#7934 - Protocol On Environmental Protection To The At 1991 - International Environmental Law

International Environmental Law 4th April 2011: Protocol on Environmental Protection to the AT 1991: Getting there... Redgwell (1994) * "rapturous reception" * NGOs: "a major step towards setting up a world park in A" * A result of internal (sovereignty concerns focussed on CRAMRA) and external pressures to the ATCPs (developing states - exclusion, NGOs - conservation - esp IUCN, WWF, UNEP). The internal pressure was a result of the failed negotiations on CRAMRA - bad feelings amongst the ATCPs and their inability to negotiate successfully. Concern of the developing states was the realisation that the ATCPs were, through negotiations on CRAMRA, showing that they were the ones who thought they should control mineral resources in A. But developing countries saying 'who says' you are the one who should control everything? System based on the idea of setting aside territorial claims, but ATCPs special position. * XV ATCM: negotiations began 1989; signing 1991 Madrid. Objective: * Preamble: * Need to enhance protection of the "A environment and dependent and associated ecosystems" * Need to strengthen the AT so as to retain A for peaceful purposes; special political and legal status of A acknowledged. Significant pressure on the ATCPs. * Importance of scientific research in Antarctica * Reaffirming CCAMLR * Objective Article II: * "Comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems..." "... hereby designate A as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science." - ecosystem approach. 'comprehensive protection'? As lawyers .. this means what the rest of the protocol says. The objective is a goal, but it can't achieve by itself what the actual mechanical provisions of the protocol say. If the protocol doesn't cover something, then more can be done..? The protocol does only what the protocol does..? Principles: Environmental Principles Article 3: * Protection of the Antarctic Environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and the intrinsic value of A, including its wilderness and aesthetic values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research are "fundamental considerations" in the planning and conduct of all activities in the ATA. Surely wilderness is the only intrinsic value? Aesthetics (tree falling in the wood nobody there to hear it), exploitative and subjective. * Therefore: activities must be planned and conducted to avoid adverse effects and be consistent with the AT, EIA is to be sued, monitoring of efforts is to occur, priority given to research. But who does the EIA? How are the adverse environmental effects avoided? Who does the monitoring? Who controls all of it?