Implementation of the Environmental Protocol

1. Implementation of the Environmental Protocol - An operator’s perspective on its impact on science support Yves Frenot, Director IPEV, COMNAP Vice Chairman Kazuyuki Shiraishi, Director-General NIPR, COMNAP Chairman Michelle Rogan-Finnemore, COMNAP Executive Secretary Image from: Polar Geospatial Centre

2. Greetings from Antarctica! …wish you were here…

3. ANNEX I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ANNEX II CONSERVATION OF ANTARCTIC FAUNA AND FLORA ANNEX III WASTE DISPOSAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNEX IV PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION ANNEX V AREA PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT “…we tackled the subject with some successes and it was due to the good relationships that we established between COMNAP and both the Treaty leaders and the national representatives through personal contacts…we gave the pragmatic approach inherent to the professional attitude of the COMNAP members.” – Gérard Jugie, COMNAP Chairman 2004–2007

4. SALUTI DA TERRA NOVA BAY, ANTARCTICA Photo: ENEA

5. Annex I Environmental Impact Assessment • 1988 SCAR Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs & Conservation (GOSEAC) • – Chaired by BAS Director, Nigel Bonner • 1989 COMNAP AGM I: EIA Subgroup1991 COMNAP EIA Workshop • 1999 COMNAP Antarctic Environmental Officers Network (AEON) “…tackling two of the hardest aspects of environmental management to do well - monitoring and EIA” “Environmental matters in Antarctica are subject to public concern and operators should not only be taking appropriate action but should be seen to be doing so.” – Mario Zucchelli, COMNAP Chairman 1991–1994(from COMNAP AGM Final Report 1989) COMNAP Report to ATCM XVI (1991), contained The Antarctic Environmental Assessment Process: Practical Guidelines; and Visitors’ Guide to the Antarctic

6. National Antarctic Programme Implementation: Environmental Impact Assessments Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations (CEEs), from 1988 to 2015: • 6 Final CEEs for • building stations: • Belarus , 2015 • India , 2010 • Korea, 2010 • China, 2007/08 • Belgium, 2006 • France, 1994 • 3 Final CEEs for • remodelling/upgrade • of stations: • UK, 2006 • Germany, 2005 • Norway , 2004 • 2 Final CEEs for • other infrastructure: • USA, 2004 • UK, 1989 There are another 8 Final CEEs for science projects: UK , 2011; Russia, 2010; New Zealand, 2006; USA, 2003; Germany, 2000; France , 1994; New Zealand, 1994; and for programmes: USA, 1991.

7. Photo: K. Sheerer, US National Science Foundation

8. Annex III Waste Disposal & Waste Management • 1989 SCAR/COMNAP Code of Conduct for Waste Disposal • 1992 COMNAP Waste Management Reporting Format • 2006 COMNAP AEON Workshop on Waste Management • including clean-up of sites of past activity • 2014 COMNAP Waste Water Workshop “COMNAP’s influence has been the provision of practical advice &direct involvement of National Antarctic Program Managers… Establishment of AEON facilitated mutual learning, provided input to COMNAP papers to the CEP & many AEON members were also national CEP delegates.” – Gillian Wratt, COMNAP Chair 1997 – 2001 COMNAP Report to ATCM XVI (1991), contained The Waste Management Reporting format; COMNAP ATCM XXV IP051 Best Practice to Avoid Waste Water Disposal on to Ice-free Ground at Inland Stations

9. National Antarctic Programme Implementation: Clean-up of past activity • As shown in COMNAP ATCM XXXV (2012) WP062 Repair or Remediation of Environmental Damage 1999-2011, which reports on some aspect of repair and remediation activities by National Antarctic Programs. • Thirty-one examples cited, from • 16 different countries. • General categories: • Old waste disposal clean-up • Single building removal • Refuge dismantling • Borehole remediation • General litter clean-up • Disused/decommissioned • base/station dismantling • Fuel drum/tank clean-up/removal/replacement.

10. - Salut ! – Station Concordia, Antarctique - Photo: ENEA

11. International Co-operation • “Within the past ten years, has your national Antarctic program shared any facilities with any other national Antarctic program”? • 93% answered yes • Antarctic facilities shared (meaning use by members • of other national Antarctic programs/scientists) • Stations: 90% • Field camps: 62% • Airfields: 52% • Port facilities: 37% • Non-Antarctic Facilities shared: • Exchanges in home institutions: 41% • Lab space: 45% • Conference facilities: 33% “Co-operation may not only mean better use of resources, but also improved environmental protection. Exchange of information, development of best practices, and sharing of expertise and infrastructures all supports the idea of environmental protection.” – Dr. Yves Frenot, COMNAP Vice Chairman Concordia Station, jointly run by France and Italy, is one example of the many ways countries cooperate on Antarctic matters. Also shown are Dallmann Laboratory (Germany) at Carlini Station (Argentina); Dirck Gerritsz Laboratory (Netherlands) at Rothera Station (United Kingdom); & wind turbines whose power is shared by Scott Base (New Zealand) and McMurdo Station (United States of America). COMNAP ATCM XXXVII IP047 (2014)

12. A N T A R C T I C A Photo: IPEV

13. “In the beginning, we had the impression that the Environmental Protocol would severely constrain our scientific and logistics planning and implementation. However, nowadays, we accept it easily and naturally.” – Professor Kazuyuki Shiraishi, COMNAP Chairman

14. THANK YOU!