PART I. FINAL REPORT
2. Report of the Committee
for Environmental Protection
Baltimore, April 6 – 9, 2009
Item 1: Opening of the Meeting
(1) The CEP Chair, Dr Neil Gilbert (New Zealand), opened the meeting on Monday 6 April 2009
and thanked the United States for arranging and hosting the meeting.
(2) The Chair remarked on the significance of the CEP meeting in the context of the celebrations of ththe 50 anniversary of the signing of the Antarctic Treaty. The Chair noted the significant
differences between Antarctica in 1959 and Antarctica in 2009, particularly in respect of
increased human activity and a changing environment, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula.
The Chair commented that the CEP was likely to play an increasingly important role in advising
on and implementing appropriate management in Antarctica if the region‟s status as a natural
reserve devoted to peace and science was to be maintained. Further still, as the pace of change
in Antarctica was likely to increase, it would be ever more important for the CEP to be clear
about its priorities and objectives and to increasingly co-operate with other elements of the
Antarctic Treaty system, notably the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR, as well as expert
bodies such as SCAR and COMNAP, in order to achieve its objectives.
(3) The Committee welcomed Belarus as a Committee Member, following its accession to the
Environmental Protocol on 15 August 2008.
(4) The Chair summarised the work undertaken during the intersessional period as a result of
actions and activities agreed at CEP XI, and circulated in the action plan under CEP Circular 1 /
CEP XII in August 2008. The Chair noted that these issues would be dealt with during the
course of CEP XII.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
(5) The Committee adopted the following agenda and confirmed the allocation of papers to Agenda
1. Opening of the Meeting
2. Adoption of the Agenda
3. Strategic Discussions on the Future Work of the CEP
4. Operation of the CEP
5. International Polar Year
6. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
a. Draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations
b. Other EIA Matters
7. Area Protection and Management Plans
ATCM XXXII Final Report
a. Management Plans
b. Historic Sites and Monuments
c. Site Guidelines
d. Other Annex V Matters
8. Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna
a. Quarantine and Non-native Species
b. Specially Protected Species
c. Marine Acoustics
d. Other Annex II Matters
9. Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
a. Climate Change
b. Other Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Matters
10. Inspection Reports
11. Cooperation with Other Organisations
12. General Matters
13. Election of Officers
14. Preparation for Next Meeting
15. Adoption of the Report
16. Closing of the Meeting
(6) The Committee considered 37 Working Papers, 49 Information Papers and five Secretariat
Papers (Annex 1).
Item 3: Strategic Discussions on the Future of the CEP
(7) No Working Papers were submitted under this agenda item.
(8) The Committee noted the progress it had made in agreeing and beginning to implement its Five-
year Work Plan and agreed to draw to the ATCM‟s attention the usefulness of its prioritised
work plan as an effective means of managing its workload.
(9) Members welcomed the list of papers and abstracts against each agenda item that had been
circulated in advance of CEP XII. Members noted that this information had greatly assisted
their preparation for the meeting and encouraged the inclusion of a brief abstract in all
Item 4: Operation of the CEP
(10) The Secretariat introduced SP 8 Electronic Information Exchange System: A report on the first
operational season, providing an update on the system‟s development and use in the past year.
The Secretariat noted that completing the EIES fulfils Members‟ obligations under Article 17 of
the Protocol for exchange of environmental information but that, possibly due to the timing of
the meeting, many annual reports had not yet been received.
(11) A number of Members thanked the Secretariat for its work on the EIES and noted the system
was generally easy to use and a helpful tool for compiling information. Several Members
supported the proposals for further development of the EIES as noted in Appendix 1 of SP 8.
Specifically, some Members looked forward to the development of tools in the EIES that would
facilitate information gathering regarding ASPA visitation permits, particularly multiple use
(12) The Secretariat noted further development of the EIES would be subject to the availability of
2. CEP XII Report
(13) The Committee encouraged 100 per cent usage of the system and requested the Secretariat to
send Members a reminder to use the EIES during the intersessional period.
(14) Australia welcomed the Secretariat‟s advice that, when use of the EIES becomes common
practice, reports could be produced summarising information submitted across all Members. It
suggested that the Secretariat could be asked to provide an example of what such a summary of
compiled information might look like for consideration at CEP XIII. The CEP supported this
suggestion noting such a document would facilitate discussions.
(15) COMNAP mentioned that it was continuing to work with the Secretariat to make sure the
COMNAP reporting system and the EIES are compatible and complementary.
(16) The CEP thanked the Secretariat and COMNAP for their efforts in this regard, and looked
forward to continued improvement and application of the EIES.
CEP Advice to the ATCM
(17) The CEP called the ATCM’s attention to the value of the EIES in facilitating the
submission, management and use of environmental information exchanged under Article
17 of the Protocol and encouraged 100 per cent use of the system by all Parties.
(18) Australia introduced WP 7 Amendments to the Rules of Procedure for the Committee for
Environmental Protection. It noted that the rules had not been updated since their adoption at
ATCM XXII in 1998. Australia recalled that there had been several changes to the Committee‟s
work practices since that time, including: the establishment of the Secretariat with its roles and
responsibilities for facilitating the Committee‟s work; the use of online CEP Discussion Forum
and other enhancements to the Committee‟s intersessional work practices; and the ATCM‟s
adoption of guidelines for submission of documents to the ATCM and CEP.
(19) Australia proposed that the Committee consider the amendments to the Rules of Procedure
proposed in WP 7, which were intended to reflect the Committee‟s current practice. It
expressed its view that the Rules should be considered a living document to be regularly
reviewed and updated as practices continue to improve.
(20) In response to a question about the possible financial implications, the Secretariat noted that the
proposed changes reflected its current functions in supporting the CEP and would not require
(21) Members thanked Australia for its paper and raised several additional suggestions, including to
? the CEP‟s desire to continue meeting annually;
? the benefit of providing for the Chair to establish intersessional work outside of the CEP
meeting, to allow the Committee to respond in a timely manner to requests from the
ATCM and other emerging issues;
? the Committee‟s ability and desire to utilise a variety of approaches to its intersessional
work, possibly including workshop and video conferences; and
? the benefit of staggering the terms of the CEP Chair and Vice-chairs where possible.
(22) Australia coordinated comments from interested Members and prepared a revised version for
consideration by the committee.
ATCM XXXII Final Report
(23) The Committee endorsed the amended CEP Rules of Procedure proposed by Australia.
Advice to the ATCM
(24) The Committee reviewed a proposal for revised CEP Rules of Procedure and forwarded a
revised version to the ATCM for consideration and adoption by means of a Decision.
(25) The following papers, submitted to meet the reporting requirements under Article 17 of the
Protocol, were also submitted under this agenda item:
- IP 58 Annual Report Pursuant to the Article 17 of the Protocol on Environmental
Protection to the Antarctic Treaty ( Japan)
- IP 59 Informe Anual de Acuerdo al Artículo 17 del Protocolo al Tratado Antártico sobre la
Protección del Medio Ambiente Periodo 2008 – 2009 (Uruguay)
- IP 67 Annual Report pursuant to Article 17 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to
the Antarctic Treaty 2008-2009 (Italy)
- IP 73 Annual Report pursuant to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
- IP 97 Informe Anual del Ecuador de acuerdo con el Artículo 17 del Protocolo al Tratado
Antártico sobre Protección del Medio Ambiente- Expedición 2008-2009 (Ecuador)
Item 5: International Polar Year
(26) On behalf of SCAR and the IPY-IPO Dr David Carlson introduced WP 48 IPY Report:
Accomplishments and Challenges, and gave a short presentation on the successes of the IPY,
highlighting a long list of activities as examples of the kinds of research undertaken. He noted
that the real success of the IPY will be judged by how the large amount of data collected will be
analysed and synthesized. Dr Carlson anticipated that a new, comprehensive view of the polar
regions will result from IPY efforts. Dr Carlson also noted that the Washington Ministerial
Declaration on the International Polar Year and Polar Science adopted on 6 April 2009 (see
paragraph 32 below) superseded the recommendation proposed in WP 48.
(27) Dr Carlson also noted the challenge of maintaining focus on the polar regions now that the IPY
period had passed, referring to four specific needs: the need to develop integrated prediction
capabilities, the need to sustain networks of contacts between journalists, scientists and teachers
that were established during the IPY, the need to continue support for young polar scientists,
and the need to identify, preserve and share data obtained during the IPY.
(28) SCAR advised that the Second International Polar Year Conference will be held in Oslo June 8-
10, 2010 and encouraged all Parties to participate. All IPY scientists were urged to submit their
data to their national Antarctic data centre or, if one doesn‟t exist, to establish one to create a
repository for data that may then be exchanged with other national Antarctic data centres.
SCAR noted its engagement with SCOR (the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research) in the
design for a Southern Ocean Observing System and urged Parties to learn more about this
system and to aid in its implementation, when the design is published.
(29) Several Members and ASOC acknowledged the impressive legacy of the IPY.
2. CEP XII Report
(30) Belgium encouraged all Members to contribute financial or in-kind support to the SCAR-
(31) Korea described its polar research programme which includes both an Arctic and an Antarctic
research base and informed the meeting of the launching of a new ice breaking research vessel
this year that will contribute to Korea‟s future polar research efforts.
(32) The Committee welcomed the Washington Ministerial Declaration on the International Polar
Year and Polar Science agreed by the Treaty Parties on Monday April 6.
(33) The Chair remarked that the success of IPY will depend on how the data and information
obtained are used for management purposes as well as on the advances in understanding of the
polar regions and how the challenges outlined in WP 48 are overcome.
(34) The following papers were submitted under this Agenda item:
? IP 40 Brief Introduction on the Third Chinese National Arctic Marine Survey - IPY China
Programme (China), and
? IP 56 Australian-led research during the International Polar Year (Australia).
Item 6: Environmental Impact Assessment
6a) Consideration of Draft CEEs forwarded to the CEP in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 3 of
(35) No draft CEEs were circulated in advance of CEP XII.
(36) Information Paper 29 Update on the Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation of New Indian
Research Base at Larsemann Hills, Antarctica (India) was submitted under this agenda item.
6b) Other EIA Matters
(37) The Secretariat noted that SP 10 Annual List of Initial Environmental Evaluations (IEE) and stComprehensive Environmental Evaluations (CEE) prepared between April 1 2008 and March st31 2009 was prepared in response to Resolution 1 (2005). The Secretariat noted that most
information was uploaded directly into the database under the electronic reporting system.
(38) ASOC noted the large variation in the number of environmental impact assessments submitted
by the different Parties with some submitting no EIAs. ASOC questioned whether this was an
indication that the EIA provisions of the Protocol were not being adequately implemented or if
Parties were simply not fulfilling the information exchange requirements of the Protocol.
(39) Germany also noted the variation in the number of environmental impact assessments and noted
some variation in the procedures used by the different Parties to prepare these assessments.
(40) The Committee recalled its lengthy previous discussions regarding the appropriate level of EIA
to apply to various activities in Antarctica and its attempts to better define the meaning of the
term “minor or transitory”. Whilst these matters had not necessarily been resolved, the
Committee reiterated the importance of undertaking high quality EIAs for all activities in
Antarctica and urged all Members to ensure that this information was made available, where
required, in accordance with Resolution 1 (2005).
ATCM XXXII Final Report
(41) The Chair introduced WP 12 Environmental aspects and impacts of tourism and non-
governmental activities in Antarctica: Draft project scope (Australia, France and New Zealand),
prepared jointly by the CEP Chair and Vice-chairs. The paper contained a draft project scope to
address this issue and a proposed management approach for the study. The Chair noted that this
had been developed in accordance with the high priority afforded to environmental impacts of
tourism and non-governmental activities in the CEP‟s five-year work pPlan and the ATCM‟s
interest in seeing this work undertaken (paragraph 203 of ATCM XXXI Final Report). (42) The Chair indicated that the key objectives of the proposed study were to provide a
comprehensive and up-to-date status report on tourism and non-governmental activities in the
Antarctic Treaty area; to provide an assessment of actual or potential environmental impacts; to
identify and assess the effectiveness of existing management arrangements; to identify and
assess the adequacy of ongoing research and monitoring activities, as well as analytical methods
to analyse existing data; and to make recommendations for the future management of the
environmental aspects of Antarctic tourism and non-governmental activities. (43) The Chair proposed that the project be developed through a Project Management Group
comprising interested CEP Members. This group would be responsible for guiding and
coordinating the project and for ensuring the Committee as a whole is kept appraised of the
study‟s progress and findings.
(44) New Zealand indicated its willingness to contract an individual to facilitate the study under the
direction of the project management group. There was extensive support for the proposal and
New Zealand‟s offer to take a lead in the process. Many Members also indicated their
willingness to participate in the work.
(45) In supporting the initiative the Committee emphasised the importance of including all aspects of
tourism and NGO activities in the scope of the study; ensuring transparency in carrying out the
study, and ensuring that input is open to observers and experts. It was also noted that the study
will contribute to the Committee‟s role in advising the ATCM on the state of the Antarctic
(46) ASOC and IAATO also supported the initiative and offered to assist and provide advice and
information as required. Several Members emphasised that undertaking the study should not be
a deterrent to policy action being taken in the interim. Some Members, supported by IAATO,
noted that in the future it would be beneficial to conduct a study examining all human activity in
Antarctica, not just the impacts of tourism and non-governmental activities. (47) New Zealand indicated that it would begin the study shortly after the completion of ATCM
XXXII with a call for Members to participate in the Management Group. All material would be
made available through the CEP website. Regular updates would be provided to all CEP
Members to ensure the credibility of the process and to ensure that the best available
information and data are used.
(48) ASOC introduced IP 2 Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment: A
review, presenting a summary of an article co-authored by nine experts in terrestrial and marine
biology and contaminated site assessment and remediation. The purpose of this review was to
summarise recent research on human impacts on the southern polar environment and to
recommend how research can be better fed back to the Environment Protocol and CCAMLR, to
inform decisions. Chemical contamination and sewage disposal on the continent have been
found to be long-lived. Contemporary sewage management practices at many coastal stations
2. CEP XII Report
are insufficient to prevent local contamination. Human activities, particularly construction and
transport, have affected Antarctic flora and fauna. A small number of non-indigenous plant and
animal species have become established. There was little indication of recovery of
overexploited fish stocks, and ramifications of fishing activity on bycatch species and the
ecosystem could be far-reaching.
(49) The Committee congratulated ASOC on its comprehensive review of the subject, which
provided an excellent state of knowledge report on human activity and impacts in the region.
(50) The Committee noted the synergy between the report‟s recommendations and the Committee‟s
prioritised work plan, and concurred with the following recommendations contained in the
? Initiate long-term monitoring programmes for the verification of impacts on, or early
detection of unforeseen effects in relation to:
- Chemical contamination;
- Floral assemblages;
- Fauna, and
- Non-native species ? Put in place measures to prevent the establishment of non-native species; ? Develop universal standards for the remediation of contaminated sites; ? Ensure the effectiveness of the EIA provisions of the Protocol, particularly with regard to
improving the assessment of cumulative impacts; and ? Apply the precautionary approach.
(51) The Committee noted that the joint CEP / SC-CAMLR workshop held before the CEP XII
considered some of the issues discussed in the ASOC paper, such as non-native species and
(52) ASOC introduced IP 53 Key elements of a strategic vision for Antarctic tourism stating that
there is an urgent need for Antarctic Treaty Parties to develop a clear vision of tourism in the
Antarctic, and to agree on a tourism strategy that delivers step by step on that vision through
time. With respect to tourism and EIA, ASOC noted that Antarctic environmental protection
should begin at the tourism departure region through the planning, assessment and permitting
processes. The impact of tourism activities in Antarctica as assessed in the EIA should
demonstrably have no more than a minor or transitory impact on the environment; consequently,
there is a need to assess the effectiveness of EIA through monitoring. A precautionary approach
should be used to manage tourism in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence about
(53) ASOC also introduced IP 23 Tourism and land based facilities in Antarctica. It recalled that at
ATCM XXXI IAATO and ASOC had been invited by Japan to provide information on land-
based facilities. Japan thanked ASOC for producing the Information Paper in response to
Japan‟s request at ATCM XXXI and noted that such information would be a good basis for discussions on tourism and non-governmental activities.
ATCM XXXII Final Report
(54) Some Members noted that some of the information contained in IP 23 could be misinterpreted,
in particular elements related to scientific bases, which some Members considered to be
inaccurate. ASOC commented that its paper was fully referenced and noted that IP 23 lists
facilities that play a role in tourism even if that is not their principal purpose.
(55) IAATO introduced IP 87 IAATO Field Operations Manual (FOM) noting that it viewed good
training and experience as key factors in ensuring best practice in safe and environmentally
responsible private-sector travel to Antarctica, and as a way to elevate its standards. As such,
IAATO‟s Field Operation Manual (FOM) includes basic ATS documents and numerous
guidelines and operating procedures that have proven to be effective tools over the years for the
management of Antarctic travel. The FOM also provides the course material for the IAATO
online training and assessment initiative for field staff.
(56) The Committee thanked IAATO for this information.
(57) The following Information Papers were submitted under this agenda item:
? IP 21 Initial Environmental Evaluation for Installation of Wind Energy Generators (WEG)
at Proposed New Indian Research Base at Larsemann Hills, East Antarctica (India) and
? IP 72 Initial Environmental Evaluation Law-Racovita Station (Romania)
Item 7: Area Protection and Management
7a) Management Plans
i. Draft management plans which had been reviewed by the Subsidiary Group on
Management Plans (58) Australia, on behalf of the Subsidiary Group on Management Plans (SGMP) introduced WP 51
rev 1 Subsidiary Group on Management Plans – Report on Terms of Reference #1 to #3:
Review of Draft Management Plans. It mentioned that the group had operated in accordance
with Terms of Reference agreed by CEP XI and ATCM XXXI, and was convened by one of the
CEP Vice-chairs, Mr Ewan McIvor from Australia.
(59) Australia informed the Committee that the group had included seventeen participants and
suggested that the high level of participation was an encouraging demonstration of support for
this new mechanism for assisting the Committee‟s work. All participants were thanked for their
(60) The group had considered the four Management Plans referred by CEP XI for intersessional
review. The SGMP‟s advice to proponents had been circulated to CEP contact points and was
available via the Discussion Forum.
(61) In summary, the SGMP recommended that the CEP:
- the revised management plan prepared by Chile for ASPA 125 (Fildes Peninsula, King
George Island, South Shetland Islands), contained in Attachment A to WP 51;
2. CEP XII Report
- the revised management plan prepared by Chile for ASPA 150 (Ardley Island, Maxwell
Bay, King George Island), contained in Attachment B to WP 51; and
- the revised draft management plan prepared by Korea for a new ASPA at Narębski
Point, Barton Peninsula, King George Island, contained in Attachment C to WP 51.
? Note that the United States planned to undertake further field work at ASPA 106 Cape
Hallett and to finalise the revised draft management plan in 2010.
(62) Korea introduced some of the key components of its new proposed ASPA at Narębski Point,
and highlighted the outstanding flora and fauna at the location as well as the aesthetic values of
the site. The ASPA had been proposed in light of the increased number of visitors over the past
several years and the ASPA was intended to protect the ecological, scientific, and aesthetic
(63) Argentina thanked Korea for incorporating comments made on the draft management plan of
the proposed ASPA at Narębski Point.
(64) The Committee endorsed the SGMP‟s recommendations and agreed to forward the management plans for ASPA 125 (Fildes Peninsula), ASPA 150 (Ardley Island), and ASPA (new): Narębski Point to the ATCM for formal adoption. It also noted the advice from the SGMP regarding
ASPA 106 (Cape Hallett), and further noted that the United States would submit the revised
management plan for that Area to the SGMP during the intersessional period.
(65) The Chair recalled that in part the SGMP had been established to relieve some of the burden of
work on the Committee during the CEP meeting. The SGMP was already proving helpful as
there had been thorough scrutiny of management plans during the intersessional period,
allowing the Committee to review its recommendations efficiently in session.
(66) The Committee looked forward to using the SGMP more in the future to further the work of the
CEP, and thanked Mr McIvor for his work to coordinate the SGMP.
ii. Draft revised management plans which had not been reviewed by the Subsidiary
Group on Management Plans
(67) The Committee considered revised management plans for the following Antarctic Specially
Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs) under this category:
? WP 20 Revision of Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 152:
Western Bransfield Strait (United States)
? WP 21 Revision of Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 153:
Eastern Dallmann Bay (United States)
? WP 22 Revision of Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 121:
Cape Royds, Ross Island (United States)
? WP 24 Revision of Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 113:
Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbor, Anvers Island, Palmer Archipelago (United States)
? WP 25 Revision of maps and text for the Management Plan for Antarctic Specially
Managed Area No. 7: Southwest Anvers Island and Palmer Basin (United States)
? WP 27 Review of Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) No. 104 (New Zealand)
ATCM XXXII Final Report
? WP 40 Review of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs)
136 Clark Peninsula and 162 Mawson’s Huts, and Antarctic Specially Managed Area
(ASMA) 3 Cape Denison (Australia)
? WP 42 Review of the management plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA)
No. 142 - Svarthamaren (Norway)
(68) In introducing its revised ASPA management plans the United States noted that:
? no major changes had been made to the management plans for ASPA 113 (Litchfield
Island), ASPA 152 (Western Bransfield Strait), ASPA 153 (Eastern Dallman Bay) or
ASMA 7 (Southwest Anvers Island and Palmer Basin);
? the marine boundary of ASPA 121 (Cape Royds) had been redefined to focus more
particularly on the area immediately surrounding the Adélie penguin colony, in order to
reflect more accurately the values under special protection and in recognition of site
management needs; and
? other minor changes to the text and maps of these plans were outlined in the
corresponding Working Papers.
(69) The United States also mentioned that it had included accurate coordinates for certain locations
in some of these areas, following a query from Japan. Japan thanked the United States, noted
that such information was helpful for implementing management plans in its national legislation,
and therefore proposed that all Parties present as precise geographical coordinates as possible.
(70) The Committee encouraged all Members to include coordinates as accurately as possible.
(71) In response to a question from France, the United States advised that tourism takes place in the
vicinity of ASPA 153 but not within the Area. Due to the proximity, however, it was important
to include a reference to tourist activities in the management plan.
(72) Argentina requested clarification on the Committee‟s procedures regarding when management
plans may be forwarded to the ATCM for direct approval and when management plans would
be referred to the SGMP.
(73) The Chair noted that this decision fell to the Committee, and Australia recalled that the current
procedure was outlined in the revised Guidelines for CEP Consideration of New and Revised
Draft ASPA and ASMA Management Plans adopted by CEP XI.
(74) In presenting the draft Management Plan for ASPA 104 (Sabrina Island), which was prepared in
the Annex V format, New Zealand noted that the existing Management Plan dated back to 1966
and consisted only of a description of the Area. Following a question from Japan, New Zealand
made a minor modification to clarify wording regarding restrictions on hazardous liquids that
can be taken into the Area.
(75) Australia introduced the draft Management Plans for ASPA 136 (Clark Peninsula), ASPA 162
(Mawson‟s Huts), HSM 77 and ASMA 3 (Cape Denison), noting that:
? no major changes had been made to the management plans for ASPA 162 or HSM 77
and ASMA 3;