IP 59
Agenda Item: ATCM 12,
CEP 10
Presented by: UNEP, ASOC
Original: English
Submitted: 14/05/2012
1
Review of the Implementation of the Madrid Protocol: Inspections by Parties
(Article 14)
IP 59
3
Review of the Implementation of the Madrid Protocol: Inspections by Parties (Article 14)
Information Paper submitted by UNEP and ASOC1
Summary
This Information Paper reviews the practice of inspections undertaken by Parties carried out under Article 14
of the Madrid Protocol.
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, the deliberations of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings have increasingly
focused on the protection of the Antarctic environment.
Through the Protocol of Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol), the Parties
committed themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and
associated ecosystems and designated Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science. The
Protocol entered into force on 14 January 1998 following the deposit of instruments of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession by all the states which were Consultative Parties on 4 October 1991 when
the Protocol was signed. The Committee for Environmental Protection was established the same year in
accordance with Article 11 of the Protocol.
The success of the Antarctic Treaty in protecting the Antarctic environment hinges, inter alia, on the
compliance of by Parties, both individually and collectively, with its environmental obligations, in particular
the implementation of the Madrid Protocol.
In order to assist Parties in furthering the protection of the Antarctic environment, in 2011 UNEP and ASOC
initiated a review of the implementation of the Madrid Protocol. As a first step of this review process,
UNEP and ASOC presented an Information Paper (XXXIV ATCM/IP 113) on the annual reporting duty set
out in Article 17 of the Madrid Protocol in 2011.
This year, UNEP and ASOC are pleased to present an analysis of the inspections by Parties in accordance
with Article 14 of the Madrid Protocol. Usually, inspections are conducted to verify compliance with both
the Protocol and with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty. This document, therefore, reviews the inspection
practice undertaken under both instruments.
2. Overview of the inspection practice
The inspection practice is a core component of the Antarctic Treaty and its Madrid Protocol. The practice is
established under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty in order to “promote the objective and ensure the
observance of the provisions of the […] Treaty” and under Article 14 of the Madrid Protocol in order to
promote the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, and to ensure
compliance with [the] Protocol”.
In order to guide observers conducting inspections in Antarctica in accordance with the provisions
of Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and Article 14 the Madrid Protocol, inspection checklists were
adopted by Resolution 5 (1995). A revised check list “A” pertaining to Antarctic Stations and
Subsidiary Installations was adopted by Resolution 3 (2010). There are currently checklists for
Antarctic stations and subsidiary installations (Checklist A); vessels within the Antarctic Treaty
Area (Checklist B); abandoned Antarctic stations and associated installations (Checklist C); waste
1 Lead authors: Christian Lambrecht (UNEP) (text and maps), and Lyn Goldsworthy (ASOC) and Dr. Ricardo Roura
(ASOC) (data collection and review).
IP 59
4
disposal sites (Checklist D). In addition, there is a checklist to assist in the inspection of ASPAs
and ASMAs. The development of a checklist for tourism has recently been discussed.
In XXVI ATCM/ IP 118 rev.1, ASOC and UNEP reviewed the inspections carried out under the Treaty and
the Protocol between 1959 and 2001. The review noted that:
There was an increase in official inspections and inspected facilities and sites during the 1959-2001
period;
The majority of the inspected facilities or sites were located in the Antarctic Peninsula (48.3 %),
followed by East Antarctica (12.1 %), Queen Maud Land (9.1 %) and the Ross Sea (7.9 %);
Sixteen of the 27 Consultative Parties had conducted one or more inspections between 1959 and
2001;
Of the 73 stations that were on the COMNAP’s list at the time, and that were located within the
Antarctic Treaty Area, 51 (70%) had been inspected and thus 22 (30%) had never been inspected;
Ten vessels were inspected in the 1959-2001 period, of which six were inspected after October 1991,
and three after January 1998;
The inspection of commercial tourism activities had been limited to the inspection of tourist vessels;
All Parties other than Sweden had had at least one of their sites or facilities inspected;
The Parties that had most sites or facilities inspected were Argentina, Russia, United Kingdom, USA
and Chile.
3. Methods and data sources
A) List of inspections
The analysis of inspections carried out since the entry into force of the Madrid Protocol is based on the
inspections report available on the Secretariat website (Home > Antarctic Treaty > Peaceful use and
Inspections > List of Inspections).
Since the entry into force of the Protocol, 14 inspection reports have been submitted to the ATCM.
B) List of facilities and sites
The list of facilities, Historic Sites and Monuments (HSM), Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) and
Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMA) used for the purpose of this paper derived from lists posted on
the website of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) and the Secretariat
(accessed April 2012).
COMNAP has posted on its web site a list of Antarctic Facilities at the following URL:
https://www.comnap.aq/Members/Shared%20Documents/Antarctic_Facilities_List_1April2012.xls. It
should be noted that different Parties use different criteria to list their facilities – for some Parties the listing
is comprehensive while for others it includes only active stations but not abandoned stations or other
facilities.
The lists of HSMs, ASPAs and ASMAs are posted on the Secretariat website (Home > Environment Protocol
> Protected Areas > APA Database).
In addition, there are a number of other sites, some of which have been inspected on an ad hoc basis. These
include temporary sites such as field camps; sites used for tourism purposes; and a limited number of NGO
sites. There is no comprehensive list of these sites. More than 250 sites were used for tourism purposes
between 1989–90 and 2007–08.2 At present, thirty two sites regularly used for tourism landings are subject
12 H.J. Lyncha, K. Crosbie, W.F. Fagana and R. Naveena (2010): Spatial patterns of tour ship traffic in the Antarctic
Peninsula region. Antarctic Science 22:123-130 doi:10.1017/S0954102009990654
IP 59
5
to site specific guidelines that are listed on the Secretariat website at the following URL:
http://www.ats.aq/e/ats_other_siteguidelines.htm
Resupply and tourism vessels, including both motor vessels and some yachts, have also been inspected.
However, there is no complete list of the vessels operating in Antarctica currently available.
4. Summary findings
A) Total number of inspections and inspected sites or facilities
The total number of inspections conducted since the entry into force of the Madrid Protocol is 14. The total
number of different facilities or sites inspected is 83 (see Table 1).
Table 1: Number of facilities and sites inspected, 1998-2011
Type of facility or site Number of facilities and sites inspected
Number of different facilities and sites inspected
Active Station 93 56
Former Station 2 2
Temporary Site 2 2
ASPA 6 6
ASMA 1 1
HSM 9 7
Ship 7 7
NGO/Tourism Site 2 2
Total 122 83
B) Frequency of inspections Over the years, the frequency of inspections per year has increased. Prior to the entry into force of the
Madrid Protocol, the yearly average number of inspections was 0.89 (33 inspections in 37 years). Since the
entry into force of the Protocol, the yearly average increased to 1.17 (14 inspections in 12 years) (see Fig.1).
IP 59
6
Fig. 1 – Official inspections, 1959-2011
C) Geographical distribution of inspected facilities and sites
The geographical distribution of facilities, ASMAs, ASPAs and HSMs inspected is given in the maps at
Annex I.
D) Parties conducting inspections
Twelve of the 27 Consultative Parties have conducted one or more inspections between 1998 and 2011,
namely: Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Peru, Sweden, United
Kingdom, United States of America (see Table 2).
Table 2: Inspecting countries, 1998-2011
Inspecting country
Number of inspections in
which the country
participated
Year of the inspection
Australia 4 2005, 2005, 2010, 2011
UK 3 1999, 2005, 2005
USA 3 2001, 2005, 2006
France 2 1999, 2007
New Zealand 2 2005, 2007
Norway 2 2001, 2007
Belgium 1 1999
Finland 1 2004
Germany 1 1999
Japan 1 2010
Peru 1 2005
Sweden 1 2007
IP 59
7
D) Parties being inspected
27 of the 29 Consultative Parties had one or more of their facilities inspected during the period 1998-2011.
None of the facilities of two Consultative Parties were inspected during the same period. These Parties are:
Peru and Romania (see Table 3).
Table 3: Inspected facilities by operating countries, 1998-2011
Country Number of facilities
operated by the country
Number of facilities
inspected
Chile 12 9
Russia 12 8
Argentina 13 7
Australia (*) 7 3
Germany 5 3
USA 6 3
Spain 2 2
United Kingdom 6 2
Uruguay 2 2
Belgium 1 1
Brazil 1 1
Bulgaria 1 1
China 3 1
Czech Republic 1 1
Ecuador 2 1
Finland 1 1
France (**) 3 1
India 2 1
Italy (**) 6 1
Japan 5 1
Korea 1 1
New Zealand 1 1
Norway 2 1
Poland 1 1
South Africa 1 1
Sweden 2 1
Ukraine 1 1
Peru 1 0
Romania (*) 1 0
(*) Includes a facility operated jointly by France and Italy
(**) Includes a facility operated jointly by Australia and Romania
E) Inspection frequency at each facility
Of the 101 facilities in the COMNAP’s list, 56 (55%) have been inspected and 45 (45%) have never been
inspected. The 45 sites and facilities that have not been inspected since 1998 are listed in Table 4.
IP 59
8
Table 4: Facilities not yet inspected since 1998
Name of facility Country operating the
facility First
opened Facility
type Status
Asuka Japan 1984 Station Seasonal
Beaver Lake Australia Camp
Belgrano II Argentina 1955 Station Year-round
Bhatri India 2012 Station Year-round
Browning Pass Italy 1997 Camp Seasonal
Cámara Argentina 1953 Station Seasonal
Cap Prud'homme France Camp Seasonal
Dakshin Gangotri India 1983 Station Seasonal
Dallman Lab at Base Jubany Germany 1994 Station Seasonal
Dome Fuji Japan 1995 Station Seasonal
Dumont d'Urville France 1956 Station Year-round
Edgeworth-David Australia Camp Seasonal
Enigma Lake Italy 2005 Camp Seasonal
Fossil Bluff United Kingdom 1961 Camp Seasonal
Guillermo Mann Chile 1991 Station Seasonal
Kohnen Germany 2001 Station Seasonal
Kunlun China 2009 Station Seasonal
Law - Racovita – Negoita Australia & Romania 1987 Station Seasonal
Lieutenant Arturo Parodi Chile 1999 Station Seasonal
Macchu Picchu Peru 1989 Station Seasonal
Marble Point Heliport USA Camp Seasonal
Mario Zucchelli Italy 1986 Station Seasonal
Matienzo Argentina 1961 Station Seasonal
Melchior Argentina 1947 Station Seasonal
Mid Point Italy 1998 Camp Seasonal
Mirny Russia 1956 Station Year-round
Mizuho Japan 1970 Station Seasonal
Molodezhnaya Airfield Russia Camp Seasonal
Odell Glacier Camp USA Camp Seasonal
Orcadas Argentina 1904 Station Year-round
Primavera Argentina 1977 Station Seasonal
Progress Russia 1989 Station Year-round
Refugio Ecuador Ecuador 1990 Refuge Seasonal
Ripamonti Chile Station Seasonal
Rothera Skiway United Kingdom 1975 Camp Seasonal
Russkaya Russia 1980 Station Seasonal
S17 Japan 2005 Camp Seasonal
Signy United Kingdom 1947 Station Seasonal
Siple Dome USA Camp Seasonal
Sitry Italy 2000 Camp Seasonal
Sky Blu United Kingdom Camp Seasonal
Svea Sweden Station Seasonal
Tor Norway 1985 Refuge Seasonal
Wilkins Aerodrome Australia Camp Seasonal
Zhongshan China 1989 Station Year-round
IP 59
9
26 facilities and 2 sites have been inspected two or more times since 1998 (see Table 5).
Table 5: Facilities and sites inspected more than once, 1998-2011
Type of facility or site
Name of facility or site Number of inspections
Station / Camp / Refuge
Bellingshausen 4
Great Wall 4
Esperanza 3
Juan Carlos I 3
Ohridiski 3
Rothera 3
SANAE IV 3
Troll 3
Vernadsky 3
Antarctic Receiving Station (GARS) 2
Arctowski 2
Artigas 2
Bernardo O'Higgins Riquelme 2
Comandante Ferraz 2
Eduardo Frei Montalva 2
Gabriel de Castilla 2
Jubany 2
Julio Escudero 2
King Sejong 2
Lieutenant Rodolfo Marsh M. Aerodrome 2
Maitri 2
Neumayer III 2
Novolazarevskaya Airfield 2
Palmer Station 2
Princess Elisabeth 2
Ruperto Elichiribehety 2
HSM HSM 61, Base A, Port Lockroy 2
HSM 62, Base F, Wordie House, Winter Islands 2
F) Inspections of ASMAs, ASPAs, HSMs, vessels and other sites
One ASMA, six ASPAs, and seven HSMs have also been inspected during the period 1998-2011 (see Table
6). This list does not include ASMAs that contain inspected sites or facilities, or HSMs or ASPAs located
adjacent to inspected sites and facilities, and that were not specifically identified by observers as subject of
their inspections.
IP 59
10
Table 6: Inspected ASMA, ASPA and HSM, 1998-2011 (*)
Name of Site Year of inspection
ASMA 2: McMurdo Dry Valleys 2005
ASPA 116: Cape Bird, New College Valley 2005
ASPA 122: Arrival Heights 2005
ASPA 154: Cape Evans 2005
ASPA 157: Cape Royds 2005
ASPA 158: Hut Point 2005
ASPA 168: Mount Harding 2010
HSM 38, Swedish Hut, Snow Hill Is. 1999
HSM 55, Stonington - East Base 2005
HSM 61, Base A, Port Lockroy 1999, 2005
HSM 62, Base F, Wordie House, Winter Islands 1999, 2005
HSM 63, Base Y, Horseshoe Island 2005
HSM 64, Base E, Stonington Island 2005
HSM 71, Whalers Bay, Deception Island 1999
(*) Refers to sites identified by the observers conducting inspections as ASMAs, ASPAs, and HSMs.
In addition, seven vessels, of which six were tourist vessels, were also inspected during the same period (see
Table 7).
Table 7: Ships inspected, 1998-2011
Type of ship Name of ship
Year of inspection
Tourist vessel M/S Explorer II – Abercrombie & Kent 2006
Tourist vessel M/S Lyubov Orlova – Quark Expeditions 2006
Tourist vessel M/S National Geographic Endeavour – Lindblad Expeditions
2006
Tourist vessel MV Professor Molchanov 2005
Tourist vessel MV Academic Loffe 1999
Tourist vessel MV Marco Polo 1999
National programme vessel RSV Aurora Australis (Australia) 1999
Other sites, including former facilities, temporary sites and land-based tourist sites were also visited (see
Table 8).
IP 59
11
Table 8: Other sites inspected, 1998-2011
Type of site Name of site
Year of inspection
Temporary site Field camp at Petermann Island (monitoring tourism)
2006
Temporary site EPICA Drill Site 2001
Former site Forster 2001
Former site Wilkes 1999
NGO / Tourism site ALCI Airbase (tourism camp) 2009
NGO / Tourism site Eco-Nelson (Non-Governmental/private) 2005
5. Analysis
As noted in ASOC and UNEP (2003), the inspection system is essential to the implementation of the
Antarctic Treaty and its Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection. Inspections provide critical
information on the level of compliance with the Treaty and the Protocol’s provisions and help identify issues
that need further attention from the Parties. They are also learning experiences for both the inspected Parties
and for the Parties conducting the inspection.
Based on the 2003 review, ASOC and UNEP recommended that future inspections could usefully focus on:
Stations that have never been inspected or not been inspected since the adoption of the Protocol;
Stations of Parties that have never or seldom had inspections to their facilities;
Inland stations;
Decommissioned, abandoned or infrequently used sites or facilities;
Stations that have been inspected and have shown repeatedly that some aspects of their operations
are falling short of the Protocol’s requirements;
Other sites or facilities that are not stations (such as field huts, fuel depots, drilling sites);
Ships, including vessels engaged in tourism and other non-governmental activities; and,
Sites where tourism operations frequently take place.
The present review shows that since the entry into force of the Protocol progress has been made in terms of
the number of inspections, the number of stations inspected, including stations that had not previously been
inspected, and the number of inland facilities that were inspected. It must, however, be noted that while the
number of inspections has increased, so has the number of sites facilities.
There were a relatively limited number of inspections to facilities that are not active research stations, and to
other kinds of sites. Tourism activities in all its dimensions – ships, sites, and onsite activities – have
received few inspections, with the exception of six ships, a tourism monitoring camp, and one land based
facility. This is surprising considering the expansion of tourism since 1998.
The listing of facilities and sites in the Antarctic is comprehensive for research stations and, by and large, for
sites used by tourism, but less comprehensive for other types of sites. In addition, there is no comprehensive
listing of the vessels operating in the Antarctic Treaty Area that could be subject of inspection under the
Antarctic Treaty and its Protocol.
6. Closing remarks
UNEP and ASOC commend the practice of inspections as an essential component to ensure the
implementation of the Treaty and the Protocol, as they provide objective information on the level of
implementation based on observations on the ground.
The present analysis covers only some aspects related to the practice of inspections. It does not provide a
review of the inspections’ findings. Based on the analysis it would appear that the coverage of active
IP 59
12
stations has been adequate. Some ASMAs, ASPAs and HSMs have been inspected, but many have not.
Finally, the coverage has been less adequate for facilities and sites other than permanent research stations,
such as vessels, and tourism sites and activities in particular.
-----
IP 59
13
ANNEX I
IP 59
14
IP 59
15
IP 59
16
