495 / 536
481
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).