2-6 Area Protection and Management

2.6 AREA PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT

Introductory note
The practice of setting aside areas, such as national parks, nature reserves, heritage sites, which are subject to different management regimes from the lands which surround them, is common in almost all countries outside Antarctica.
The practice was first introduced into the Antarctic Treaty system under Article VIII of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora (1964). Prior to adoption of the Protocol in 1991 the categories of sites and areas had proliferated so that there were Specially Protected Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Historic Sites and Monuments, Specially Reserved Areas, Multiple Use Planning Areas, and CEMP [CCAMLR Environmental Monitoring Programme] Sites.
This situation came about over the years from 1964 to 1990 because:

a. Specially Protected Areas designated under Article VIII of the Agreed Measures provided only for the protection of fauna and flora;
b. there was a need to be able to designate areas for the protection of other values: thus came about the concept of Specially Reserved Areas (SRAs) (see Recommendation XV-10)
c. the Specially Protected Area mechanism was used in the early days of its development to protect scientific investigations going on in them rather than just the fauna and flora: thus came about the concept of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (see Recommendations VII-3 and VIII-3),
d. there was no mechanism for the protection of areas in the vicinity of scientific stations: thus came about the concept of Multiple Use Planning Areas (MUPAs) (see Recommendation XV-11).
During the negotiation of Annex II (Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora) to the Protocol, the question arose as to how best to deal with Article VIII - the area Protection Article - of the Agreed Measures. The opportunity was seized to review and, if possible rationalise, the proliferation of area categories referred to above.
In the debate that followed, the overriding issue was whether to rationalise the existing categories of area in accordance with the values it was intended to protect (fauna and flora, geological, scientific, wilderness etc) or in accordance with the methodology by which they were to be protected. Amongst factors which influenced the outcome were:
a. that there was a crucial difference between areas for which a hands-on management structure could be envisaged and areas where it could not;
b. recognition that in order to regulate access to protected areas by the increasing number of visitors to the Antarctic who were not under the direct control of Consultative Parties, it was necessary that the designation of areas should carry the clearest possible message about the regulatory method which was applicable to them;
c. that in areas in the vicinity of scientific stations, the government or governments responsible for the station or stations in question knew best how to manage activity within such an area;
d. that management of areas in the vicinity of scientific stations was not to be seen as according any sort of proprietorial rights to the area in question, and must not interfere in any way with the exercise of rights of on-site inspection in accordance with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty;
e. that all Consultative Parties which had approved the Agreed Measures had experience of operating a permit system for the purpose of implementing Article VIII, and that some Consultative Parties had instituted a permit system for the purpose of regulating access to Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
The outcome of the debate was Annex V to the Protocol which provides for two sorts of Antarctic Protected Area, namely Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). Access to ASPAs requires a permit; access to ASMAs does not. The first paragraphs of Articles 3 and 4 set out the purposes for which, respectively, ASPAs and ASMAs may be designated. The main difference between them is that ASPAs may be designated to protect values, 'environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness', while ASMAs are to protect activities.
At the heart of the protection mechanism for both ASPAs and ASMAs is the Management Plan. Article 5 sets out the matters which are to be covered in Management Plans for both ASPAs and ASMAs. In the case of ASPAs, any permit must be accompanied by 'the relevant sections of the Management Plan'; anyone in an ASPA without a permit or with a permit which does not have the relevant elements of the Management Plan attached to it will, in either event, be ultra vires. In the case of of ASMAs, the Management Plan is to be drafted in the form of a 'Code of Conduct'. There is no requirement that a visitor should be aware of such a code of conduct, but it is implicit that any visitor who had his or her attention drawn to a code of conduct would be under an obligation to comply with it.

Historic Sites and Monuments
The need to take steps to protect historic sites and monuments was apparent at the first meeting and led to the adoption of Recommendation I-IX. There had been a marked increase in the number of expeditions in the Antarctic prior to the International Geophysical Year. Some of these expeditions established stations in areas where the huts and remnants of earlier expeditions of the 'Heroic age' of Antarctic exploration (1895-1916) still existed. The New Zealand and United States expeditions on Ross Island led the way in restoring, protecting and curating the huts of R. F. Scott (1901-03, 1910-13) and E. H. Shackleton (1907-09). At the Fifth Consultative Meeting it was agreed that Consultative Parties would draw up lists of historic sites and monuments. At the Seventh Consultative Meeting these lists were consolidated into one list.
So far (February 1994) sixty Historic Sites and Monuments have been included in the 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments' annexed to Recommendation VII-9. All of them, strictly speaking, are 'Monuments', that is to say human artefacts, rather than 'Sites' or areas. Many of them, moreover, are in close proximity to scientific stations. Nevertheless, provision for their protection is contained in Annex V, Article 8, on the grounds that the ASPA permit system is the best means of ensuring protection of historic monuments where direct oversight management is not possible. Where such management is possible, Article 8 provides for the possibility of designation as ASMAs.
This section of the Handbook has been extensively reorganised from the way in which it was presented in Part 3 of the 7th edition.
The main differences are that:

a. all the Recommendations and extracts from ATCM reports referring to protected areas or historic monuments have been grouped together in chronological order (Section 2.6.1);
b. Annex V to the Protocol: Area Protection and Management, is reproduced in Section 2.6.2.
c. All area descriptions and management plans are reproduced under three headings: Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, including Specially Protected Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Specially Reserved Areas; Antarctic Specially Managed Areas, including a Multiple-use Planning area; and Historic Sites and Monuments.
Table 1 sets out for each Specially Protected Area and Site of Special Scientific Interest the Recommendations which refer to it.
Table 1. Listed SPAs and SSSIs and relevant Recommendations
SPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS (SPAs)

SPA: Short name		Annex B insertion	Amended description	Annex B termination	Origination as SSSI	Management plan	Annex V Management plan
1	Taylor Rookery	IV-1	-	-	-	-	XVII-2
2	Rookery Islands	IV-2	-	-	-	-	XVII-2
3	Ardery and Odbert	IV-3	-	-	-	-	XVII-2
4	Sabrina Island	IV-4	-	-	-	-	-
5	Beaufort Island	IV-5	-	-	-	-	-

6	Cape Crozier	IV-6	-	VIII-2	VIII-4/No 4	-	-
7	Cape Hallett	IV-7	XIII-13	-	-	-	-
8	Dion Islands	IV-8	XVI-6	-	-	XVI-6	-
9	Green Island	IV-9	XVI-6	-	-	XVI-6	-
10	Byers Peninsula	IV-10	-	VIII-2	VIII-4/No 6	-	-

11	Cape Shireff	IV-11	-	XV-7	XV-7/No 32	-	-
12	Fildes Peninsula	IV-12	V-5	VIII-2	VIII-4/No 5	-	-
13	Moe Island	IV-13	XVI-6	-	-	XVI-6	-
14	Lynch Island	IV-14	-	-	-	-	-
15	Powell Island	IV-15	XVI-6	-	-	XVI-6	-

16	Coppermine Peninsula	VI-10	XVI-6	-	-	XVI-6	-
17	Litchfield Island	VIII-1	-	-	-	-	-
18	Coronation Island	XIII-10	XVI-6	-	-	XVI-6	-
19	Lagotellerie Island	XIII-11	XVI-6	-	-	XVI-6	-
20	Caughley Beach	XIII-12	-	-	-	-	XVII-2

21	Avian Island	XVI-4	-	-	-	XVI-4	-
22	Cryptogam Ridge	XVI-8	-	-	-	XVI-8	-
23	Forlidas Pond	XVI-9	-	-	-	XVI-9	-

SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (SSSIs)

SSSI: Short name		First designation	Expiry year	Annex V managment plan	Amended plan	Termination as SSSI	Designation as SPA
1	Cape Royds	VIII-4	1995	-	XIII-9	-	-
2	Arrival Heights	VIII-4	1997	-	-	-	-
3	Barwick Valley	VIII-4	1995	-	-	-	-
4	Cape Crozier	VIII-4	2001	-	-	-	-
5	Fildes Peninsula	VIII-4	2001	-	-	-	-

6	Byers Peninsula	VIII-4	2001	-	XVI-5	-	-
7	Haswell Island	VIII-4	2001	-	-	-	-
8	Admiralty Bay	X-5	1995	-	XVI-6	-	-
9	Rothera Point	XIII-8	1995	-	XVI-6	-	-
10	Caughley Beach	XIII-8	2001	-	-	-	-

11	Tramway Ridge	XIII-8	2001	-	-	-	-
12	Canada Glacier	XIII-8	2001	-	-	-	-
13	Potter Peninsula	XIII-8	1995	-	XVI-6	-	-
14	Harmony Point	XIII-8	1995	-	XVI-6	-	-
15	Cierva Point	XIII-8	1995	-	XVI-6	-	-

16	Bailey Peninsula	XIII-8	1995	-	-	-	-
17	Clark Peninsula	XIII-8	1995	-	-	-	-
18	White Island	XIII-8	2001	-	XVI-6	-	-
19	Linnaeus Terrace	XIII-8	1995	-	-	-	-
20	Biscoe Point	XIII-8	1995	-	-	-	-

21	Deception Island	XIII-8	1995	-	-	-	-
22	Yukidori Valley	XIV-5	2003	-	-	-	-
23	Svarthamaren	XIV-5	1997	-	-	-	-
24	Mount Melbourne	XIV-5	1997	-	-	-	-
25	Marine Plain	XIV-5	1997	-	-	-	-

26	Chile Bay	XIV-5	1997	-	-	-	-
27	Port Foster	XIV-5	1997	-	-	-	-
28	South Bay	XIV-5	1997	-	-	-	-
29	Ablation Point	XV-6	1999	-	-	-	-
30	Avian Island	XV-6	1999	-	-	XVI-4	XVI-4/No 21

31	Mount Flora	XV-6	1999	-	-	-	-
32	Cape Shirreff	XV-7	1999	-	-	-	-
33	Ardley Island	XVI-2	2001	-	-	-	-
34	Lions Rump	XVI-2	2001	-	-	-	-
35	Bransfield Strait	XVI-3	2001	-	-	-	-

36	Dallmann Bay	XVI-3	2001	-	-	-	-

It should be noted that:
a. SPA Nos 6, 10, 11 and 12 have been redesignated, respectively, as SSSI Nos 4, 6, 32 and 5;
b. SSSI No 30 has been redesignated as SPA No 21;
c. management plans in accordance with Article 5(3) of Annex V have been drawn up for SPA Nos 1, 2, 3 and 20 only.
d. nomenclatural practice regarding Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the marine environment has not been consistent; there are 5 such Sites: No 26, Chile Bay; No 27, Port Foster; No 28, South Bay; No 35, western Bransfield Strait; and No 36, East Dallmann Bay; only the last two of these have been called Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
e. although no reference was made in Annex V to the category of Specially Reserved Areas, it has been noted that such areas were to be managed by application of a permit system (see Recommendation XV-10(4)) and were, therefore, most likely to be considered under the heading of ASPAs rather than ASMAs.
Note. The frequent appearance of the United Kingdom as the delegation responsible for tabling papers proposing the designation of Specially Protected Areas or Sites of Special Scientific Interest is due to the necessity that papers, although originating from SCAR, should be tabled at an ATCM by a delegation, and to the fact that the SCAR secretariat was in the UK. It was primarily a matter of bureaucratic convenience and should not necessarily be taken as indicating that the UK was responsible for the origin of proposals made to SCAR for designation of areas.
2.6.1. Antarctic Treaty Recommendations
I-IX: Historic sites
With due regard to Article IV of the Treaty, the Representatives recommend that:
1) Governments interested in any tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest should consult together whenever appropriate on their restoration or preservation.
2) Appropriate reports on the condition of such tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest as well as any restoration which might have been effected should be exchanged among governments;
3) Governments adopt all adequate measures to protect such tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest, from damage and destruction.
Extract from report of Ist ATCM
In respect of Recommendation I-IX, the French delegation stated that 'the French government would wish to give the word 'object' a fairly broad significance'.
Extract from the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, annexed to Recommendation III-VIII.
ARTICLE VIII: [Specially Protected Areas]
1. The areas of outstanding scientific interest listed in Annex B shall be designated 'Specially Protected Areas' and shall be accorded special protection by the Participating Governments in order to preserve their unique natural ecological system.
2. In addition to the prohibitions and measures of protection dealt with in other Articles of these Agreed Measures, the Participating Governments shall in Specially Protected Areas further prohibit:
a. the collection of any native plant, except in accordance with a permit;
b. the driving of any vehicle.
3. A permit issued under Article VI shall not have effect within a Specially Protected Area except in accordance with paragraph 4 of the present Article.
4. A permit shall have effect within a Specially Protected Area provided that:
a. it was issued for a compelling scientific purpose which cannot be served elsewhere; and
b. the actions permitted thereunder will not jeopardise the natural ecological system existing in that Area.
IV-1-15
Note. These Recommendations set out the descriptions of Specially Protected Areas Nos 1-15, and the reasons for their insertion in Annex B of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.
V-4: Historic Monuments
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendation I-IX,
Recommend to their Governments:
1. that a list of historic monuments which should be preserved be drawn up;
2. that each Government circulate a list of historic monuments through diplomatic channels to other Consultative Governments;
3. that this subject be considered further at the next Consultative Meeting;
4. that, in the meantime, they do what is feasible to ensure the survival as far as possible of any historic monument which has been included on any list circulated under paragraph 2.
V-5
Note. This Recommendation revised the description of, and reasons for the designation of Specially Protected Area No 12, Fildes Peninsula. For the subsequent history of this Specially Protected Area see Section 2.6.3.1.2. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, SSSI No 5.
VI-8: Permits for entry to Specially Protected Areas
The Representatives,
Recalling Article VIII of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora annexed to Recommendation III-VIII ('the Agreed Measures') and the need to conform with paragraph 4(a) of that Article;
Considering that, in order to be effective,the existing prohibitions and measures of protection relating to Specially Protected Areas need to be strengthened;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They use their best endeavours to ensure compliance with those provisions of the Agreed Measures which relate to Specially Protected Areas;
2. They take such action as may be appropriate to prohibit the entry by their nationals into a Specially Protected Area, except in accordance with a permit issued under Articles VI and VIII of the Agreed Measures;
3. Until such time as this Recommendation may become effective in accordance with Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty, it shall, as far as feasible, be considered as a guideline.
VI-10
Note. This Recommendation sets out the description of Specially Protected Area No 16, Coppermine Peninsula, and the reasons for its insertion in Annex B of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.
VI-14: Historic monuments
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations I-IX and V-4;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They adopt all adequate measures to preserve and protect from damage the historic monuments situated in the Antarctic Treaty Area;
2. They arrange for each of these historic monuments to be appropriately marked with a notice indicating in the English, French, Russian and Spanish languages that it is scheduled for preservation in accordance with the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty;
3. A list of historic monuments be prepared by consultation through diplomatic channels for consideration at the Seventh Consultative Meeting.
VII-2: Review of Specially Protected Areas
The Representatives,
Recalling:
1. that the purpose of Specially Protected Areas is to preserve, in accordance with the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, the natural ecological systems of areas of outstanding scientific interest;
2. that Recommendation VI-8 has notably increased the protection afforded to Specially Protected Areas by prohibiting entry into them except in accordance with a permit;
Recognizing that the existing Specially Protected Areas were designated under less strict provisions regarding entry;
Conscious of the need to review the existing Specially Protected Areas in the light of experience and the increased degree of protection they have been afforded;
Recalling Recommendation III-X which encouraged SCAR to continue its interest in and prepare reports from time to time on the conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora;
Noting the opinion of SCAR, expressed in the report produced at its Twelfth Meeting on the 'Purposes and Designation of Special Areas', that the existing Specially Protected Areas are not fully representative of the major Antarctic land and freshwater ecological systems and that some of these ecological systems are over-represented in the series so far designated;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. In due course they include in the series of Specially Protected Areas listed in Annex B of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora:
a. representative examples of the major Antarctic land and freshwater ecological systems;
b. areas with unique complexes of species;
c. areas which are the type locality or only known habitat of any plant or invertebrate species;
d. areas which contain specially interesting breeding colonies of birds or mammals;
e. areas which should be kept inviolate so that in the future they may be used for purposes of comparison with localities that have been disturbed by man;
2. They invite SCAR, through their National Committees, to review in the light of the criteria set out in paragraph 1 the existing Specially Protected Areas, and to make recommendations about:
a. the desirability of retaining each Area;
b. the desirability of redefining the limits of each Area retained;
c. creating such additional Areas as may be considered desirable;
3. The number of Specially Protected Areas should be kept to the minimum that will meet the criteria set out in paragraph 1;
4. The size of each Specially Protected Area should be the minimum required to serve the purpose for which the Area has been designated.
VII-3: Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recognizing that:
1. Scientific investigations may be jeopardised by accidental or wilful interference;
2. sites where such investigations are proceeding may require a measure of protection;
3. because of the continuing scientific investigations in them certain localities of botanical or zoological interest are not suitable for designation as Specially Protected Areas under the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora;
4. sites of non-biological interest cannot be designated as Specially Protected Areas;
Considering that the application of individual management plans regulating access and use for a specified period to such sites, which might be called Sites of Special Scientific Interest, would enable investigations at these sites to be carried out without interference;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They invite SCAR, through their National Committees, to consider this matter further and make suggestions for the designation of sites of Special Scientific Interest (together with a proposed management plan for each site);
2. They study the subject further with a view to its inclusion on the Agenda of the Eighth Consultative Meeting.
VII-9: Historic Monuments
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations I-X, V-4 and VI-14;
Recommend to their Governments that they approve the annexed 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments'.
Note. The List referred to in the above Recommendations is set out in Section 2.6..3.3.
VIII-1
Note. This Recommendation sets out the description of Specially Protected Area No 17, Litchfield Island, and the reasons for its insertion in Annex B of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.
VIII-2: Review of Specially Protected Areas
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations III-8 and VII-2;
Conscious of the need to revise the list of Specially Protected Areas in Annex Annex B of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora in the light of experience;
Recalling the criteria established by paragraph 1 of Recommendation VII-2 for the selection of Specially Protected Areas;
Noting with appreciation the response of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to paragraph 2 of Recommendation VII-2;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. The following Recommendations, recommending certain defined areas for inclusion in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, be terminated:
a. Recommendation IV-6 (Specially Protected Areas: Cape Crozier, Ross Island)
b. Recommendation IV-10 (Specially Protected Areas: Byers Peninsula)
c. Recommendation IV-12 (Specially Protected Areas: Fildes Peninsula)
d. Recommendation V-5 (Specially Protect Areas: Fildes Peninsula);
2. The numbers 6, 10 and 12 in Annex B of the Agreed Measures should not be used for other Specially Protected Areas.
VIII-5: Permits for entry into Specially Protected Areas
The Representatives,
Noting that Recommendation VI-8, paragraph 2, and Articles VI and VIII of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora enable Governments to issue permits for entry to Specially Protected Areas only for the collection of native mammals or birds (Article VI) or native plants (Article VIII, paragraph 2 (a));
Desiring to extend this facility to include other compelling scientific purposes;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. Recommendation VI-8 be terminated;
2. The Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora be modified by the addition of a new subparagraph to Article VIII, paragraph 2, as follows:
'c. entry by their nationals, except in accordance with a permit issued under Article VI or under paragraph 2(a) of the present Article or in accordance with a permit issued for some other compelling scientific purpose.';
3. Until such time as the Agreed Measures and this Recommendation become effective in accordance with Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty, this Recommendation should, as far as possible, be considered as a guideline.
VIII-3: Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recalling Article II of the Antarctic Treaty and Recommendation VII-3;
Conscious of the need to protect scientific investigations which might suffer from wilful or accidental interference;
Desiring to protect only sites where harmful interference is generally recognized to be likely;
Recognizing the need to protect such scientific investigations irrespective of their purpose;
Recognizing that a limited number of sites of exceptional scientific interest may require long-term protection from harmful interference;
Noting with appreciation the interim response of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to paragraph 1 of Recommendation VII-3;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They invite SCAR, through their National Committees, to have regard to the following when considering proposals for Sites of Special Scientific Interest:
a. Sites should only be proposed when:
i. Scientific investigations are being carried out or are planned to begin before the following meeting of SCAR, and there is a demonstrable risk of interference which would jeopardise those scientific investigations; or
ii. they are of exceptional scientific interest and therefore require long-term protection from harmful interference;
b. Sites should be proposed for designation up to a specified date, which may be extended following a review by SCAR;
c. Proposals for the designation of sites should be accompanied by a management plan which should include, inter alia, and where applicable, the following details:
i. a description of the Site, together with a map delimiting its boundaries and where applicable showing any existing or proposed demarcations on the Site;
ii. a statement setting out the reasons in conformity with paragraphs 1(a) (i) and (ii) above for designation of the site;
iii. a summary of the scientific investigations being carried out or planned;
iv. the proposed date at which the designation will expire unless extended;
v. proposed points of access;
vi. any proposed pedestrian and vehicular routes;
vii. other kinds of scientific investigation which would not cause harmful interference with the investigations described at paragraph (c)(iii) above;
viii. whether specific kinds of scientific sampling may take place and guidelines for such sampling;
ix. any other restraints that may be needed.
2. They invite SCAR, through their National Committees, to initiate review of those sites whose designation is likely to terminate before the second following Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting;
3. They request their national offices responsible for the administration of Antarctic expeditions to maintain a record of activities within each Site of Special Scientific Interest in which their scientists are active;
4. Persons wishing to visit Sites of Special Scientific Interest should consult their national bodies responsible for the administration of Antarctic expeditions.
5. Until such time as the Recommendations designating Sites of Special Scientific Interest become effective in accordance with Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty, they should, as far as possible, be considered as guide lines.
VIII-4: Sites of Special Scientific Interest; interim guidelines
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendation VII-3;
Noting Recommendation VIII-3;
Noting with appreciation the interim response of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to paragraph 1 of Recommendation VII-3;
Noting that management plans have been prepared for certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of management plans for certain sample Sites;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the management plans, annexed to this Recommendation, for the following sites:
Site No.1: Cape Royds, Ross Island
Site No.2: Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island
Site No.3: Barwick Valley, Victoria Land
Site No.4: Cape Crozier, Ross Island
Site No.5: Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands
Site No.6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands
Site No.7: Haswell Island
Extract from Report of IXth ATCM
The Meeting considered the question of the designation of Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the opinion was expressed that SCAR should be invited to examine this matter.
The United States Delegation submitted the following information on its experience in Sites of Special Scientific Interest:
Management plans for seven Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) were accepted as interim guidelines by Recommendation VIII-4 in 1975. The 1976-77 austral summer provided the first opportunity to incorporate these guidelines into Antarctic operating procedures.
The existing seven SSSI expire on 30 June 1981, which date is likely to occur before the eleventh Consultative Meeting.
The US Antarctic Program controls visits to SSSI by a permit system and has found this to be an effective means of reducing harmful interference at SSSI 1, 2, 3 and 4 during the 1976-77 operating season. The posting of information signs around SSSI has been a deterrent to unintended interference by tourists. During this initial year of operations, the US issued one permit for access to SSSI. One request for access to SSSI 3 was denied on grounds that the proposed purpose was in conflict with the Management Plan as set forth in Recommendation VIII-4.
X-5: Man's impact on the Antarctic environment: Site of Special Scientific Interest - Interim Guidelines
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VII-3, VIII-3 and VIII-4;
Noting that a management plan has been prepared for a Site of Special Scientific Interest on the western shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the management plan prepared for this Site;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the management plan, annexed to this recommendation, for Site No.8 western shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island.
X-6: Man's impact on the Antarctic environment: Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VIII-3 and VIII-4;
Noting that:
i. in accordance with paragraph 2 of Recommendation VIII-3 the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), at its Fifteenth Meeting at Chamonix in May 1978, had reviewed the seven sites of Special Scientific Interest designated in Recommendation VIII-4;
ii. experience of the practical effect of the management plans for these sites had shown them to be an effective means of reducing the risk of harmful interference in areas of exceptional scientific interest;
iii. no change to these management plans had been proposed by SCAR;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. The date of expiry of designation of the following sites should be extended from 30 June 1981 to 30 June 1985:
Site No. 1: Cape Royds, Ross Island.
Site No. 2: Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island.
Site No. 3: Barwick Valley, Victoria Land.
Site No. 4: Cape Crozier, Ross Island.
Site No. 5: Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands.
Site No. 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands.
2. The date of expiry of designation of Site No. 7: Haswell Island, should be extended from 30 June 1981 to 30 June 1983.
3. They use their best endeavours to ensure, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation VIII-3, that the management plans of these sites are observed.
Extract from Report of Xth ATCM
The Working Group had before it the relevant sections of the Report of the fifteenth Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) held in Chamonix, France, 22-27 May, 1978.
The Chairman of the Working Group presented a summary of its activities along with the draft recommendations developed by the Working Group, to Plenary on 1 October. The Working Group considered extension in the dates for expiry of designations of seven Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and management plans for the two additional, proposed SSSIs: the first including two small benthic habitats in Chile Bay, Greenwich Island; and the second including both terrestrial and marine areas in Admiralty Bay, King George Island. It also considered questions concerning the collection of geological samples in Antarctica.
Three draft recommendations were submitted to Plenary by the Working Group on 4 October. These recommendations dealt with the extension of the designation of expiry dates of the seven existing SSSIs, the collection of geological samples [see Section 3.3] and the management plan for covering terrestrial areas on the western shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island. There was insufficient time for full consideration of concerns relating to the designation of SSSIs covering marine areas. The Working Group felt that further discussion of the proposed management plans for the SSSIs for Chile Bay and the marine areas of Admiralty Bay should be undertaken prior to and during the Eleventh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.
XI-3: Air disaster on Mount Erebus
The Representatives,
Recalling with respect that in the years of exploration and research many have travelled to and worked in Antarctica and not returned;
Noting that on 28 November 1979 two hundred and fifty-seven people of several nationalities lost their lives when the aircraft in which they were travelling crashed into the slopes of Mount Erebus, Ross Island, Antarctica;
Aware that in spite of the determined and courageous action of members of the New Zealand and United States Antarctic expeditions the bodies of some of those who died could not be recovered;
Aware, too, that no permanent memorial may be placed on the ice slopes at the site of the tragedy;
Express their deep sympathy with the relatives of those who died and with the Government and people of New Zealand; and
Recommend to their Governments that the site on the northern slopes of Mount Erebus where the accident took place be declared a tomb and that they ensure that the area is left in peace.
Extract from Report of XIth ATCM
Plenary heard with sadness the statement of the delegation of New Zealand about the air disaster on Mount Erebus on 28 November 1979 in which two hundred and fifty-seven people of several nationalities lost their lives. Wishing to express their deep sympathy with the relatives of those who died and with the people and Government of New Zealand, the Meeting welcomed the Chairman's recommendation that steps should be taken to ensure that the site where the accident took place should be declared a tomb and should be left in peace. The Meeting adopted Recommendation XI-3.
XII-5: Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VIII-3, VIII-4 and X-6;
Noting that, pursuant to Recommendation X-6, the designation as Sites of Special Scientific Interest of the Sites numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will expire on 30 June 1985, and the designation of Site No.8 will expire on 31 March 1985, before the probable date of the Thirteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, and that the designation of Site No. 7 expired on 30 June 1983;
Desirous that the designation of these sites as Sites of Special Scientific Interest not be allowed to expire before the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has reviewed the Sites and presented the results of its review to the Consultative Parties;
Noting the intention of SCAR to review all Sites of Special Scientific Interest at the Eighteenth Meeting of SCAR in 1984 and to present the results of its comprehensive review to the Consultative Parties for consideration at the Thirteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in 1985;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. The date of expiry of the following sites should be extended from 30 June 1985 to 31 December 1985:
Site No. 1: Cape Royds, Ross Island,
Site No. 2: Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island,
Site No. 3: Barwick Valley, Victoria Land,
Site No. 4: Cape Crozier, Ross Island,
Site No. 5: Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands,
Site No. 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands;
2. The date of expiry of Site No. 7: Haswell Island, should be extended from 30 June 1983 to 31 December 1985.
3. The date of expiry of Site No. 8: Western Shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island, should be extended from 31 March 1985 to 31 December 1985; and
4. They use their best endeavours to ensure, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation VIII-3, that the management plans of these sites are observed.
Extract from Report of XIIth ATCM
Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Meeting considered a draft Recommendation by Chile, Argentina and the UK embodying a proposal for the designation of a Site of Special Scientific Interest at South Bay, Doumer Island in the Palmer Archipelago. The proposal and a management plan for the site has been considered and supported at the Seventeenth Meeting of SCAR. The site is partly terrestrial and partly marine.
It was agreed that any proposal for marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest should be carefully examined in the light of Article VI of the Antarctic Treaty and other factors.
The Meeting noted that the management plan, as amended, specified that the passage of vessels into, in and through the area would not be affected and that the restrictions placed on vessels (namely that bottom trawling, dumping of waste and anchoring should be avoided except in compelling circumstances) were of a limited kind. The Meeting also noted, however, that at the Tenth Consultative Meeting consideration of other Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the marine environment (Chile Bay, Greenwich Island and marine areas adjacent to SSSI No.8, Admiralty Bay, King George Island) had been deferred for future consideration. Noting that at previous meetings proposals for such sites which included marine areas had not been approved, it was agreed to defer the making of a decision at this meeting pending further study. It was therefore agreed that further consideration of such SSSIs should be deferred until such time as offices responsible for Antarctic programs had proposed to SCAR, and SCAR had approved, SSSIs partly or wholly in the marine environment. In this context particular attention was drawn to the criteria for the designation of any SSSI contained in operative paragraphs 1(a)(i) and (ii) of Recommendation VIII-3.
Until such time as this matter might be considered at a future Consultative Meeting or until June 1988, whichever came earlier, it was agreed that offices responsible for Antarctic programs operating in the vicinity of South Bay, Doumer Island should be asked to draw the attention of their ship masters to the scientific work proceeding in South Bay and to the draft management plan reproduced in Annex B to this Report [Not reproduced, now see SSSI No. 28].
It was noted that the designation of Site Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would expire on 30 June 1985; that the designation of Site No. 8 would expire on 31 March 1985, before the probable date of the Thirteenth Consultative Meeting; and that the designation of Site No. 7 as a Site of Special Scientific Interest expired on 30 June 1983. The United States Delegate circulated for information a message recently received from the President of SCAR, Dr James Zumberge, stating that SCAR had not yet reviewed whether such designations should be allowed to lapse or should be extended, that such a review would be conducted by SCAR and the results presented at the next Consultative Meeting, and that the Conservation Sub-Committee of the SCAR Working Group on Biology requested the Consultative Parties to extend the designation of these Sites of Special Scientific Interest until the next Consultative Meeting, when an informal decision could be made. Accordingly, Recommendation XII-5 extends the expiration date of the designation of Site Numbers 1-8 until 31 December 1985, which would be after the conclusion of the Thirteenth Consultative Meeting.
The Parties recognized that the designation of Site No. 7 had already expired and that Recommendation XII-5 might not be formally approved and become effective, pursuant to Article IX-4 of the Treaty, until after the expiration dates of Site Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Therefore, it was agreed that, in the interim, the Parties would voluntarily observe the management plans for these sites.
XII-7
Note. This Recommendation recommends that historic monument No 44 be added to the 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments' annexed to Recommendation VII-9 (q.v.). The List referred to above is set out in Section 2.6.3.3.
XIII-5: Man's Impact on the Antarctic Environment: additional protective arrangements
The Representatives,
Recalling the measures adopted under the Antarctic Treaty for the protection of the environment, the protection of historic sites and monuments, the conservation of fauna and flora, and in particular the setting aside of Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Desiring to ensure that activities in Antarctica should not harm the unique Antarctic environment, disrupt scientific investigations or other legitimate uses or be otherwise contrary to the principles and purposes of the Antarctic Treaty;
Bearing in mind that the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research at the XVIIIth Meeting in Bremerhaven considered the question of the establishment of a new type of conservation area in the Antarctic;
Recommend to their Governments that through their National Committees they invite the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to offer scientific advice:
i. on the system of protected areas in the Antarctic, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Specially Protected Areas and the question of a possible additional category of area under a different form of protection; and
ii. on steps that possibly could be taken to improve the comparability and accessibility of scientific data on Antarctica.
Extract from report of XIIIth ATCM
50. The Delegation of Australia introduced a paper proposing the establishment of a new category of protected area, for the protection of areas not appropriate for designation as SPAs and SSSIs. The special values or characteristics of such areas should be protected without excluding activities which would not be likely adversely to affect those values or characteristics, in consultation with other organizations in the Antarctic Treaty System. Several delegations, while expressing sympathy for the proposal, considered that it should receive further study. Some delegations expressed the view that such measures were not necessary. It was mentioned that SCAR could be entrusted with the study of the matter from the scientific, technical and logistical points of view. In that case, SCAR should be given specific terms of reference. Several delegations were of the opinion that the establishment of a new category of protected areas could bring political problems.
51. The Delegation of Australia also submitted a draft recommendation related to the Code of Conduct for Antarctic Expeditions and Station Activities annexed to Recommendation VII-11. The draft Recommendation invites Scar to review the waste disposal aspects of the Code of Conduct. Several Delegations brought contributions to the proposed Recommendation among others with respect to effects on neighbouring and associated ecosystems, and the cost of new measures to be taken in comparison with the present cost of waste disposal procedures.
52. The Delegation of Australia subsequently revised the text of the draft Recommendation. Recommendation XIII-4 was adopted.
53. The Delegation of Australia also submitted a draft Recommendation on the subject of additional protective measures, with the aim of seeking advice of SCAR on the system of protected areas including a possible additional category of area under a different form of protection.
54. The Delegation of the USA submitted another draft Recommendation with the aim of seeking the advice of SCAR on the steps, if any, that might usefully be taken to improve the accessibility and comparability of scientific data on Antarctica as well as on the potential desirability of establishing one or more additional categories of protected area.
55. The two drafts were merged in one draft Recommendation that met general support. Recommendation XIII-5 was adopted.
[See Section 1.5.7 in relation to Recommendation XIII-5(ii)]

XIII-7: Facilitation of scientific research: Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Interim guidelines: extension of designation
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VIII-3, VIII-4, X-5 and XII-5;
Noting that:
i. in accordance with paragraph 2 of Recommendation VIII-3 the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), at its Eighteenth Meeting at Bremerhaven in September 1984, had reviewed the eight sites of special scientific interest designated in Recommendation VIII-4
ii. experience of the practical effect of the management plans for these sites had shown them to be an effective means of reducing the risks of harmful interference in areas of special scientific interest
iii. except for Site No 1 no change to these management plans had been pro posed by SCAR
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. The date of expiry of designation of Site Numbers 2-8 be extended from 31 December 1985 to the date shown below:
Site No 2: Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island: to 31 December 1987.
Site No 3: Barwick Valley, Victoria Land: to 31 December 1995.
Site No 4: Cape Crozier, Ross Island: to 31 December 1991.
Site No 5: Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands: to 31 December 1991.
Site No 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands: to 31 December 1991.
Site No 7: Haswell Island: to 31 December 1991.
Site No 8: Western shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands: to 31 December 1995.
2. They use their best endeavours to ensure, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation VII-3, that the management plans of these sites are observed.
XIII-8: Facilitation of scientific research: Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Interim guidelines: additional sites
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VII-3, VIII-3, VIII-4 and X-5;
Noting that management plans have been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research for certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest additional to those already designated;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the management plans prepared for these Sites;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the management plans, annexed to this Recommendation, for the following Sites:
Site No 9: Rothera Point, Adelaide Island
Site No 10: Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island
Site No 11: Tramway Ridge, Mount Erebus, Ross Island
Site No 12: Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, Taylor Valley, Victoria Land
Site No 13: Potter Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands
Site No 14: Harmony Point, Nelson Island, South Shetland Islands
Site No 15: Cierva Point and nearby islands, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula
Site No 16: Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land
Site No 17: Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land
Site No 18: White Island, McMurdo Sound
Site No 19: Linnaeus Terrace, Asgaard Range, Victoria Land
Site No 20: Biscoe Point, Anvers Island, Palmer Archipelago
Site No 21: Shores of Port Foster, Deception Island, South Shetland Islands
XIII-9: Facilitation of scientific research: Sites of Special Scientific Interest: interim guidelines

SSSI No 1: Cape Royds, Ross Island: amendment to management plan
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendation VIII-4 and the Management Plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No 1: Cape Royds, Ross Island annexed thereto;
Noting that at its Eighteenth Meeting the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) held at Bremerhaven in September 1984 reviewed the management plans of the eight Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated in Recommendations VIII-4 and X-5 and that it proposed an amended management plan for SSSI No 1: Cape Royds, Ross Island;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. The management plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No 1: Cape Royds, Ross Island annexed to Recommendation VIII-4 be terminated;
2. They voluntarily take account of the management plan, annexed to this Recommendation, for Site No 1: Cape Royds, Ross Island.
Extract from Report of XIIIth ATCM Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
65. SCAR, at its XVIII Meeting, had expressed its concern that three SSSIs incorporating marine areas had not yet been recognized. These suggested SSSIs would be: Chile Bay (Discovery Bay), Greenwich Island; Port Foster, Deception Island; and South Bay, Doumer Island, Palmer Archipelago (SCAR Circular no 499).
66. The meeting considered the matter in the light, among other aspects of the agreement reached at the XIIth Consultative Meeting that further consideration of such SSSIs should be deferred until such time as SCAR had approved SSSIs partly or wholly in the marine environment. Several delegations stressed the importance of the designation of the three proposed SSSIs for the continuation under the best conditions of scientific research in those areas. It was pointed out that South Bay, Doumer Island, would be a SSSI only partially covering marine areas. The three new SSSIs were not designated. [Now see SSSIs No 26-28.]
XIII-10-12
Note These Recommendations set out the descriptions of Specially Protected Areas Nos 18, North Coronation Island, 19 Lagotellerie Island, and 20, 'New College Valley' and the reasons for their insertion in Annex B of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.
XIII-13
Note. This Recommendation sets out reasons for extending the boundaries of Specially Protected Area No 7 and provides a revised description of the Area. See Section 2.6.3.1.1.
XIII-14: Specially Protected Areas: interim guidelines
The Representatives recommend to their Governments that, until such time as Recommendations XII-10 to XII-13 may become effective in accordance with Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty, they should as far as feasible consider these Recommendations as guidelines.
XIII-16
Note. This Recommendation recommends that historic monuments Nos 45 to 52 be added to the 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments' annexed to Recommendation VII-9 (q.v.). The List referred to above is set out in Section 3.6.3.3.
Extract from Report of XIIIth ATCM
67. The Delegation of the United Kingdom submitted draft recommendations on the insertion of Annex B, Specially Protected Areas of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora of three SPAs: North Coronation Island, South Orkney Islands; Lagotellerie Island, Marguerite Bay; And 'New College Valley', Caughley beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island, that would be numbered 18, 19 and 20 respectively. The same Delegation also submitted a draft Recommendation amending the description of Specially Protected Area No. 7, Cape Hallett, Victoria Land. Finally, the Delegation of the United Kingdom submitted a draft Recommendation to the effect that the above mentioned proposed Recommendations would be considered as guidelines until such time as they may become effective. Recommendations XIII-10, XIII-11, XIII-12, XIII-13 and XIII-14 were adopted.
XIV-4. Facilitation of scientific research: Sites of Special Scientific Interest:

Interim guidelines; extension of designation
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VIII-3, VIII-4, X-6, XII-5 and XIII-7;
Noting that:
i. in accordance with paragraph 2 of Recommendation VIII-3 the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) at its Nineteenth Meeting at San Diego, USA in June 1986, had reviewed the Site of Special Scientific Interest No 2 and had noted the importance of protecting this site from man-made electromagnetic interference over a range of frequencies from 10^-2 hz to 10⁸ hz in view of the value of the site for the study of natural electromagnetic phenomena of relevance to ionospheric and magnetospheric physics;
ii. experience of the practical effect of the management plan for the site had shown it to be an effective means of reducing the risks of harmful interference with the scientific research being undertaken in it;
iii. no change to the management plan had been proposed by SCAR;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. The date of expiry of designation of Site No 2 be extended from 31 December 1987 to 31 December 1997.
2. They use their best endeavours to ensure, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation VIII-3 that the management plan for this site is observed.
XIV-5: Facilitation of scientific research: Sites of Special Scientific Interest:

Interim guidelines: additional sites
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VIII-3 and VIII-4;
Noting that management plans have been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest additional to those already designated;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the management plans prepared for these sites;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the management plans, annexed to this approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest additional to those already designated;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the management plans prepared for these sites;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the management plans, annexed to this recommendation for the following sites:
Site No 22: Yukidori Valley, Langhovde, Lutzow-Holm Bay.
Site No 23: Svarthamaren, Muhlig-ofmannfjella, Dronning Maud Land.
Site No 24: Summit of Mt Melbourne, North Victoria Land.
Site No 25: Marine Plain, Mule Peninsula, Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land.
Site No 26: Chile Bay (Discovery Bay), Greenwich Islands, South Shetland Islands.
Site No 27: Port Foster, Deception Island, South Shetland Islands.
Site No 28: South Bay, Doumer Island, Palmer Archipelago.
XIV-6: Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recalling Article II of the Antarctic Treaty, Recommendation VII-3 and VIII-3;
Conscious of the need to protect marine scientific investigations which might suffer from wilful or accidental interference;
Desiring to protect inshore marine sites of scientific interest where harmful interference is generally recognized to be likely;
Recognizing the need to protect such marine scientific investigations;
Recognizing that a limited number of inshore marine sites of exceptional scientific interest may require long-term protection from harmful interference;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They invite SCAR through their National Committees, to have regard to the following when considering proposals for Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest:
a. Marine sites should be proposed only when:
i. Marine scientific investigations are being carried out or are planned to begin before the following meeting of SCAR, and there is a demonstrable risk of interference which would jeopardize those scientific investigations; or
ii. they are of exceptional scientific interest and therefore require a measure of long term protection from harmful interference;
b. Marine sites should be proposed for designation up to a specified date, which may be extended following a review by SCAR:
c. Proposals for the designation of Marine Sites should be accompanied by management plans which should include inter alia, and where applicable, the following details:
i. a description of the Marine Site, together with a map delimiting its boundaries;
ii. a statement setting out the reasons in conformity with paragraphs 1(a)(i) and (ii) above for designation of the Marine Site;
iii. a description of the scientific investigations being carried out or planned;
iv. the proposed date at which the designation will expire unless extended;
v. if adjacent to the coast, proposed points of access;
vi. other kinds of scientific investigations which would not cause harmful interference with the investigations described at paragraph (c)(iii) above;
vii. whether specific kinds of scientific sampling may take place and guidelines for such sampling.
2. They invite SCAR, through their National Committees, to initiate review of those Marine Sites whose designation is likely to terminate before the second following Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.
3. They request their national offices responsible for Antarctic activities to maintain a record of activities within each Marine Site of Special Scientific Interest in which their scientists are active.
4. Scientists wishing to work within Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest should consult their national offices responsible for Antarctic activities to obtain authorization.
Extract from the report of the XIVth ATCM
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Specially Protected Areas (SPAs)
117. Draft Recommendations were tabled by Chile and the United Kingdom. The Chilean draft was in two parts, proposing that three sites in the marine environment should be designated and that SCAR should have regard to certain criteria when considering proposals for Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The United Kingdom drafts covered extension of the designation of one existing SSSI (No. 2: Arrival Heights) and the designation of four additional sites. The Meeting agreed with the substance of all these drafts but decided to amalgamate the first part of the Chilean draft with the second part of the second of the United Kingdom drafts.
118. Recommendations XIV-4, XIV-5 and XIV-6 were adopted.
119. One delegation noted the interim nature of the Recommendations under which Sites of Special Scientific Interest were designated. There were now in existence management plans for 28 Sites of Special Scientific Interest; in relation to these management plans it had been stated in the Preambles to each of the relevant Recommendations (VIII-4, X-5, XII-8) that it 'would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of' these plans; in the operative paragraph of these Recommendations it had been recommended that Governments should 'voluntarily take account' of these plans. The United Kingdom suggested that at the next Consultative Meeting consideration should be given to placing the observance of management plans on a more formal, substantive basis.
XIV-8
Note. The Recommendation recommends that historic monument No 53 be added to the 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments' annexed to Recommendation VII-9 (q.v.). The List referred to above is set out in Section 2.6.3.3.
Extract from Report of XIVth ATCM
Additional protective measures
75 The Meeting was pleased to receive from SCAR a response to Recommendation XIII-5 (z) which took the form of a Report entitled 'The Protected Area System in the Antarctic' (SCAR, Cambridge, 1987). This was presented to the Meeting as Document ANT/XIV/INF/7. Discussion focussed on the five proposals contained in the SCAR report and the Working Papers submitted by Australia (ANT/XIV/WP/17) and the United Kingdom (ANT/XIV/WP/11) which suggested possible responses to these proposals.
76 Acknowledging the achievements of the existing system of protected areas, the Meeting noted SCAR's view that the system could be improved by additions to it. Some delegations felt that some of the SCAR proposals needed further careful study, and should be approached step by step with a view to improving the area protection system in the Antarctic. In this connection, it was also pointed out that SCAR's response to paragraph (2) of Recommendation XIII-5, which should be available for the XVth Meeting, would assist in the consideration of this subject.

SCAR Proposal 1:
77 In taking note of this proposal to make visits for periodic assessment to Specially Protected Areas (SPAs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and Historic Monuments (HMs), the Meeting recognized the need to determine whether the objectives for which these Areas, Sites and Monuments have been designated, are being met.
78 The meeting recognized the value of visits to Areas, Sites and Monuments being made at such intervals as are necessary in order to determine whether the objectives of their designation are being met and, if not, steps that possibly could be taken better to meet them. In undertaking these visits relevant management provisions should be strictly adhered to, so as to ensure that this process does not itself have an adverse environmental impact.
79 With these necessary constraints in mind, it was strongly suggested that Contracting Parties should use their best endeavours to undertake visits to as many Areas, Sites and Monuments as possible, when access and opportunity exist, and provide reports of such visits for review at the Preparatory Meeting for the XVth Meeting, so that this issue may be considered in more detail at the XVth Consultative Meeting. It was suggested that it would be helpful if the reports covered the same categories of subject matter in relation to each Area, Site and Monument.
80 A reference document listing categories of relevant information which should be collected on Areas, Sites and Monuments, which might assist Parties in carrying out these visits, is annexed to this Report (Annex H). [Text follows this extract.]
81 The need to continue a process of reports on, and review of, the status of Areas, Sites and Monuments was recognized, but decisions as to how this might be achieved were deferred to the next Consultative Meeting to consider in the light of the reports it received.

SCAR Proposal 2:
In taking note of Proposal 2 of the SCAR Report, to make available information resulting from such visits, the Meeting proposed that reports of these visits should be circulated when available to Contracting Parties, to SCAR, and, if appropriate, to CCAMLR, prior to the Preparatory Meeting for the XVth Meeting.
83 It was also recognized that information arising from such an assessment process should be made publicly available, In this respect, inclusion in the annual exchange of information and other possible means for disseminating such reports were identified, such as publication through SCAR.
84 The value of data-base mechanisms for the storage and retrieval of this information was also acknowledged. It was noted that consideration of this issue would be better deferred until the XVth Meeting, to be discussed in connection with SCAR's response to Recommendation XIII-5(ii).

SCAR Proposal 3:
85 Some delegations acknowledged, as advocated in this proposal, the desirability of having management plans for SPAs. These would provide a technique for ensuring that the objectives of designation of SPAs are being met. Some other delegations were concerned that the value of SPAs as a protective mechanism could be diminished by the adoption of management plans for them. The view was also expressed that adoption of such plans would in any case require a prior amendment to Article VIII of the Agreed Measures. The United States delegation proposed such an amendment, but time was insufficient to consider the proposal fully, and further consideration was deferred until the XVth Meeting.
86 To assist in considering what should be included in such plans and how they should be adopted, it would be helpful if Contracting Parties, in particular those conducting visits to report on SPAs, would provide examples of possible management plans for SPAs at the XVth Meeting to facilitate discussion of this issue.
87 Such examples might be expected to include a specification of the compelling scientific purposes for which entry to the SPA could be permitted, and any actions in pursuit of these purposes which would not adversely affect the natural ecological system existing in the SPA (as referred to in Article VIII of the Agreed Measures).

SCAR Proposal 4:
88 The meeting noted SCAR's call for the submission of proposals for additional protected areas to provide for geographically distributed representative examples of all Antarctic terrestrial, inland water and marine ecosystems.
89 The view was expressed that it would not be possible for marine SPAs to be designated under the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora without amending them. Some delegations held that there was no distinction in the application of the Agreed Measures to land or sea areas.
90 The Meeting, recalling Recommendation VII-2. recognized that the existing SPAs and SSSIs still did not fully cover representative examples of the major Antarctic land and freshwater ecological systems, and it urged national organizations to conduct surveys and take such other steps as may be feasible to identify potential areas, and to draft proposals for new SPAs and SSSIs that would fill gaps in this representation. Where possible they should pass these proposals to XX SCAR for consideration.
91 In this connection, the Meeting noted that the classification of Antarctic ecosystems published in SCAR Bulletin no 55 (SCAR, Cambridge 1977) would be helpful in identifying such gaps. The results of surveys and available proposals might then be considered at the XVth Meeting in the light of further information arising from the visits to SPAs and SSSIs called for in paragraph 79.

SCAR Proposal 5:
92 There was keen discussion of the fifth of the SCAR proposals, 'that a new category of protected area be introduced to the system while retaining the present categories'.
93 Several delegations were of the view that the concept of multiple use in Antarctica was not yet well enough developed, either operationally or conceptually. They noted that prior consideration of, and experience in, the means for protection of values other than those currently protected would assist in the future in building up a co-ordinated management system. The SCAR Report called for the use of management plans as flexible tools in the management of areas. The merit of developing concepts of multiple use and zoning for different levels of protection was acknowledged.
94 In this context, there were differing views expressed as to whether existing protective arrangements could be used to provide protection for areas of outstanding geological, recreational, scenic or wilderness interest, in addition to those of outstanding biological interest. To resolve this uncertainty, the United States delegation proposed establishing a new category of protected area, tentatively called 'Special Reserves', to provide a clear means for protecting areas of outstanding geological, recreational, scenic, or wilderness value. Time was insufficient to fully consider this proposal and further consideration was deferred until the XVth Consultative Meeting.
95 Discussion of the SCAR proposal to establish a new category of protected areas was assisted by a paper submitted by the Australian delegation entitled 'Antarctic Protected Areas - Examples of Application' (ANT/XIV/WP/16), and a paper submitted by the United Kingdom delegation entitled 'Management Plans for Antarctic Protected Areas' (ANT/XIV/WP/25). It was commonly felt that real examples of management plans would considerably assist Consultative Parties in further understanding how best to introduce such a new category of protected area into the existing system. It would be helpful if Parties were to prepare draft management plans for areas with which they are familiar, and which in their opinion, would benefit from the application of multiple use zoning techniques of area management.
96 It was noted that, in order to obtain a better idea of the scope and consequences of such a new category, it would be helpful if the Preparatory Meeting for the XVth Consultative Meeting could have before it draft management plans relating inter alia to:

a. areas surrounding scientific research stations;
b. areas of cultural, scenic, wilderness, recreational and historic values; and,
c. SPAs, SSSIs and HMs and adjacent areas, including buffer zones.
97 Some delegations suggested that provisional management plans for some of the following, among others, might provide useful insights into the value of such plans:
Arthur Harbour, Anvers Island
Beardmore Glacier
Deception Island, South Shetland Islands
Dry Valleys, Victoria Land
Ross Island
Signy Island, South Orkney Island
Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land.
It was emphasized that submission of management plans for these or other areas implied no commitment to their eventual acceptance.
Annex H: Information required in the compilation of reports on visits to Specially Protected Areas (SPAS), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Historic Monuments
1. Name and position, with co-ordinates, of area site or monument visited, and whether these differ from those in the original designation.
2. Date(s) of visit, methods of transport, and composition (including names and qualifications) of visiting party.

A. In the case of SPAs and SSSIs:
3. Information about the physical environment, soils, vegetation and fauna which is additional to or differs from that set out in the relevant description or management plan, and in Conservation Areas in the Antarctic, Bonner and Lewis Smith (SCAR/ICSU 1985).
4. Description of any markers, buildings, or other installations or man-made features and their purpose(s) within the area or site.
5. Evidence of any recent physical or biological change, particularly when such change might have been brought about by human activities.
6. Evidence of any activity contrary to the Agreed Measures or the relevant management plan.
7. Observations on special features of conservation significance.
8. Description of any scientific research that has been undertaken in the SPA (under permit issued in accordance with Articles VI and VIII of the Agreed Measures) or in the SSSI.
9. Evidence as to whether the site is continuing to serve the purpose for which it was originally designed.
10. Any other information considered relevant or useful in furthering the purpose for which the area or site was originally designated.

B. In the case of Historic Monuments:
11. Information about the monument which is additional to or differs from the description given in the Annex to Recommendation VII-9 and any other published account.
12. Evidence of any recent change, particularly when such change might have been brought about by human activities.
13. Description of any markers, notices, etc.
14. Description of any human activities in the vicinity of the monument.
15. Any other information considered relevant or useful in furthering the preservation of the monument.

Extract from Report of XIVth ATCM

Historic sites and monuments
137. Attention was drawn in discussion of this item, to the need to provide for continued and improved protection for those historic monuments that stand as witnesses to a significant human presence in the Antarctic; and which are an essential part of the record of human activity in Antarctica, the only continent in which some of the original buildings constructed for human habitation still stand.
138. New Zealand introduced a paper which stressed the more vulnerable condition of monuments located in the relatively accessible areas of Antarctica and exposed to the risk of damage arising from the increasing scale and intensity of human activities in the Continent. It went on to suggest that, while certain steps could be taken at the national level, the best protection could be found in the collective action of Treaty Parties. It concluded by urging the meeting to consider the adoption of further protective measures, including, whenever appropriate, delineation of buffer zones around monuments threatened by human activity or situated in a very sensitive ecological milieu.
139. It was remarked that this last proposal involved a measure of overlap with work that had been done by a Working Group of the Consultative Meeting in response to the proposals from SCAR for additional protective measures. The Meeting acknowledged that, in considering the issue of additional measures for the protection of historic monuments, account should be taken of the site visits referred to in para 79 of the report, and the interrelationship between such measures and the possible new category of protected areas discussed in paragraphs 92-97 of this Report.
140. Chile introduced a paper, recalling that Recommendation I-9 provided the general framework for the most comprehensive treatment of this subject, including recourse to consultations, issuance of appropriate reports and the adoption of all appropriate measures. The paper stated that the initiative concerning specific methods of preserving or protecting monuments rested with the individual Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, although provision existed for the periodic reports to be regularly exchanged by the Governments.
141. The Federal Republic of Germany informed the Meeting that the metal plaque at Potter Cove, King George Island, erected by Eduard Dallmann to commemorate the visit of his German expedition on 1st March 1874 and mentioned in the list of Historic Monuments annexed to Recommendation VII-9 (No 36) will be replaced before the end of the year by a copy of the original plaque which had disappeared. The Meeting agreed that the protection accorded to the original plaque by inclusion in the List would also be extended to the new plaque.
142. Chile introduced a draft recommendation to incorporate a new monument to the above-mentioned List, accompanied by a summary of the events that led to the rescue in 1916 of a party from Shackleton's expedition stranded at Elephant Island by the Chilean Navy cutter Yelcho, as well as a short history of Elephant Island. Subsequently, the Meeting adopted Recommendation XIV-8 to that effect.
143. The Meeting agreed that the issue of preservation and protection of historic monuments and sites deserved careful attention and should be addressed in a more comprehensive manner at a subsequent Consultative Meeting after a survey had been carried out of the state of present historic monuments and sites.
144. Governments were urged to ensure that the provisions of Recommendations I-9, V-4 and VI-14 were fully respected; that all necessary steps were taken to ensure the survival of historic monuments and that additional measures to ensure improved protection for historic monuments would also be carefully considered if and when required. In this connection, it was asserted that it might be appropriate, in certain circumstances, to establish buffer zones to guard buildings and monuments against the risk of damage arising out of human activity in Antarctica. Attention was drawn to the suggestion made in paragraph 96 of this Report that the Preparatory Meeting for the XVth Consultative Meeting could have before it management plans relating, inter alia, to Historic sites and monuments. This would assist in determining whether the establishment of such buffer zones would be necessary for particular monuments.
145. Governments were encouraged to circulate reports on the condition, including additional information when they deem it necessary, of such tombs, buildings or objects of historic value, and a description of measures adopted to protect them from damage and destruction. SCAR's proposals for periodic visits to historic sites and monuments (paragraph 79 above) and the content of a reference document listing categories of information considered useful for this purpose (Annex H) were drawn to the attention of the Meeting.
146. Governments were also encouraged to promote consultation and exchanges with regard to experiences in the preservation and restoration of Antarctic monuments, and to take appropriate steps to publicize the achievements made under the Antarctic Treaty for the preservation and protection of historic monuments in Antarctica.
XV-6. Antarctic Protected Area System: new Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VIII-3 and VIII-4;
Noting that management plans have been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest additional to these already designated;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the management plans prepared for these sites;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the management plans, annexed to this Recommendation, for the following sites:
Site No 29 : Ablation Point-Ganymede Heights, Alexander Island.
Site No 30 : Avian Island, North-West Marguerite Bay.
Site No 31 : Mount Flora, Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula.
XV-7. Antarctic Protected Area System: redesignation of Specially Protected Area No 11, Cape Shirreff, as Site of Special Scientific Interest No 32
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations III-VIII, VIII-3 and VIII-4;
Conscious of the need to facilitate research into important aspects of the Antarctic marine ecosystem;
Noting that there are certain long-term research programmes involving support activities which may not be appropriately provided in a Specially Protected Area, but which need not endanger the Antarctic ecosystem or its components;
Noting further that the degree of environmental protection specified in the management plan of a Site of Special Scientific Interest need not be less than that provided in a Specially Protected Area;
Aware that a management plan for a Site of Special Scientific Interest at Cape Shirreff has been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR);
Recommend to their Governments that :
1. The inclusion in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora of Recommendation IV-11 (Specially Protected Areas : Cape Shirreff) be terminated.
2. The number 11 in Annex B of the Agreed Measures should not be used for another Specially Protected Area.
3. They voluntarily take account of the management plan, annexed to this Recommendation, for Site of Special Scientific Interest No 32, Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands.
Extract from Report of XVth ATCM
Proposals for new Sites of Special Scientific Interest
112. A draft Recommendation was tabled by the United Kingdom setting out Management Plans for three new Sites of Special Scientific Interest that had been recommended and approved at XX SCAR. Recommendation XV-6 was adopted.
113. The German Democratic Republic submitted a proposal for designating a new Site of Special Scientific Interest at Ardley Island, Maxwell Bay, King George Island (XV ATCM/WP/28). This had been drafted by the group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). It had not yet received the full scrutiny of SCAR but would be submitted for approval at XXI SCAR in Brazil in 1990. If, as seemed likely, it were approved there, it would be passed through National Committees to Governments for consideration at a subsequent Consultative Meeting.
114. The Meeting noted the significance of bird and plant communities at Ardley Island to the Antarctic environment, and the importance of research work being carried out there, notably by scientists from Chile and from the German Democratic Republic, and agreed to take note of the provisions of the draft management plan for Ardley Island contained in the information paper (XV ATCM/INF/24) submitted by the German Democratic Republic.
115. A draft recommendation was tabled jointly by Chile, the United Kingdom and the United States, proposing that Specially Protected Area No. 11, Cape Shirreff, be redesignated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
116. Cape Shirreff was designated as SPA No. 11 by Recommendation IV-11 'on the grounds that the Cape supports a considerable diversity of plant and animal life, including many invertebrates, that a substantial population of elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) and small colonies of fur seals (Arctocephalus sp.) are found on the beaches and that the area is of outstanding interest'. Since the SPA was designated, the fur seal colony has grown to a size at which non-invasive research can safely be undertaken without threatening the existence and continued growth of the colony.
117. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) recognises that harvesting of species such as Antarctic krill could have adverse effects on krill-consuming species, such as fur seals, as well as on the target species. To provide a means of detecting and avoiding possible adverse effects on dependent as well as on the target species the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR has established the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP). A working group established by the Scientific Committee had noted that predator species, including Antarctic fur seals, might be useful indicators of the possible indirect effects of krill harvesting. It had recommended that populations of these predators be studied and monitored at a network of sites throughout the Antarctic.
118. During the 1986/87 austral summer, researchers from the United States surveyed areas in the South Shetland Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula. This survey suggested that the Cape Shirreff-Telmo Islands area would be the best site for long-term monitoring of fur seal colonies that could be affected by fisheries around the South Shetland Islands.
119. To carry out a long-term monitoring programme safely and effectively, a multi-year field camp for 4-6 researchers would have to be established within the area currently designated as Specially Protected Area No. 11. This might be considered inappropriate within an SPA and hence the proposal was made to redeignate Cape Shirreff as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Additionally, it was proposed substantially to enlarge the site by the inclusion of the Telmo Islands group, presently the location of the largest fur seal colony in the Antarctic Treaty area.
120. Recommendation XV-7 was adopted with the understanding that SSSI No. 32, Cape Shirreff, should be redesignated an SPA (in its enlarged form) if and when the long-term monitoring of fur seals and seabirds in the site should be ended.

Status of Sites of Special Scientific Interest
121. Consideration of the substance of this item, referred to in paragraph 119 of the Report of the XIVth Consultative Meeting, was deferred for consideration at a subsequent Consultative Meeting.

XV-8. Antarctic Protected Area System: Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora: Amendment to Article VIII

(Management plans for Specially Protected Areas)
The Representatives,
Noting that under Article VIII of the Agreed Measures:
i. paragraph 1 provides for designation as Specially Protected Areas, 'areas of outstanding scientific interest ... in order to preserve their unique natural ecological system';
ii. paragraph 2(c) provides that entry into a Specially Protected Area is prohibited except in accordance with a permit;
iii. paragraph 4 provides that 'such a permit shall have effect within a Specially Protected Area provided that:
a. it was issued for a compelling scientific purpose which cannot be served elsewhere; and
b. the actions permitted thereunder will not jeopardize the natural ecological system existing in that Area';
Noting further that Recommendation VII-2 urges that representative examples of the major Antarctic land and freshwater ecological systems shall be included in the series of Specially Protected Areas;
Desiring to provide for greater certainty in the interpretation of paragraph 4 by means of the application of management plans relevant to each Specially Protected Area;
Recognizing that to be fully effective such Management Plans must be accorded the same status as the conditions in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 4;
Recommend to their Governments that the following sub-paragraph be added to paragraph 4 of Article VIII:
'and (c) the actions permitted thereunder are in accordance with any Management Plan accompanying the description of a Specially Protected Area';
and that sub-paragraph (a) be amended to remove the word 'and', and that the full stop at the end of sub-paragraph (b) be changed to a semicolon.
XV-9. Antarctic Protected Area System:

Development of improved descriptions and management plans for Specially Protected Areas
The Representatives,
Recalling that:
a. the purpose of Specially Protected Areas is to preserve both unique and representative examples of the natural ecological systems of areas which are of outstanding scientific interest; and
b. the appropriate national authority of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties may issue permits authorizing its nationals to enter Specially Protected Areas for compelling scientific purposes which cannot be served elsewhere;
Noting that the descriptions of Specially Protected Areas in Annex B of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna do not provide detailed descriptions of the natural ecological systems and components thereof that the Protected Areas are intended to preserve;
Noting also that the descriptions of Specially Protected Areas do not indicate the types of activities that could or could not be carried out in the designated Specially Protected Areas without harming or damaging any of the components of the natural ecological systems that the areas are intended to preserve;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They review the descriptions of Specially Protected Areas in Annex B of the Agreed Measures and, for those Areas which they or their nationals had proposed to be listed in the Annex, they provide a more detailed description of the natural ecological system that the Area is intended to preserve and a provisional Area management plan for consideration at the XVIth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting;
2. Future proposals for designating Specially Protected Areas include:
a. a clear description of the location and the key physical and biological features of the area to be protected, including a description of the markers and/or natural features that delineate the area;
b. a map and/or photographs showing the boundaries and key features of the proposed Specially Protected Area;
c. a detailed description of the key components of the unique natural ecological system intended to be preserved by designating the Area as a Specially Protected area;
d. descriptions of the types of activities (including activities outside the Area) that could jeopardize any of the components of the unique ecological system intended to be preserved; and
e. descriptions of steps that should be taken to avoid or minimize damage in cases where access to the area may be authorized for a compelling scientific purpose which cannot be served elsewhere;
f. descriptions of measures necessary to ensure preservation of the area's unique or representative natural ecological systems.
3. They invite SCAR, through their national committees, to have regard to the preceding when considering proposals for Specially Protected Areas; and
4. They annually advise SCAR and the Antarctic Treaty Parties of any activities that they authorized to be conducted in Specially Protected Areas during the preceding year and that they expect to authorize in the next year.
Extract from report of XVth ATCM
Management plans for Specially Protected Areas
126. The Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, Recommendation III-VIII, provide that areas of outstanding scientific interest may be designated as 'Specially Protected Areas' (SPAs), with the unanimous agreement of the Consultative Parties, and that areas so designated shall be afforded special protection 'in order to preserve their unique natural ecological system'. Article VIII of the Agreed Measures calls upon the Contracting Parties to prohibit their nationals from entering SPAs except in accordance with a permit issued for a compelling scientific purpose which cannot be served elsewhere, and when the actions authorized by the permit will not jeopardize the natural ecological system existing in the SPA.
127. Neither the Agreed Measures nor the descriptions of existing SPAs indicate what would constitute a compelling scientific purpose or the types of activities which would or would not adversely affect the unique ecological system protected by the SPA. Further, the descriptions of existing SPAs, provided in Annex B of the Agreed Measures, do not describe the precise ecological system or the components of the system that the protected area designation is intended to preserve. Consequently, the Report of the SCAR ad hoc Group on Additional Protective Measures, presented to, and considered by, the XIVth Consultative Meeting, recommended, among other things, that management plans be developed and agreed for each existing and all future SPAs.
128. There was insufficient time to consider fully the SCAR recommendation at the XIVth Consultative Meeting. The matter was considered further at the XVth Consultative Meeting and Recommendations XV-8 and XV-9 were adopted. During consideration of these Recommendations the Representatives took note of the visits undertaken by Contracting Parties pursuant to paragraph 79 of the Report of XIVth Consultative Meeting and agreed to continue this practice, so as to identify any natural or human-induced changes in the area and report thereon. They agree further that these reports should indicate any updating required of the area descriptions and identify, as appropriate, any additional measures necessary to give effect to the agreed management plans. The Meeting also considered that in undertaking these visits, any immediate actions necessary to fulfil the objectives of the agreed plan should be identified and, as appropriate, taken. It was noted that such actions could include circumstances where it may be desirable to permit entry into an area specifically for the purpose of limited, non- scientific activities, consistent with the management plan, that will ensure preservation of the area's unique natural ecological system. Delegations also agreed that area descriptions and management plans should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain accurate and applicable.
XV-10. The Antarctic Protected Area System: Establishment of Specially Reserved Areas (SRAs)
The Representatives,
Recognizing that the increasing number and scope of activities in the Antarctic Treaty area may reduce the unique scientific and other values of Antarctica;
Noting that the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna established a mechanism to designate Specially Protected Areas to preserve the unique natural ecological systems of areas of outstanding scientific interest;
Noting also that neither the Agreed Measures nor other Recommendations adopted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties provide a specified mechanism for identifying and protecting areas of outstanding geological, glaciological, geomorphological, aesthetic, scenic, or wilderness value;
Recalling that Recommendation VII-2 calls upon the Antarctic Treaty Parties to include in the series of Specially Protected Areas listed in Annex B of the Agreed Measures:
a. representative examples of the major Antarctic land and fresh water ecological systems
b. areas with unique complexes of species;
c. areas which are the type locality or only known habitat of any plant or invertebrate species;
d. areas which contain specially interesting breeding colonies of birds or mammals; and
e. areas which should be kept inviolate so that in the future they may be used for purposes of comparison with localities that have been disturbed by man;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They undertake a continuing review of the geographical features and uses of Antarctica and, as appropriate propose designating areas of outstanding geological, glaciological, geomorphological, aesthetic, scenic, or wilderness value as Specially Reserved Areas (SRAs).
2. Proposals for designation of Specially Reserved Areas shall be accompanied by a proposed management plan which shall include:
a. a clear description of the location and the key features of the proposed SRA, including a description of the markers and/or natural features that delineate the area;
b. a map and/or photographs showing the boundaries and key features of the proposed SRA;
c. the rationale for the proposed visiting;
d. descriptions of the types of activities that could be conducted in or near the proposed SRA without jeopardizing the special values intended to be protected;
e. descriptions of the types of activities (including activities outside the SRA) that could adversely affect the special values intended to be protected; and
f. descriptions of steps that should be taken to minimize impacts in cases where access to the SRA is authorized;
3. In due course, they include in the series of Specially Reserved Areas representative examples of the major geological, glaciological, and geomorphical, features of Antarctica, and representative examples of areas of outstanding aesthetic, scenic, and wilderness value.
4. Entry into Specially Reserved Areas be prohibited, except for the purposes authorized in the approved management plan for the area or in accordance with a permit issued by the appropriate national authority for a compelling scientific purpose which cannot be served elsewhere, and which will not adversely affect the natural features intended to be protected by the SRA.
5. They invite SCAR, through their national committees, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and, as appropriate, other components of the Antarctic Treaty system to review and comment on proposals before they are considered by the Consultative Parties.
6. They annually advise SCAR and each other of activities that they authorized to be conducted in Specially Reserved Areas during the preceding year, and that they expect to authorize in the following year.
Extract from the report of the XVth ATCM
129. Establishment of a new, single-purpose category of Antarctic Protected Area. During the XIVth Consultative Meeting Australia, the United States and other Treaty Parties called attention to the desirability of identifying and protecting areas of outstanding geological, recreational, scenic and wilderness value in Antarctica. There were differing views as to whether protection could be provided to such areas under existing provisions of the Agreed Measures. The United States therefore proposed establishing a new category of protected area, to provide a clear means for protecting such areas. Time was insufficient to consider fully this proposal and further consideration was deferred until the XVth Consultative Meeting.
130. The United States submitted a working paper on the subject. The Meeting agreed that provision should be made for protecting areas of outstanding geological, glaciological, geomorphological, aesthetic, scenic and wilderness value as well as areas of outstanding ecological, scientific and historic value in Antarctica. Recommendation XV-10, providing for designation of Specially Reserved Areas, was adopted. During consideration of this Recommendation, it was affirmed that measures adopted in the Recommendation were not intended to interfere with the possibility of a non-Consultative Party establishing a station in Antarctica.
XV-11. Antarctic Protected Area System; establishment of Multiple-use Planning Areas (MPAs)
The Representatives,
Desiring to protect and maintain the unique biological, geological, glaciological, geomorphological, ecological, scientific, historic, aesthetic, scenic and wilderness values of Antarctica;
Recalling Recommendation XIII-5 inviting the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to offer advice on the system of protected areas in the Antarctic;
Noting that SCAR's response to Recommendation XIII-5, provided in its report 'The Protected Area System in the Antarctic', recommended among other things that the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties create an additional category of protected area where coordinated management of activities would minimize harmful environmental impacts so as not to detract from the values for which the area was designated;
Recalling the importance of preserving the freedom of scientific research guaranteed by the Antarctic Treaty;
Recommend to their Governments that:
1. They take cooperative action to ensure that on-going and planned human activities in Antarctica, through their combined or cumulative effects, do not result in mutual interference or in adverse impacts upon the Antarctic environment.
2. As one means to this end, they designate, where appropriate, Multiple-Use Planning Areas (MPAs) to assist in coordinating human activities in those areas where such activities pose identified risks of mutual interference or cumulative environmental impacts.
3. The number and size of MPAs be kept to the minimum necessary to meet the objectives set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2.
4. Each Multiple-use Planning Area shall be designated pursuant to a management plan developed through consultations, as appropriate, among interested Parties and approved by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. Such plan shall, as appropriate, include:
a. a description of the purposes and objectives of the management plan;
b. a description of the area to which its provisions apply;
c. a description of on-going and planned human activities, including the operation of research stations and related logistics activities;
d. identification of any Specially Protected Areas (SPAs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Specially Reserved Areas (SRAs), and Historic Monuments (HMs) within the MPA;
e. a description of the environmental characteristics and features and subjects of current and planned scientific research, if any, threatened by interference by on-going or planned human activities or their cumulative impacts;
f. specific measures to avoid or minimize mutual interference and cumulative impacts, including where necessary measures applicable to:
i. construction and operation of stations and related logistic support facilities;
ii. vessel operations, including identification of areas which are unsafe for navigation, designation of safe anchorages and sea lanes or channels for safe access to stations;
iii. small boat operations, including maintenance and discharge control, and identification of areas where operations should be prohibited (except for essential research);
iv. aircraft and helicopter operations, including designation of safe landing areas. and identification of areas where operations below a designated altitude should be prohibited;
v. vehicle operations, including maintenance and discharge controls and identification of areas which are unsafe or unsuitable for operation;
vi. scientific research activities, including means to ensure the availability of up-to-date information about the nature and location of ongoing or planned field work, and means to prevent disturbance of organisms or features being studied by various investigators;
vii. visitors, including designation of areas within which access by tourists or other visitors should be limited or prohibited, and/or as areas to which such access might be directed to obtain maximum benefit from exposure to the characteristics of the area;
viii. information, including means to ensure that all individuals present/intending to be present within the MPA, are fully aware of the provisions of the management plan, as well as other relevant measures adopted by Consultative Parties (e.g. provisions governing access to scientific stations);
ix. notification, as far in advance as possible, by each Party of research and other activities which it or its nationals intend to carry out in the MPA, including copies of any necessary permits issued;
x. annual reports by each Party of activities it or its nationals carried out in the MPA management plan and any instances of possible violations of the management plan;
g. provisions for periodically reviewing the plan to identify changes that may be necessary to take account of changing circumstances or better to accomplish their purposes.
5. They invite SCAR, through their national committees, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and, as appropriate, other components of the Antarctic Treaty system to review and comment on proposed management plans for Multiple-Use Planning Areas before designation is considered by the Consultative Parties.
6. They periodically review management plans to ensure that they are being implemented effectively and, as appropriate, approve proposed changes necessary to take account of changing circumstances or better to accomplish their purposes.
Extract from Report of XVth ATCM
131. Establishment of a Multiple-Use Category of Antarctic Protected Area. Recommendation XIII-5 called upon Treaty Parties, through their national committees, to invite the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to consider and provide advice on measures that might usefully be taken to improve the system of protected areas in the Antarctic. In its response, provided in a Report entitled 'The Protected Area System in the Antarctic', SCAR recommended, among other things, that an additional category of protected area be established to provide for coordinated management of activities in areas where multiple activities may interfere with one another or cause cumulative environmental impacts.
132. The SCAR recommendation was considered at the XIVth Consultative Meeting. Several delegations were then of the view that the concept of multiple-use planning in Antarctica was not well enough developed, either operationally or conceptually, to act on the SCAR recommendation. It was suggested and agreed that, in order to obtain a better idea of the scope and possible consequences of the proposed multiple-use category of Antarctic Protected Area (APA), it would be helpful if illustrative management plans for several possible APAs were prepared and distributed at the Preparatory Meeting for the XVth Consultative Meeting. In response to this suggestion, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States prepared illustrative draft management plans for: the Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land; Signy Island, South Orkney Island; and the area around Palmer Station on Anvers Island.
133. To facilitate consideration of this matter at the XVth Consultative Meeting, the United States tabled a draft recommendation to establish a new, multi-purpose category of Antarctic Protected Area. In addition, Australia and the United Kingdom tabled revisions of their illustrative draft management plans for the Vestfold Hills (XV ATCM/INF/32) and Signy Islands (XV ATCM/INF/43).
134. During discussion of this matter, there was recognition that the expanding scale and scope of activities in Antarctica were increasing the risk of activities interfering with each other and causing cumulative environmental impacts, particularly in certain high-use areas. There was also recognition that the risk of interference and possible cumulative environmental impacts could be avoided or minimized by cooperative planning and coordination of activities in areas where a variety of activities were going on or were planned. However, a number of delegations expressed doubt about the need for and the practical application of multiple-use planning techniques in Antarctica. Concerns were expressed that, while it was not intended, designation of Antarctic Protected Areas, as recommended by SCAR and provided for in the draft recommendation tabled by the United States, might result in restricting access to parts of Antarctica and the freedom of scientific research guaranteed by the Antarctic Treaty. Further, uncertainties were noted as to who would be able to propose designating APAs and related management plans; how proposals would be developed, considered, and approved; who would be responsible for implementing approved management plans; and how approved plans would be revised and updated to take account of changing circumstances (e.g. termination of, or change in, activities, or initiation of new activities). Also, uncertainties were noted as to the size and number of areas that might be proposed for designation as APAs.
135. The exchange of views on this matter indicated that some of this uncertainty was caused by use of the term 'Antarctic Protected Area'. To some, this term implied that the purpose of APAs was simply to protect areas that may be damaged by the cumulative effects of multiple activities in those areas. During the debate it was noted that the purpose may be two-fold:
a. to promote cooperative planning and coordination of activities so as to avoid or minimize the risk of existing and planned activities interfering with one another in designated areas; and
b. to avoid environmental damage due to the cumulative effects of such activities.
136. It was agreed that a more accurate and descriptive term would be 'Multiple-use Planning Area (MPA)'. It was also agreed that the proposed recommendation should be revised to reflect the following understandings more clearly:
a. MPAs would improve protection of environmental values by promoting cooperative planning and coordination of human activities in Antarctic areas where such activities may interfere with one another and would help avoid or minimize the cumulative impacts of such activities on the Antarctic environment;
b. the number and size of MPAs should be kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish their intended purpose;
c. MPAs should be used to assist in cooperatively planning and coordinating activities only in areas where there is reason to believe that such activities are interfering or are likely to interfere with one another or cause cumulative environmental impacts, and where such interference or environmental impacts can be avoided or minimized by preparing and implementing an agreed management plan;
d. management plans should be developed, as appropriate, through consultations among the Parties conducting and planning activities that could be affected by the plan and should be subject to approval by the Consultative Parties;
e. proposed management plans should be provided to SCAR, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and, as appropriate, to other components of the Antarctic Treaty system for review and comment before they are considered by the Consultative Parties, and any comments provided should be considered by the Parties when deciding whether to approve proposed plans;
f. management plans should be reviewed and updated periodically to take account of changing circumstances and to ensure that they are accomplishing their stated objectives; and
g. pending development of practical experience in preparing and implementing agreed management plans for Multiple-use Planning Areas, Parties should voluntarily take account of approved plans as they do approved plans for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
137. The proposed recommendation was revised to reflect these understandings and was adopted as Recommendation XV-11. 3.7 Reports on visits to Specially Protected Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Historic Sites and Monuments.
XV-12
Note. This Recommendation recommends that historic monuments Nos 54 and 55 be added to the 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments' annexed to Recommendation VII-9 (q.v.). The List referred to above is set out in Section 2.6.3.3.
XV-13. Antarctic Protected Area System: Historic Sites and Monuments (Amendment to description of HM 53)
The Representatives,
Recalling that Historic Monument No 53 was added to the list of Historic Monuments annexed to Recommendation VII-9, and that this Historic Monument celebrates the rescue by the Chilean pilot Luis Pardo Villalon of the survivors of the British vessel 'Endurance' in 1916 and consists of a monolith placed on Elephant Island with replica monoliths placed at the Chilean stations 'Arturo Prat' on Greenwich Island and 'Rodolpho Marsh' on King George Island;
Noting that during the XXIVth Chilean Antarctic Scientific Expedition in 1987-88, a bronze bust of the pilot Pardo was placed on each of these monoliths;
Recommend to their Governments that:
The following clause be added at the end of the description of Historic Monument No 53 in Recommendation XIV-8:
Bronze busts of the pilot Luis Pardo Villalon were placed on the three above-mentioned monoliths during the XXIVth Chilean Antarctic Scientific Expedition in 1987-88.
Extract from report of XVth ATCM.
Historic Sites and Monuments
138. Proposals were received by the Meeting for two new designations to be added to the list of Historical Sites and Monuments annexed to Recommendation VII-9. The United States proposed that the respect and protection required by that Recommendation should be accorded to a monument to Richard E. Byrd located at McMurdo Station (77°51'S., 166°40'E.) and to the buildings, artefacts and immediate environs of the Antarctic Service Expedition's East Base located on Stonington Island (68°11'S., 67°W).
139. Chile informed the Meeting that it had added a bronze bust of Pilot Luis Pardo Villalon to the monolith and plaque at Elephant Island (61°03'S., 54°51'W.) and to replicas of the monolith and plaque at the Chilean stations 'Arturo Prat' and 'Rodolpho Marsh', and that this information should be recorded in a modification of the description of Historic Site No. 53.
140. These proposals were adopted as Recommendation XV-12 and Recommendation XV-13 respectively.
141. The Federal Republic of Germany informed the Meeting that the replacement of a plaque at Potter Cove, King George Island, commemorating the expedition of Edward Dallmann, had been completed, as mentioned in the final report of the XIVth Consultative Meeting.
142. In further discussion, some delegations drew attention to the issue raised at the XIVth Consultative Meeting of the vulnerable condition of monuments located in relatively accessible areas of Antarctica and exposed to the risk of damage arising from the increasing scale and intensity of human activities on the continent. In this regard the United States submitted management plans for the Richard E. Byrd monument and East Base as examples of useful means of increasing protection for historic monuments and sites. Some delegations urged consideration of further protective measures for historic sites and monuments. They proposed that sites should be extended to include an area adequate for preserving historical values of the monuments and to avoid increased risk of damage.
143. Finally, the Meeting noted with appreciation the reports on visits to, and the condition of, historic sites contained in information papers submitted by the United States and
Extract from Report of XVth ATCM
122. As noted in the report of the XIVth Consultative Meeting (paragraph 119) in relation to the management plans for Sites of Special Scientific Interest, it is stated in the Preambles of the relevant Recommendations (VIII-4, X-5, XIII-8 and XIV-5) that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the management plans. One way of doing this is periodically to visit and report on the state of the Sites. If such reports are made available they will serve to provide base-line information on which assessments of the effectiveness of the management plans can be made.
123. Similarly, reports on visits to Specially Protected Areas and Historic Sites and Monuments will contribute to knowledge of the Areas, Sites and Monuments, allowing the continuing value of Specially Protected Areas to the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora, and the continuing values of Historic Sites and Monuments to Antarctic cultural values, to be assessed.
124. The Meeting agreed that an appropriate way of making the information available for the present would be to append such reports on visits to Specially Protected Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and Historic Sites and Monuments, with a minimum of editing, to the account of each Area, site or Monument in the Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System. This would be without prejudice to any decision reached as a result of consideration of the whole issue of area protection at the next Consultative Meeting.
125. The Meeting welcomed reports on visits to Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Specially Protected Areas and Historic Sites and Monuments prepared by Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
XVI-2: Antarctic Protected Area System: New Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations VIII-3 and VIII-4;
Noting that Management Plans have been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest additional to those already designated;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the Management Plans prepared for these sites;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the Management Plans, annexed to this Recommendation, for the following sites;
Site No. 33: Ardley Island, Maxwell Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. (Location: 62°13'S, 58°54'W).
Site No. 34: Lions Rump, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. (Location: 62°8'S, 58°08'W).
XVI-3: Antarctic Protected Area System: New Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The Representatives,
Recalling Article II of the Antarctic Treaty, Recommendations VII-3, VIII-3 and XIV-6;
Noting that Management Plans have been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) for two Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Considering that it would be advantageous to gather experience of the practical effect of the Management Plans prepared for these Sites;
Recommend to their Governments that they voluntarily take account of the Management Plans, annexed to this Recommendation, for the following Sites:
No. 35 Western Bransfield Strait, off Low Island, South Shetland Islands;
No. 36 East Dallmann Bay, off Brabant Island.
XVI-4:Antarctic Protected Area System: Specially Protected Areas
Re-Designation of Site of Special Scientific Interest No. 30, Avian Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula as Specially Protected Area No. 21
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendation XV-8 and XV-9;
Noting that a Management Plan has been approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR);
Considering that Avian Island, together with its littoral zone is unique in the Antarctic Peninsula region for its abundance and diversity of breeding seabirds, including Adélie Penguins, Blue-eyed Shags, Giant Petrels, Dominican Gulls, South Polar Skuas and Wilson's Petrels, and that the colony of Adélie Penguins is the largest on the Antarctic Peninsula, and that other species are at or near the southern limits of their breeding range, and that the island is vulnerable to visits by tourists, and uncontrolled personnel;
Recommend to their Governments that:
i. the designation of Avian Island as Site of Special Scientific Interest No. 30 under Recommendations VIII-3 and VIII-4 be terminated;
ii. the number 30 should not be used for another Site of Special Scientific Interest;
iii. the following area of outstanding ornithological interest be inserted in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora (1964), along with the Management Plan accompanying the description of the said Specially Protected Area: Specially Protected Area No. 21, Avian Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula (67°46'S, 68°54'W).
XVI-5: Antarctic Protected Area System: Sites of Special Scientific Interest:
Interim Guidelines: Site of Special Scientific Interest No. 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendation VIII-4 and the Management Plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No. 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands, annexed thereto;
Noting that at its Twenty-First Meeting the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), held at Sao Paulo, Brazil (24-27 July 1990), reviewed the Management Plan and scientific interest of SSSI No. 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands;
Recommend to their governments that:
i. the Management Plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No. 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands, annexed to Recommendation VIII-4 be terminated;
ii. they voluntarily take account of the Management Plan, annexed to this Recommendation, for Site No. 6: Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands.
XVI-6: Antarctic Protected Area System: Specially Protected Areas
Revised descriptions and proposed management plans for Specially Protected Areas
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendation XV-8 and XV-9;
Noting that revised Area Descriptions and proposed Management Plans have been approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR);
Recommend to their Governments that for the Specially Protected Sites listed below:
i. the Descriptions inserted in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora be deleted;
ii. that the Descriptions and Management Plans of Specially Protected Areas, annexed to this Recommendation, be inserted in Annex B, specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.
The Specially Protected Areas involved are:
Site No. 8: Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula
Site No. 9: Green Island, Berthelot Islands, Antarctic Peninsula
Site No. 13: Moe Island, South Orkney Islands
Site No. 14: Lynch Island, South Orkney Islands
Site No. 15: Southern Powell Island, and adjacent islands, South Orkney Islands
Site No. 16: Coppermine Peninsula, Robert Island, South Shetland Islands
Site No. 18: North Coronation Island, South Orkney Islands
Site No. 19: Lagotellerie Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula
XVI-7: Antarctic Protected Area System
Sites of Special Scientific Interest:: extension of designation
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendation VIII-3, VIII-4, XII-5 and XIII-7;
Noting that:
1. in accordance with paragraph 2 of Recommendation VIII-3, the Scientific Committee on antarctic Research (SCAR), at its Twenty-First Meeting at Sao Paulo, Brazil (24-27 July 1990) had reviewed the eight Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated in Recommendations VIII-4, XIII-8 and XIV-5;
2. experience of the practical effect of the Management Plans for these sites has shown them to be an effective means of reducing the risks of harmful interference in areas of special scientific interest;
3. no changes to the Management Plans of these sites had been proposed by SCAR.
Recommend to their Governments that:
i. The date of expiry of designation of Sites:
No. 4 - Cape Crozier, Ross Island;
No. 5 - Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands;
No. 7 - Haswell Island;
No. 10 - Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island;
No. 11 - Tramway Ridge, Mt Erebus, Ross Island;
No. 12 - Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, Taylor Valley, Victoria Land;
No. 18 - North-West White Island, McMurdo Sound
be extended to 31 December 2001; and that,
ii. The date of expiry of designation of Site No. 22 - Yukidori Valley, Langhovde, Lutzow-Holm Bay be extended to 31 December 2003.
iii. They use their best endeavours to ensure, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Recommendation VIII-3, that the Management Plans of these Sites are observed.
XVI-8: Antarctic Protected Area System
Specially Protected Area No. 22: Cryptogram Ridge; Mount Melbourne, Victoria Land
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations XV-8 and XV-9;
Noting that a Management Plan has been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR):
Considering that Cryptogram Ridge on the southern rim of the main summit crater of Mount Melbourne includes areas of geothermal activity which are ice-free and surrounded by numerous ice hummocks and scattered ice towers, and that the geothermal ground supports a unique community of bryophytes, algae and microbiota including very rare species, and that this fragile habitat is of exceptional biological interest and, to maintain its unique pristine state, should be afforded maximum protection from human influence;
Recommend to their Governments that the following area of outstanding scientific interest be inserted in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, together with the annexed Management Plan:
Specially Protected Area No. 22
Cryptogram Ridge, Mount Melbourne, Victoria Land. Mount Melbourne (74°21'S, 164°42'E) lies between Wood Bay and Campbell Glacier, northern Victoria Land, on the western side of the Ross Sea.
XVI-9: Antarctic Protected Area System
Specially Protected Area No. 23: Forlidas Pond and Davis Valley Ponds
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations XV-8 and XV-9; Noting that a Management Plan has been prepared and approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR);
Considering that the Area contains some of the most southerly freshwater ponds known in Antarctica containing plant life, and that these ponds and their immediate catchments should be protected as examples of unique near-pristine ecosystems which should be afforded maximum protection from human influence;
Recommend to their Governments that the following Area of outstanding scientific interest be inserted in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, together with the annexed Management Plan:
Specially Protected Area No. 23
Forlidas Pond and Davis Valley Ponds, situated near the east end of the Dufek Massif at position 82°27'15'S, 51°21'W. The Area includes smaller ponds that occur along the ice margin at the northern edge of Davis Valley, a short distance east of Forlidas Pond.
XVI-10: Antarctic Protected Area System: review of the system
The Representatives,
Recalling Article VIII of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora and Recommendations V-4, VI-14, VII-2, VII-9, VIII-3, XV-10, XV-11;
Recalling the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty done at Madrid on 4th October 1991;
Recommend to their Governments that:
i. The Annex attached to this Recommendation form Annex V on Area Protection and Management ¹.to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty;
ii. The Annex become effective upon the date on which both the Protocol on Environmental Protection shall have entered into force and this Recommendation shall have been approved by all Consultative Parties entitled to attend the XVIth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

1. See Section 2.6.2

Extracts from Report of the XVIth ATCM
Proposals for Specially Reserved Areas (SRA), and Proposals for Multiple-use Planning Areas (MPA)
(78) The XVth ATCM adopted Recommendation XV-10 providing for the establishment of Specially Reserved Areas (SRAs) to protect areas of outstanding geologic, aesthetic, and other value in Antarctica. It also adopted Recommendation XV-11 providing for the establishment of Multiple-use Planning Areas (MPAs) to assist in planning and co-ordinating activities to avoid mutual interference and minimise cumulative environmental impacts in high-use areas.
(79) To begin to give effect to these recommendations, the United States presented proposals to establish a Multiple-use Planning Area on the southwest side of Anvers Island and a Specially Reserved Area on the north side of the Dufek Massif (XVI ATCM/WP 22).
Both proposals had been reviewed and endorsed by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
(80) Recognising that the Recommendations XV-10 and XV-11 were not in force and were expected to be superseded by an additional Annex to the Antarctic Treaty Protocol on Environmental Protection signed in Madrid on 4 October 1991 (see paragraph 92 below), the United States proposed that the Meeting adopt a Recommendation calling upon national programme operators and, to the maximum extent possible, persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Antarctic Treaty Parties to voluntarily take account of the provisions of the proposed MPA and SRA.
(81) During discussion of the proposals, it was noted that the draft Annex on Area Protection and Management under consideration by the Meeting included provisions for the special protection and management of areas as provided by Recommendations XV-10 and XV-11. It was also noted and agreed that it would therefore be desirable to begin gathering practical experience in implementing such provisions relating to such areas.
(82) Several delegations pointed out that each Party would have to take steps to ratify or otherwise approve the proposed Recommendation before it could enter into force and that the same end could be achieved largely by having the Consultative Meeting agree that Parties should voluntarily comply with the provisions of the proposed MPA and SRA. Several delegations also pointed out that provisions in the proposed MPA calling for the maintenance of careful records and reporting of information concerning commercial fishing operations in the area would be addressed more appropriately by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. It was agreed that these provisions should be deleted from the proposed MPA management plan.
(83) The SRA proposal and the amended MPA proposal are appended to this report as Annexes F(ii) and F(iii) [see Sections 2.6.3.1.3 and 2.6.3.2.1]. The Meeting agreed that Parties should require, voluntarily, that their national programme operators and, to the maximum extent possible, persons subject to their jurisdiction comply with the provisions of the proposed SRA and MPA as amended.

Review of the system
(84) The United Kingdom and the United States of America presented their proposals to introduce a new Annex V for the Antarctic Protected Area system (XVI ATCM/WP 1 and XVI ATCM/WP 6, respectively). It was recalled that this item had already been discussed during the XIth Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting.
(85) The United Kingdom pointed out that, because of the many types of designation, the present system had led to confusion in the regulations relating to protected areas. The United Kingdom recommended that the system required major rationalisation but without any loss to the existing quality of protection. It was stressed that the system should be concise, unambiguous and in conformity with the existing Annexes to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.
(86) The United States of America, in presenting its proposal, fully supported the UK delegation's views concerning the inadequacies of the present system and the desirability of having a new more workable regime.
(87) Italy introduced a paper (XVI ATCM/WP 35/rev 1) and noted that it was not the intention of the Italian delegation to table a third proposal for a new annex to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty but that it simply wanted to support the general trend set out in the papers presented and in the discussions held at the XIth ATSCM. Italy also drew the Meeting's attention to the handbook on management plans, being prepared by SCAR, which would provide a general guideline in this context.
(88) Several delegations indicated that the new system of area protection and management should allow for a buffer zone so that the designated areas are of sufficient size to ensure the greatest range of protection.
(89) SCAR and ASOC also submitted comprehensive papers on the Antarctic Protected Area system (XVI ATCM/INFO 14 and XVI ATCM/INFO 63, respectively).
(90) Some delegations mentioned that visits by tourists should be taken into account and that there would be value in collecting data on such visits.
(91) One delegation observed that the new annex should contain provisions to integrate existing protected areas into the new regime.
(92) After intensive discussion the Meeting reached consensus on a final text, based upon the aforementioned working papers, of an Annex on Area Protection and Management that would form Annex V to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Recommendation XVI-10 was adopted.
(93) The Meeting requested that the Depositary convene a linguistic committee in Washington to bring into accordance with the English text of the Annex the French, Russian and Spanish language texts with a view to rectification in accordance with the rules and procedures set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.
(94) The Meeting agreed that the definition of 'Antarctic Specially Managed Areas' set out in Article 4 of the Annex would allow such areas to be established for the purpose of prohibiting, restricting or managing activities, including tourism, conducted in accordance with any provisions adopted under the Protocol, to avoid mutual interference or minimise environmental impacts.
The Meeting agreed that if an activity is permitted under a management plan, this would not derogate from the obligation to meet all other requirements of the Protocol including environmental assessment before any decision to proceed with such activity. It was noted that it would be a responsibility of the appropriate authority issuing the permit to require that the planned activity is in accordance with all aspects of the Protocol prior to issuing a permit.
The Meeting agreed that under Article 10 paragraph 1(a) the arrangements for exchanging records do not necessarily require that detailed records be transmitted to all Parties and that it would be possible for some or all such records to be exchanged only following a request.

Historic Sites and Monuments
(95) Proposals were submitted for the following sites in the list of Historical Sites and Monuments annexed to Recommendation VII-9.
(96) Chile and the United Kingdom submitted a draft recommendation (XVI ATCM/WP 45/Rev 1), to designate Waterboat Point, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula (64°49'S, 62°52'W) in the List of Historic Sites and Monuments: the remains and immediate environs of the Waterboat Point hut, situated close to the unoccupied Chilean station, 'Presidente Gabriel Gonzalez Videla'. The Waterboat Point hut, of which only the base of the boat, roots of door posts and an outline of the hut and extension still exist, was occupied by the UK two-man expedition of Bagshawe and Lester in 1921-22.
(97) Chile and the United Kingdom submitted a draft recommendation to erect a commemorative plaque at Yankee Bay, MacFarlane Strait, Greenwich Island, South Shetland Islands, near the Chilean refuge located at 62°32'S and 59°45'W, to the memory of Captain Robert MacFarlane, who in 1820 explored the Antarctic Peninsula area in the brigantine Dragon (XVI ATCM/Wp 38).
(98) Norway and Chile further put forward a draft recommendation (XVI ATCM/WP 40) to have a cairn with memorial plaque erected at Whalers' Bay, Deception Island, South Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of the whalers' cemetery (Historic Monument No. 31) 62°59'S, 60°34'W, to honour Captain Adolfus Amandus Andresen, Antarctic pioneer who was first to establish a whaling operation at Deception Island in 1906.
(99) Finally, Chile, Spain and Peru (XVI ATCM/WP 39) submitted a draft recommendation to place a cairn on Half Moon Beach, Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands, commemorating the officers, soldiers and seamen on board the San Telmo, which sank in September 1819, which were possibly the first people to live and die in the wastes of Antarctica. The aforementioned proposals were adopted as Recommendation XVI-11.
During the discussions of this subject SCAR and some delegations mentioned the problem of vulnerability of some monuments such as the cemetery situated in Deception Island (Historic Site No. 31). Other delegations referred to the value of an archaeological survey of such areas as Byers Peninsula, Cape Shirreff and other areas particularly rich in archaeological and historical remains.

XVI-11

Note. This Recommendation recommends that historic monuments Nos 56 to 59 be added to the 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments' annexed to Recommendation VII-9 (q.v.). The List referred to above is set out in Section 3.3.3.
Recommendation XVII-2
Revised descriptions and proposed management plans for Specially Protected Areas
The Representatives,
Recalling Recommendations XV-8 and XV-9;
Noting that revised Area Descriptions and proposed Management Plans have been approved by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR);
Noting also that the format of these revised Area Descriptions and proposed Management Plans accord with Article 5 of Annex V of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty adopted under Recommendation XVI-10;
Recommend to their Governments that for the Specially Protected Areas listed below:
i. the Descriptions inserted in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora be deleted;
ii. the Descriptions and Management Plans of Specially Protected Areas, annexed to this Recommendation, be inserted in Annex B, Specially Protected Areas, of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora.
The Specially Protected Areas involved are:
AREA No. 1 Taylor Rookery, Mac Robertson Land;
AREA No. 2 Rookery Islands, Holme Bay, Mac Robertson Land;
AREA No. 3 Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast;
AREA No. 20 'New College Valley', Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island.
XVII-3
Note. This Recommendation recommends that historic monument [No. 60 Wooden plaque and rock cairn at Penguins Bay] be added to the 'List of Historic Monuments Identified and Described by the Proposing Government or Governments' annexed to Recommendation VII-9 (q.v.). The List referred to above is set out in Section 2.6.3.3.
Extract from Report of XVII ATCM
The Antarctic Protected Area System
Revised description and Proposed Management Plans for Specially Protected Areas.
(90) The United Kingdom tabled a draft Recommendation (XVII ATCM/WP 22) setting out revised descriptions and proposed management plans for the following Specially Protected Areas:
SPA No. 1 Taylor Rookery, Mac Robertson Land;
SPA No. 2 Rookery Island, Holme Bay, Mac Robertson Land;
SPA No. 3 Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast;
SPA No. 20 New College Valley, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island.
Management plans for SPAs 1, 2 and 3 were prepared by Australia, and SPA 20 by New Zealand and had been recommended and approved at SCAR XXII.
(91) Recommendation XVII-2 was adopted.
(92) The Meeting agreed that Parties should require that their national programme operators and, to the maximum extent possible, persons subject to their jurisdiction comply with the provisions of the above management plans, and the management plans for SPAs 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 annexed to the Report of the XVIth ATCM.
Historic Sites and Monuments
(93) Argentina submitted a draft Recommendation (XVII ATCM/WP 27/rev.2) to designate a wooden plaque and rock cairn at Penguin Bay, Southern Coast of Seymour Island (Marambio) (64°16'00''S, 56°39'10''W) as an Historic Monument.
(94) Recommendation XVII-3 was adopted.
(95) New Zealand announced its intention to propose the listing of the northern slopes of Mt Erebus above Lewis Bay, which was the site of the Air New Zealand DC 10 crash in November 1979, as an Historic Site as it provided for in Article 8 of Annex V of the Protocol.

Review and implementation of the system
(96) The Meeting considered measures that could be taken to improve the Antarctic Protected Area System and to begin to give effect to provisions of Annex V of the Protocol. The Meeting was assisted in this regard by a paper (XVII ATCM/WP 4) summarising the results of a Workshop on Antarctic Protected Areas held jointly by SCAR and IUCN, 29 June--2 July 1992. The Meeting noted that some aspects of this paper related to issues beyond the Protected Area System and that these were not addressed explicitly.
(97) The Meeting noted that, when Annex V of the Protocol enters into force, all SPAs and SSSIs designated as such by past ATCMs will be designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas and be renamed and renumbered accordingly. The Meeting recognised that the management plans for many SSSIs and SPAs may need to be revised at that time to ensure they conform with the provisions of the Protocol. The Meeting also recognised that the Committee for Environmental Protection, which will be established when the Protocol enters into force, will be required to provide advice. To assist in this regard, it was agreed that the Parties which originally proposed the existing SSSIs and SPAs should review their management plans and be prepared to submit proposed revisions for consideration when the Protocol enters into force. It was also agreed that SCAR could be asked to provide assistance to Parties in reviewing and revising management plans to conform with the provisions of the Protocol.
(98) With regard to the previous point, the Meeting was advised that SCAR was preparing a handbook to assist in the preparation of management plans. The Meeting welcomed this information, recognising that the handbook could be useful to the Parties and the CEP, as well as SCAR. It urged SCAR to complete and make available the handbook as soon as possible.
(99) The Meeting was also advised that the joint SCAR/IUCN Workshop on Protected Areas had begun revision of the ecosystem classification system developed by SCAR to assist in identifying areas that might usefully be included in the Antarctic Protected Area System. The Meeting noted that the classification system might be useful to the Parties for deciding, and to the CEP for providing advice on, measures necessary to meet the requirements of Article 3(2) of Annex V of the Protocol which specifies that the Parties shall seek to include certain types of areas in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The Meeting urged SCAR and IUCN to complete the revision and make it available as soon as possible.
(100) The Meeting noted that Annex V of the Protocol will prohibit entry into Antarctic Specially Protected Areas except in accordance with a permit issued under Article 7 of the Annex. The Meeting urged Parties that have not already done so to institute a permit system to begin to give effect to the permitting provisions.
(101) With respect to the preceding point, the Meeting recognised that effective implementation of Annex V will require, where appropriate, that ASPAs and ASMAs are marked and posted with signs, and that all persons visiting Antarctic are aware of the locations and purposes of ASPAs and ASMAs, and the prohibitions or restrictions on entry and activities that can be conducted in these Areas. Towards this end, the Meeting urged that all Parties take such steps as possible to begin to give effect to Article 9 of Annex V. The Meeting also urged that the need to make such information available be considered in the development of the Data Information System referenced in paragraphs 82 and 83 of this Report.
(102) The Meeting noted that ASPAs, ASMAs, and Historic Sites and Monuments may need to be visited periodically to ensure that the objectives of their management plans are being met. The Meeting further noted that a suggested list of information that should be collected and included in reports of site visits was developed at, and was appended to the Report of, the XIVth ATCM. The Meeting agreed that Parties, through their National Committees, would ask SCAR to review this list and provide advice on:

i. how it should be revised to reflect the provisions of the Protocol
ii. how site visits should be carried out
iii. how the results of such visits should be reported to be most useful in implementing the Protocol.
(103) Attention was called to the fact that, under Annex V of the Protocol, it would be appropriate in some cases to adopt management plans specifying conditions for visiting and activities that can be carried out in the vicinity of Historic Sites and Monuments. Attention was also drawn to the fact that a number of abandoned work sites may have scientific and historic values and that programme operators should consider such possibilities before initiating clean-up operations to give effect to Article 1(5) of Annex III of the Protocol.

Extract from Statement by the CCAMLR Observer at the XVIIth ATCM

Protection of CEMP sites
18. The Commission has adopted a conservation measure providing for the protection of sites where colonies of seabirds and seals are being monitored as part of the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP). The measure provides for the introduction of a management plan for each site, specifying, in particular, conditions of access and activities that are prohibited. The procedure involves consultation with the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and SCAR.
19. The Commission at its 1992 meeting adopted a conservation measure according protection to the Seal Island CEMP site, South Shetland Islands. Monitoring studies of seals and birds at this site is being coordinated by US scientists as part of CEMP. The Management plan for the Site was referred to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and to SCAR before final adoption by CCAMLR.

Next Section - 2-6-2