« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
period of time to prepare a comprehensive inventory of such a vast continent. The endeavor would constitute an unparalleled exercise in scientific discovery and analysis, one that should
optimally be conducted at an international level.
would be needed to enlist the cooperation of other nations, a measure contemplated in section 3(a)(2)(B) of H.R. 4514. To the
extent that field work would be required, it must be remembered
that the Antarctic summer is quite short. The Committee should be aware that the suggestion of an Antarctic inventory should,
under ideal conditions, constitute a call for a second
International Geophysical Year (IGY). Thirty years ago, the IGY
marked the first sustained global scientific effort to explore
and understand the Antarctic continent, which led to the
establishment of the Antarctic Treaty. The Act's call for an
Antarctic inventory may, in fact, constitute its chief legacy to future generations of scientists, scholars, travelers, and explorers. At least five years should be devoted to the
We agree that the drafting of a management plan, as called for in section 3(b) of the Act, is an integral and necessary prerequisite to establishing Antarctica as a World Park. Again, however, we believe that the amount of time allowed for
completion of such a plan is too short.
Two additional years
after completion of the inventory should be allowed.
important that both the inventory and draft management plan exercises be carried out with maximum international cooperation. The Act contemplates, in section 6(b), that the United States
will, in effect, promote the plan after its adoption and seek to harmonize the provisions of the plan with the enactments of the
Antarctic Treaty Systen, including the very important Agreed Measures. Explicit reference should be made in section 3(b) of the Act to encourage the participation of other nations, along with that of relevant international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and interested individuals.
The Antarctica Project particularly supports those provisions of the Act which would make the management plan for
the Antarctica World Park the touchstone of American environmental policy in the region. Section 3(b)(3) articulates this intent, and we are enthusiastic about the provisions
included in sections 3(b) (7) and 3(e).
B. Ban on Mining Activities
We recognize that the management plan, standing alone, cannot accomplish all that is needed to preserve and protect the Antarctic environment. We support the protective scope of section 4. Mineral resource activities would adversely affect
the Antarctic environment and ecosystems.
ban on u.s. mining activities in the Antarctic is an essential
element in any environmental protection regime for the continent.
The sanction mentioned in section 4(a), the refusal to grant
subsequent mineral patents to individuals or companies engaging
in mineral activities in the Antarctic, is a welcome initiative.
Nonetheless, the sanction might not go far enough.
nining concern could evade the sanction under the Act by using a foreign subsidiary to conduct the proscribed activities.
Provision should be made for such a circumstance.
The Antarctica Project wholeheartedly endorses, for the reasons set out above, the Act's declaration in section 6(a)(4),
that the Congress will not favorably give consideration to any convention or agreement relating to mineral resource or other activities in Antarctica inconsistent with the purpose or provisions of the Act. This is an unambiguous reference to the
Convention on Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA),
which has utterly failed to command the support (in the form of
ratifications) needed for entry into force.
confirms that the fundamental premise of CRAMRA is flawed; no mineral activity in the Antarctic can be consistent with a sound
environmental protection regime.
c. Application of U.S. Environmental Laws
Section 4(b) of H.R. 4514 marks an important change in this
country's Antarctic environmental policy by extending to the Antarctic the application of "Environmental and Historical Preservation Laws" defined in section 2(b)(5) as "those provisions of Federal law requiring procedural and other actions intended to further the protection of environmental...and other resources and values". This provision would substantially
enhance the scope of federal authority to ensure that all
Antarctic activities carried out by U.s. nationals are conducted
in no less a responsible fashion than are comparable activities
on American soil.
of the enumerated Acts incorporated by reference, the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 will probably be the
most significant. That Act's requirement of environmental impact statements (EIS's) for activities carried out by federal agencies (or under color of federal authority) will serve as a natural counterpart to H.R. 4514's requirement that all Antarctic activities be carried out consonant with the management plan.
The management plan for Antarctica World Park will, in other
words, become the benchmark against which EIS's for individual
activities will be measured.
We believe that the wilderness Act
and Endangered Species Act will also provide needed guidance for environmental decisions within their respective competences.
Finally, the Antarctica Project notes that quite a number of
other statutes may be included in the definition of section
2(b)(5), and thus be applied to the Antarctic.
Among these are
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Clean Water Act. Clean Air Acte
the Resource conservation and Recovery act, the 1972 Coastal zone
Management Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
believe that detailed analysis is required in order to determine
the likely scope of the extended application of these statutes.
Yet, we contend that an objective review will favorably indicate
38-417 0 - 91 - 6
adopted in most U.S. environmental legislation, public participation would be hampered in ensuring the proper enforcement
of the statutes newly applied to the Antarctic.
D. Environmental Review of Antarctic Activities
Essential to the monitoring of Antarctic activities is
timely, accurate, and complete information.
We believe that
section 5 of the Act, concerning review of proposals, addresses
this concern. The Antarctica Project notes, however, a curious gap in this section: reports will be submitted only by agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. government and information will be gathered only of the activities directly attributable to other nations or international organizations. This seems to ignore
that a growing class of activities are not conducted under any
Section 5(a) should be amended to
require that all U.S. citizens be obliged to report on their
activities in the Antarctic.
Paragraph (b) of section 5 of the Act sets forth important
policy considerations in reviewing proposals. Foremost among these is the principle that u.s. activity must further the