May 3 – 14, 2010
Punta del Este, Uruguay
Number 2
ECO
A Publication of Non-Governmental Environmental Organizations at the
XXXIII Consultative Meeting of the Antarctic Treaty
CEE BLUES
ECO welcomes the supplemental information provided
by Russia concerning its draft CEE for scientific
drilling at subglacial Lake Vostok, first submitted in
2002, and South Korea’s announcement that in 2011 it
will submit a CEE for a research station at Terra Nova
Bay. While both proposals are controversial in
different ways, they reflect exciting scientific
endeavours that constitute the basis of Antarctic
activities. Yet ECO is left feeling slightly depressed
rather than elated. The CEE blues.
The Lake Vostok draft CEE was subject to a barrage of
criticism by Parties, SCAR and experts in 2003.
Answers to some of the points were provided by
Russia only in 2010. During that time, much water ran
under the (ice) bridge. In the intervening years, new
knowledge about subglacial lakes has been obtained,
and new technologies for penetrating them have been
developed. There have been some technical
improvements to the original Russian proposal, and
some additional information was obtained indicating
that the drilling apparently is safer now. Due to a
number of technical problems, no final CEE was
produced and the lake has not yet been penetrated.
However, there is relatively limited empirical
information that would allow assessments as to
whether or not it is safe to drill into the lake – the
problem being the 3000+ meter long column of
kerosene and Freon drilling fluid hanging over the lake
like the sword of Damocles. Nothing is certain in life,
and there is no absolute certainty as yet that these
fluids may not end up in the lake. In Punta del Este,
Russia politely listened to comments and announced
that it was not prepared to wait to the end of this
century to complete its project.
The CEE process has run almost to completion, and
despite the criticism received, the project will go on
ahead more or less as planned. All that remains now is
the submission of the final CEE, which should take
place at least 60 days prior to commencement of the
activity.
In searching a location for its proposed station, Korean
scientists visited several sites in two alternative
regions. However, the document submitted to this
ATCM already identifies the precise site where they
plan to build the station, and it appears that a hut and
an automatic weather station have already been put in
place. ECO appreciates that the station will be built
following high environmental standards, and there is
no doubt that great science will be done. But it is
unlikely that the CEE process will result in any
substantive change of plans - even though it may
formally discuss alternatives such as sharing stations
with other Parties and not proceeding with the
construction of the proposed station.
CEEs are supposed to help mitigate environmental
effects of activity proposals that might be controversial
because of their scale or characteristics. This is partly
achieved by a mandatory process of international
consultation. However, ECO is wondering whether
CEEs have been turned into a process of producing
documents that are discussed in minute detail at the
CEP, but then essentially shelved with no substantive
effect on the way activities are conducted. The CEE
blues, it seems, comes from the uneasy feeling that no
matter the comments received, activities go on as they
best suit the proponent, based on considerations that
might include environmental protection, and that is the
end of it. On a positive note, while the CEE process for
Lake Vostok is about to be finished, the Korean CEE is
yet to begin, so there are still opportunities to make use
of it.
ROSS SEA KILLER WHALES
CONFIRMED AS A SEPARATE SPECIES
Recent genetic research has proved that four or more
killer whale (orca) species live in the wild, confirming
what some scientists have suspected for awhile on the
basis of differing behaviour and subtle but noticeable
physical differences. One form, the so-called Ross Sea
killer whale or “ecotype-C” (Pitman & Ensor 2003), is
physically very distinctive from all other forms.
The scientists, whose work has recently been published
in the journal Genome Research, conducted an analysis
of samples taken from 139 different killer whales from
the North Pacific, the North Atlantic and the Southern
Ocean. Using a new method that maps the entire
genome within a whale’s mitochondria, the researchers
were able to see clear differences among the various
forms. Three distinct species are believed to inhabit the
waters around Antarctica – the open-water living
“type-A” killer whale that preys mainly on minke
whales; the “type-B”, which is smaller and can be
distinguished by its big oval eye patches and feeds on
seals and large penguins - that it knocks off the sea ice;
and the “Ross Sea killer whale”, which is smaller, still
and eats fish, including Antarctic toothfish, being
found primarily under the pack ice. The Ross Sea killer
whale has distinctive coloration.
This preference for large toothfish may be a problem
for the Ross Sea killer whales, much like the problems
being encountered off western Canada where large
salmon are no longer available to killer whales. US and
Italian researchers have detected a marked decrease in
the prevalence of this species of killer whale observed
in the southern Ross Sea over the last decade - from a
high count of 120 whales observed at a time in 2002 to
only 18 observed at one time in the recent 2009-2010
summer season. As the scientists who made these
observations note in their study published in the
journal Aquatic Science, this decline coincides with the
appearance of the industrial fishery for Antarctic
toothfish. The theory that the Ross Sea killer whales
are having to disperse more widely in pursuit of prey is
given further substance by the recorded disappearance
of Antarctic toothfish from the southern Ross Sea, and
the recent appearance of Ross Sea killer whales, during
summer, in waters off New Zealand. In an ongoing
study that begun in the 1970s, scientists from the US
and New Zealand found a recent decrease in the
number of fish that they were able to catch, mark and
release from the southern Ross Sea. Since 2003, the
researchers have caught few Antarctic toothfish and no
large ones.
ECO believes that these observations are a signal of
the increasing impacts of human activities on the Ross
Sea and underscore the need for urgent action to
protect this one bit of ocean that retains its top
predators and remains more or less intact, for future
generations.
ANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER
BIOPROSPECTING DEBATE
ECO was pleased to see SCAR's paper on
bioprospecting activities in Antarctica, and that the
paper was well received by Parties. Yet ECO was
saddened to verify that while SCAR confirmed that so
much bioprospecting is taking place, few Parties have
reported these activities as required by Resolution 7
(2005). In light of this, perhaps it is unsurprising that
the draft principles governing bioprospecting put forth
by The Netherlands were received with skepticism by
some. Although The Netherlands explained that the
principles were intended to give the issue a ¨first push¨,
some Parties do not want to see further intersessional
work on this matter.
Parties have agreed to keep the issue on the agenda and
seem to believe it is important. It is hoped that Parties
will respond to the request that concerns about the
draft principles be submitted to The Netherlands
intersessionally so they can be discussed, and that
Parties will submit good working papers next year.
SCAR´s paper drove home the clear need to make
progress on the issue, particularly with respect to
insidious issues of interface with pure research, issues
of international cooperation, and environmental
impacts, which lie at the heart of the Antarctic Treaty
System. Many Parties are involved in activities that
could be considered bioprospecting. While it is clear
that such issues as access and benefit sharing are
highly controversial, it would be best for Parties to
engage in open debate rather than merely announcing
that they do not believe the time is ripe to discuss
specific regulations.
ECO Number 2
Punta del Este, 6 May 2010
Production Team
Ah Lee Ming, David Bederman, Evan McCloud, Jade de
Longhi, James Joyce, Mariano Benvenuto, Joyce Hagerman,
Sven Janssen. The Editorial Office is at the Conrad Hotel,
Parada 4, Punta del Este, 20100, Uruguay.
ECO is published by non-governmental organizations at
international environmental meetings. ECO is financed
solely from non-governmental sources, and thanks the
Acoustic Ecology Institute, AirClim Foundation, Australian
Conservation Foundation, Australian Wilderness Society,
Bear Gulch Fund, Centro de Conservacion Cetaca-Chile,
Centro Ecoceanos-Chile, Cetacean Society International,
ECO-New Zealand, Friends of the Earth (Australia, Brazil,
Korea, Japan International,) Greenpeace (Netherlands and
International), Humane Society US, Humane Society
International, IFAW, Marisla Foundation, Oceana (US,
Europe and Chile), Peter Scott Trust, Pew Charitable Trusts,
Prince Charles Charities Foundation, Sierra Club, Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society, Fundacion Vida Silvestre
Argentina, WWF (ASOI and Russia), and an Anonymous
Donor for their support.
2