Why a minerals treaty will help protect Antarctica

Press, 4 March 1988, Page 18

Why a minerals treaty will help protect Antarctica

Staff writer Stuart McMillan describes the efforts to safeguard the southern environment

THIS YEAR —at the very next meeting {of the Antarctic Treaty! parties in fact — it seems highly likely that a minerals convention will be concluded. { This has taken several years of negotiating and a (very large amount of effort on the part of the New Zealand .Government and the Ministry [of Foreign Affairs.: The question in the minds of a number of groups interested in the Antarctic is whether any effort! to reach a minerals convention) should have been made at all. ] Because New Zealand was the first country to raise) the proposal for a minerals regime, and has been the most active of the Antarctic Treaty countries in trying to get a minerals regime established, the [question of whether there should be a minerals convention at all needs examining. The hope of many people interested in the Antarctic was that the continent pould be preserved for all time as a nature reserve, free from pining or any other ■ significant interference with its exceptional beauty and unique environment. Scientific endeavour would {be welcomed and the co-opei{ation among scientists would be a model to the rest of the woirld.

The conclusion of a minerals convention with ah air of some : urgency has led |to suspicions that early exploitation of the continent’s mineral resources is probapie. There (are, however, some strong arguments for pushing for an early agreement without accepting that there will be early {exploitation. One important {factor is that the 1959 Antarctic Treaty does ■not qover the circumstances of firms! or countries wanting to extract minerals from the Antarctic. Without | some international agreement mining firms or countries would be more or less free to do as they wished. I Another argument the New Zealand Government found compelling was that it was better to get a minerals { regime established before any mining actually started. It j seemed more likely that agreement on strict conservation principles and strict environmental protection could be reached before mining rather than after.

Developments in technology Tor mining in ice or where there {are ( icebergs hdve also been rapid over recent; years, bringing closer the possibility that if minerals or oil werte found and it was economic to 1 mine them, it could be done. | The discovery pf hydrocarbons in the Ross Sea (an area to which New Zealand lays claim) lent a further sense of urgency to devising a set df rules for extracting oil or {other minerals. Quite apart from the presence (or absence) of any minerals and their economic recovery, there is the question of how the Antarctic could be protected from all mining- { A “world park” in the Antarctic has been proposed from time

to time. Although such an , idea would seem to have many attractions, the trouble is to know who would administer the park and whether it would actually work as a method of banning all mining activity in the continent. At the moment the Antarctic is administered by certain countries under the Antarctic Treaty. Some of the countries, including New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the Soviet Union, were among the original signatories to the treaty. Some are known as consultative parties and some have acceded to the treaty but not carried out the ■scientific programmes which would qualify them to become consultative parties. The following countries are consultative parties: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, France, East Germany, West Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United States, (Britain, and Uruguay. Countries that have acceded to the treaty but are not consultative members are: Austria, Bulgaria,! Cuba, Czechoslovakia, North ; Korea, South Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Papua New; Guinea, Peru, Rumania, Spain, and Sweden.

The treaty has been successful in establishing a political arrangement that has brought stability, kept the continent demilitarised, prevented the area from being used as a testing ground for nuclear explosion or as a dumping ground for > nuclear wastes, and fostered international scientific co-operation, even between the super-Powers. That is an impressive list of accomplishments. On the ancient American principle that "if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it," there would appear to be very good grounds for preserving the Antarctic Treaty system. i That is what New. Zealand tried to do after the first "world park” proposal was made in: 1972 by the Second World Conference on National Parks. At the 1975 consultative meeting New Zealand advocated creating a world park in Antarctica where there would have been a ■ complete prohibition on commercial exploitation of mineral ( resources but the Antarctic Treaty regime would have remained jintact.

The New Zealand proposal was in contrast to the idea of internationalising the Antarctic. In practical terms this would have meant that the Antarctic would have come under the United Nations. New Zealand) gained no support for the proposal and had to rethink its position). The plan to establish a minerals regime as soon as possible was born out of that rethinking.

At the moment there is no support among the consultative

parties to the Antarctic Treaty for the world park proposal. Although New Zealand has generally been a strong supporter of the United Nations — a characteristic of small countries — it has .consistently opposed placing the administration of the Antarctic under the United Nations. That makes a great deal of sense because not only has the Antarctic Treaty system had the achievements already mentioned, but the United Nations methods of decision-making, with its emphasis on a majority in the General Assembly and a veto by the big powers in the Security Council, differs substantially from the consensus processes in the Antarctic Treaty system. The Antarctic Treaty system has been described, affectionately or perjoratively, as a “club” and the attitudes towards the Antarctic have been imbued with a club-like spirit. The arrangement has Suited New Zealand’s purposes well. The strongest challenge to the Antarctic Treaty system recently has come in the United Nations from Malaysia which has pushed for United Nations administration of the Antarctic and for any minerals there to be considered

part of the common heritage of mankind. So the thrust within the United (Nations has been for exploitation, not. conservation. One of {the factors the New Zealand Government has always taken into consideration is that if an unrestrained rush for minerals developed in Antarctica, it could lead to some form of conflict. As one of the closest countries to the Antarctic, New Zealand would run the risk of becoming involved. After the rejection of New Zealand’s world park proposal in 1975, a special meeting on Antarctic minerals was held by the Antarctic Treaty nations in 1976. Another more immediate problem arose! during 1976, and 1977, however — the need to establish a regime; for the marine resources. This (dominated the later years of the 1970 s and it was not until 1981; that attention focused again on { minerals. By then a convictiop had emerged that it was not possible to postpone a minerals regime indefinitely. New Zealand took the initiative by inviting Antarctic Treaty parties to) a (meeting in Wellington in 1982. Mr Chris Beeby, now deputy secretary of foreign affairs, drew up a draft treaty and

has been i chairman of many of the meetings held since. The text of the treaty, now close to its final form, provides for a framework agreement. It does not establish a mining code, partly because it is not known whether there will be any mining, whatl the conditions will be like in the area to be mined, or what technology will be used. The agreement covers both prospecting and mining. It will not be possible to move from prospecting to mining without consensus among all the parties. In effect this means that each country has a veto over any! mining activity. ; j A firm wanting to explore will have to apply and if the group considers that the area is acceptable, then an environmental impact report will have to be: submitted. If any mining eventually starts there is a provision for any consultative member to inspect the activity. If the exploration or mining causes any damage then the firm will be required to repair, or if the firm will not’ the sponsoring country will have to repair the damage. All firms will be clearly identified with a country. There will be no flags of convenience. In the protection of the environment the convention goes further than any other international agreement, except the Law of the Sea Convention.

The financial aspects of the treaty are proving difficult to complete. One of the principles of the ;agreement is that there should be no windfall profits and no taxation arrangements which make it more attractive for firms or countries to mine in the Antarctic. That means the payment of royalties for minerals extracted.

That leaves a problem: who does the miner pay the money to? The claimant States, of which New Zealand is one, believe that: they have some rights. The commission that will be established; by the minerals convention will; need to be supported. Others may believe they have a right to some of the money. Another problem lies in deciding which body will be responsible for regulating activity in the Antarctic. The regulatory committee will come into play once a decision has been made to go ahead with a particular mining proposal. Will decisions made by the regulatory committee be’ made by consensus or by f a’ majority? Relationships between an advisory committee, on which all the consultative parties will be represented, and which will' make the original decision on a mining proposal, and the com-! mission, and the regulatory comJ mittee will have to be worked out. ) ■ ; ‘ Even when ail this is done, no rush for minerals is expected. No prediction can be made about whether any large deposit of a valuable mineral will be found, but if it is, the chances seem better that much less damage will be done with a minerals resources convention than- without one. ■, ■ i . i