CYIL Vol. 7, 2016

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ XXXIX. ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING IN SANTIAGO Another British paper that made almost all the Consultative Parties speak up concerned the issue of the participation of individuals in unauthorised non- governmental activities and their possible punishability. 25 Most of the States informed on their national legislation regarding the punishability for these activities. It was concluded that while organisers or operators of such activities should be held legally accountable, the individuals would mostly face no penalty for participation in such activity. The point of controversy among the Contracting Parties was a development of a blue ice runway at Romnoes in Dronning Maud Land by a private operator ACLI, which had not submitted neither IEE, nor CEE 26 to the XXXVIII. ATCM as promised. Moreover, a test flight on this runway was carried out in the 2014/2015 season and the authorisation for such activity was questioned. Furthermore, it was noted that DROMLAN 27 had not approved the project. According to the Russian Federation, as there was no need for building of any infrastructure for the runway, no major impact on environment would have been caused. The Parties were especially concerned that no permit was given and no CEEs or IEEs were conducted. Among challenges related to tourism were identified the potential increase of mass tourism and the diversification of activities, especially extreme adventure tourism. The cumulative effects of tourism activities need to be addressed. The Combined Air and Cruise Transport poses challenges as multiple Competent Authorities might be involved and environmental impacts and safety traffic must be assessed properly. 28 Having said that, it seems that the Competent Authorities are provided only with partial information, which disables examination of the activities in their complexities. A call for bringing the Measure 4 (2004) into force took place. The main event of this year’s ATCM was a one-day Symposium to celebrate the 25 th anniversary of the Protocol on Environmental Protection. The history and impact of the Protocol was assessed and its comparison with other global and regional environmental framework agreements were made. The effectiveness of the Protocol was put under scrutiny of the Representatives of Government and non-governmental organisations. 29 Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum questioned whether Annex VI should be broadened to include dependent ecosystems within the regime. He further stressed 25 Working paper 11. 26 Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) and Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE) are foreseen by Annex I to the Protocol which describes detailed procedure for the environmental evaluation. 27 Dronning Maud Land Air Network. 28 Working paper 25. 29 SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research), COMNAP (Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs), ASOC (Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition), IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators), CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources).

481