regulation of activities in Antarctica is not at all new. Ever since international law became interested in questions posed by polar exploration, with particular reference to the issue of resource exploitation – an interest that was already evident by the beginning of the century – the various alternatives conceivable in legal and political terms were brought into play. Two basic proposals dominated the debate. The first purported to apply the traditional modalities of the organization of the modern state to Antarctica, extending the concept of sovereignty, with the necessary variations imposed by geography, climate and distance, to the polar regions. The second dominant approach sought to negate such a possibility and to introduce, instead, forms of international organization that were generally of a global nature and on a world-wide scale.

The approach relying on sovereignty alone proved not to be a viable alternative for the regulation of the activities of man in Antarctica. The reason for this was not strictly of a legal nature, and it was certainly entirely unrelated to the question of recognition or validity in international law. Rather it was one of political realities. Conflict and confrontation were constant features of the struggle between national sovereignties competing to become established, and such characteristics could not be the basis on which to found an effective Antarctic regime. On the other hand, this approach did not properly take into account other relevant interests which were present in Antarctica, thereby also affecting the viability of this alternative.

The subject I have been asked to discuss is commercial prospects for Antarctic minerals and a succinct summary of what follows could well be ‘virtually nil’.

Another contributor, Arthur Watts, has made the point, which I repeat, that minerals occur in widely scattered outcrops in Antarctica. It is important to set this fact in the context that first, more than 95% of the continent is ice and secondly, that there is a world of difference between an occurrence and a deposit. Mapping the occurrences may indicate the existence of a deposit of sufficient size to warrant detailed investigation (for example, by drilling), with a view to possible commercial exploitation.

Let us look at what minerals are known to exist in Antarctica. In summary, from what is presently known of the exposed area in Antarctica, only coal and iron in the Prince Charles Mountains, and coal in the Transantarctic Mountains might be mined if they were located on an inhabited continent. There are a lot of other known or suspected minerals. You have heard mention, for example, of the mineral potential of the Jurassic Dufek intrusion which is a layered deposit with a structure and composition which some geologists believe to be analogous to the South African Bushveld complex. In the absence of any detailed information, it is legitimate to work on the hypothesis that such complexes could, given the circumstances of their geological origin and physical properties, contain cobalt, chromium, nickel, uranium, copper and magnetite. Without a full-scale exploration programme we are left with a pattern of association (or assumption!) based upon the geological setting. This leaves the basic questions unanswered.

Since the 1970s the Consultative Parties have been concerned to regulate and to minimise man's impact on the Antarctic environment. At the Ninth Consultative Meeting the Parties formally recognised ‘their prime responsibilities for the protection of the Antarctic environment from all forms of human interference’. They have since recommended a Code of Conduct for Antarctic expeditions and station activities, established a meeting of experts to study the effects of oil pollution on the Antarctic environment, adopted a Statement of Accepted Principles and Good Conduct Guide for Tourist Groups and recommended that environmental impact studies be made to evaluate major operations proposed in the Antarctic Treaty area. These measures are hortatory not mandatory, and they depend for their effect upon implementation by those states which choose to accept them.

In 1980 the Consultative Parties negotiated the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. This Convention is remarkable in many respects. Firstly it was negotiated, ratified and came into force with great speed; a speed which was fuelled by the urgent need to establish some form of regulation for the harvesting of krill and other Antarctic fisheries. The Convention is notable, secondly, for its adoption of a single ecosystem approach to conservation in which the Antarctic Convergence provides the outer limits of jurisdiction. Thirdly, and for the first time within the Antarctic Treaty system, a permanent structure was established by the Convention to give effect to its aims and objectives.