R 121850Z MAY 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY BEIJING 
AMEMBASSY BERLIN 
AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 
AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 
AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 
AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 
AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN 
AMEMBASSY HELSINKI 
AMEMBASSY KYIV 
AMEMBASSY LIMA 
AMEMBASSY LONDON 
AMEMBASSY MADRID 
AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 
AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 
AMEMBASSY OSLO 
AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 
AMEMBASSY PARIS 
AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 
AMEMBASSY QUITO 
AMEMBASSY REYKJAVIK 
AMEMBASSY ROME 
AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 
AMEMBASSY SEOUL 
AMEMBASSY SOFIA 
AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 
AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 
AMEMBASSY TOKYO 
AMEMBASSY WARSAW 
AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON 
INFO AMEMBASSY ANKARA 
AMEMBASSY ATHENS 
AMEMBASSY BERN 
AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 
AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA 
AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST 
AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST 
AMEMBASSY CARACAS 
AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA 
AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR 
AMEMBASSY MINSK 
AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY 
AMEMBASSY PRAGUE 
AMEMBASSY TALLINN 
AMEMBASSY VIENNA 
AMCONSUL HALIFAX 
AMCONSUL MARSEILLE 
USDOC WASHINGTON DC 0000
USINT HAVANA 
HQ EPA WASHINGTON DC
USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 
NSF POLAR WASHINGTON DC
COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC 0000

UNCLAS STATE 048359 
 
 
NSF FOR KERB 
EPA FOR AHESSERT 
USDOC PASS TO NOAA NMFS PTOSCHIK 
COAST GUARD FOR CG-5211 BHAWKINS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC AY KSCA KTIA SENV TPHY
SUBJECT: ANTARCTICA: THE THIRTY-SECOND ANTARCTIC TREATY 
CONSULTATIVE MEETING, BALTIMORE, APRIL 6-17, 2009 
 
¶1. Begin Summary and Comment: The 32nd Antarctic Treaty 
Consultative Meeting (ATCM) met in Baltimore, Maryland, on 
April 6-17, 2009, to discuss a range of issues related to 
Antarctica.  The Meeting was convened initially at the 
Department of State in Washington as part of the first-ever 
joint meeting of the ATCM and the Arctic Council.  The 
Secretary hosted a ministerial session among the 28 Antarctic 
Treaty Consultative Parties and eight Arctic Council 
countries focusing first on the International Polar Year and 
polar science, and then on commemorating the 50th anniversary 
of the Antarctic Treaty.  The participants adopted 
ministerial declarations on each of these two topics. 
 
¶2. At the ATCM, the United States successfully led efforts to 
adopt a Measure making mandatory an earlier recommendation 
that persons not be landed from tourist vessels carrying more 
than 500 passengers.  Additional binding restrictions were 
adopted for the landing of passengers from smaller craft. 
The Parties also supported a U.S. initiative to engage the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO) in promoting vessel 
safety in the Treaty area, including work toward adopting a 
mandatory polar shipping code and stronger lifeboat 
protections.  Finally, the Meeting took action on a third 
U.S. proposal recommending extension northward to the 
Antarctic Convergence of IMO limitations on vessel discharges 
in the Special Area of the Southern Ocean.  In cooperating to 
enhance environmental protection for the entire Antarctic 
ecosystem, including marine ecosystems, the views of the 
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living 
Resources are being sought in considering next steps within 
the IMO. 
 
¶3. The ATCM made notable progress in a number of areas other 
than those related to tourism and shipping.  Prominent among 
these was the adoption of 13 Measures establishing or 
revising plans for Antarctic specially managed and protected 
areas (including five proposed by the United States). 
Capping eight years of negotiation, the Meeting also adopted 
a Measure amending Annex II on Antarctic fauna and flora to 
better reflect latest science.  Efforts to adopt a new 
approach to biological prospecting, including a potential 
benefits sharing scheme (which the United States opposes) 
were turned back in favor of a Resolution reaffirming the 
Treaty system as the appropriate framework for managing the 
collection of biological material and considering its use. 
The ATCM,s Final Report noted the view that the Law of the 
Sea Convention and other international and domestic law 
should be taken into account in addressing this complex 
matter.  The ATCM also agreed to terms of reference for 
Expert Meetings hosted by New Zealand and Norway, 
respectively, on ship-borne tourism and climate change in 
Antarctica. 
 
¶4. Comment: Events surrounding the 32nd ATCM effectively 
integrated several themes in U.S. polar diplomacy.  They 
reaffirmed principles contained in the Antarctic Treaty, the 
first modern arms control accord and a model for successful 
international cooperation on science.  They also canvassed 
the achievements of the 2007-09 IPY, and lent diplomatic 
support for scientific research at the Poles critical to a 
better understanding of Earth systems.  Finally, they 
showcased the potential for collaboration between the ATCM 
and the Arctic Council as bodies which, while having evolved 
in different legal and political circumstances, share 
responsibility for regions both disproportionately affected 
by and uniquely positioned to offer insights on climate 
change. 
 
¶5. The ATCM itself was unusually productive in generating no 
fewer than sixteen Measures, eight Decisions, and nine 
Resolutions ) all in fewer working days than any recent 
ATCM.  U.S. tourist and shipping-related initiatives were all 
either adopted or meaningfully advanced.  In a number of 
areas ) including steps toward more coherent eco-system 
management, better understanding cumulative environmental 
impacts, updating Treaty texts to reflect current science, 
and establishing prospective rules of the road for tourism ) 
the ATCM addressed long range issues pro-actively.  The work 
of a special 50th anniversary working group, in particular, 
evinced growing appreciation among the Parties for more 
strategic planning and the ATCM,s need, while acknowledging 
its own special responsibilities, to work with other 
international organizations on issues of common concern.  End 
Summary and Comment. 
 
Attendance and Membership 
 
¶6. The 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) was 
held in Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland, on April 
6-17, 2009.  All 28 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties 
attended the Meeting (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, 
Bulgaria, Chile, China, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, 
India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, 
New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, the Russian Federation, 
South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the 
United States, and Uruguay), as well as 9 of the 19 
Non-Consultative Parties (Belarus, Canada, Colombia, the 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Monaco, Romania, and 
Switzerland).  Observers attended from the Commission for the 
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), 
the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs 
(COMNAP), and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 
(SCAR).  Experts also attended from the following 
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations: the 
Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), the 
International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators 
(IAATO), the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), 
the International Program Office for the International Polar 
Year (IPY-IPO), the International Union for the Conservation 
of Nature (IUCN), and United Nations Environmental Program 
(UNEP).  Malaysia observed ATCM proceedings for the sixth 
consecutive year and, after having detailed for Parties 
progress made with a view to acceding to the Treaty, was 
invited to observe the 33rd ATCM as well. 
 
¶7. The 23-person U.S. delegation led by OES/OPA Deputy 
Director Evan Bloom included USG representation from the 
Department, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Coast 
Guard.  The U.S. delegation also included one U.S.-based 
non-governmental representative each from ASOC, IAATO, SCAR, 
and Oceanites (an environmental monitoring group assessing 
the status of wildlife in areas frequented by tourists).  Two 
Senate Commerce Committee staff observed parts of the 
Meeting. 
 
Joint Meeting of the ATCM and Arctic Council 
 
¶8. The ATCM was convened in the Department of State,s Loy 
Henderson Auditorium on April 6 by OES Acting Assistant 
Secretary Reno L. Harnish as the first order of business in 
the first-ever joint meeting of the ATCM and the Arctic 
Council.  Despite important historic, legal, and political 
distinctions, these bodies are the premier diplomatic bodies 
focused on their respective geographic regions.  An important 
function of both is promoting polar science of the sort 
advanced during the 2007-09 International Polar Year (IPY), 
which had just drawn to a close on March 31.  Senior 
representatives of all 28 Antarctic Treaty Consultative 
Parties, all eight Arctic Council countries, and eight 
Antarctic Treaty Non-Consultative Parties attended the 
half-day session which had as its focus celebrating the 
achievements of the IPY, lending diplomatic support to future 
scientific research at the Poles, and observing the 50th 
anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 
Washington on December 1, 1959.  Among those attending were 
one Head of State (Prince Albert of Monaco), eight foreign 
ministers (Argentina, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New 
Guinea, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay) and five other 
ministerial-level officials (Australia, Belgium, Chile, 
Denmark, and the Netherlands). 
 
¶9. Secretary Clinton opened the joint meeting with remarks 
noting the historic significance and continued relevance of 
the Antarctic Treaty, especially in facilitating better 
scientific understanding of climate change.  She 
characterized the Treaty as a blueprint for the kind of 
international cooperation that will be needed to address the 
challenges of the 21st Century, and an example of quote smart 
power unquote at its best.  The Secretary cited the collapse, 
on April 5, of an ice bridge between the Wilkins Ice Shelf 
and the western coast of the Antarctic Peninsula as a timely 
reminder of the effect of global warming, and reaffirmed U.S. 
commitment to working with other nations in the run-up to 
climate talks later this year in Copenhagen.  She cited 
environmental changes in the Arctic and their ramifications 
for shipping and energy exploration in affirming the 
Administration,s commitment to ratifying the Law of the Sea 
Convention.  The Secretary also announced the President,s 
having sent to the Senate, on April 3, Annex VI to the 
Antarctic Treaty,s Protocol on Environmental Protection 
which deals with liability arising environmental emergencies 
in the Treaty area.  She also encouraged Parties to act 
favorably on several key U.S. environmental and tourist 
initiatives at the upcoming 32nd ATCM.  The text of the 
Secretary,s remarks is at 
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/04/12 1314.htm. 
 
¶10. Norwegian Foreign Minister Store, whose country chaired 
the Arctic Council, followed the Secretary with remarks 
emphasizing the importance of international coordination of 
polar research and the need for improved implementation of 
the existing extensive framework for governance.  He noted 
that climate change is the ultimate political challenge of 
our generation, and our legacy to future generations.  Dr. 
John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and 
Technology then delivered a keynote address on the 
significance of the IPY and the importance of continuing 
international cooperation in building on its considerable 
achievements.  He affirmed U.S. commitment to supporting 
science and using scientific findings to shape policy. 
 
¶11. New Zealand Foreign Minister McCully and Uruguayan 
Foreign Minister Fernandez then led meeting participants, 
respectively, in a discussion of IPY accomplishments and 
future priorities in polar science. FM McCully reviewed his 
country,s IPY activities before inviting interventions by 
colleagues from Australia, Argentina, Canada, France, and the 
United Kingdom. 
 
FM Fernandez cited several areas as priorities for future 
scientific investigation, including ice-field dynamics and 
regional changes in biodiversity, before ceding the floor to 
interventions by representatives of Belgium, Monaco, China, 
Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, Germany, and Iceland.  During the 
ministerial discussion period, Deputy Secretary Steinberg 
noted the importance of strengthening regional observational 
networks, providing research opportunities for a new 
generation of polar scientists, and educating the public on 
the importance of polar regions in better understanding 
climate change.  The text of all national interventions, 
including several that were submitted in writing, will be 
posted to the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat,s website at 
http://www.ats.aq/index e.htm. 
 
¶12. Memorializing the achievements and dedicating themselves 
to sustaining the legacy of IPY, meeting participants then 
adopted a Ministerial Declaration on the International Polar 
Year and Polar Science.  Language in the declaration 
committed the Parties to reviewing key issues related to 
scientific cooperation and recent scientific findings at 
their future meetings, and to using science to help inform 
the development of measures to address threats to the polar 
regions.  Parties recommended that their governments continue 
efforts to create and link observational systems to improve 
the modeling and prediction of climate change, both 
regionally and over time, and encouraged states and 
international bodies to harness IPY research in support 
concrete initiatives to protect the polar environment. The 
text of the IPY Declaration is at 
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/other/2009/121 340.htm. 
 
¶13. In a concluding segment commemorating the 50th 
anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty, Treaty Parties adopted a 
second Ministerial Declaration, which reaffirmed their 
commitment to the objectives and purposes of the Treaty, 
specifically including Article IV(freezing territorial 
claims) and Article 7 of the Treaty,s Environmental Protocol 
(banning Antarctic mining activities).  The Declaration also 
encouraged collaboration with other international 
organizations whose expertise enhances the ATCM,s ability to 
promote safety and environmental protection in Antarctica. 
Text of the 50th Anniversary Declaration is at 
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/other/2009/121 339.htm.  Former 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, R. Tucker 
Scully, who had been elected the ATCM Chairman at the 
beginning of the joint Meeting, delivered remarks and 
unveiled a commemorative plaque that will eventually be 
placed near the Board Room of the National Academies of 
Science Building, where Treaty negotiations were held. 
 
¶14. After the joint meeting of the ATCM and Arctic Council, 
the Secretary hosted a luncheon in honor of her counterparts 
and other participants.  The National Science Foundation then 
sponsored a series of scientific lectures on key findings 
made during the IPY.  The day,s activities concluded with a 
reception co-hosted by the Department and the Smithsonian 
Institution at the recently inaugurated Sant Ocean Hall at 
the National Museum of Natural History. 
 
Procedural Matters 
 
¶15. The ATCM reconvened in regular session at the Baltimore 
Convention Center on April 7.  During the opening plenary, 21 
agenda items were distributed among three longstanding 
Working Groups (WGs) and a special 50th Anniversary WG 
established to reflect on a long-term agenda for the ATCM. 
Olav Orheim of Norway was selected to chair the Legal and 
Institutional WG which met concurrently during the ATCM,s 
first week with the Committee on Environmental Protection 
(CEP), which was chaired by New Zealand,s Neil Gilbert. 
After meeting in Plenary on April 14 to adopt the CEP,s 
report, the ATCM broke into a Tourism WG chaired by the U.S. 
Head of Delegation and an Operational WG chaired by Jose 
Retamales of Chile.  The Tourism and Operational WGs met in a 
special joint session during the second week to consider 
several papers dealing with human safety and environmental 
issues related to Antarctic shipping.  The 50th Anniversary 
Working Group met during both weeks under the chairmanship of 
the ATCM Chairman. 
 
¶16. During the opening plenary, delegates heard reports from 
depositaries of several Antarctic instruments, including a 
presentation by the United States which, as depositary of the 
Antarctic Treaty, reported that Belarus had acceded to the 
Protocol on Environmental Protection, all but one Party 
(Brazil) had approved Measure 1 (2003) establishing the 
Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, and that Spain and Poland had 
joined Sweden and Peru in approving Protocol Annex VI on 
Liability. 
 
¶17. Several observers and expert organizations delivered 
papers on their work during the past year.  Notable among 
these were presentations by 1) CCAMLR, (at which point, ASOC 
and the United States expressed concern about lack of 
consensus on achieving one hundred percent observer coverage 
on krill fishing vessels in the Convention area); 2) SCAR, 
which reported on its first IPY science conference in St. 
Petersburg, Russia, in July 2008; and 3) COMNAP, which 
reported on its new constitution which committed the 
organization to developing and promoting best practices in 
support of Antarctic scientific research. 
 
¶18.  IAATO reported a 16 percent decline in Antarctic tourism 
during 2008-09 on account of the global financial crisis, and 
projected that an estimated 39,000 tourists this year would 
grow to fewer than 43,000 in 2009-10 ) below the record 
46,000 reported in 2007-08. In its report to the Meeting, the 
IHO expressed concern about slow progress among Parties in 
assigning higher priority to charting in Antarctica, and 
urged the adoption of national rules and guidelines similar 
to those contained in SOLAS Chapter V, Regulation 9.  In 
presenting its report and related submissions to the ATCM, 
ASOC called on Parties to move swiftly to approve Protocol 
Annex VI (Liability), expedite efforts to deal with tourism 
and biological prospecting, and develop a system of marine 
protected areas and reserves in the Southern Ocean. 
 
Legal and Institutional Issues 
 
¶19. The Legal and Institutional WG opened its deliberations 
with discussion of a U.S. initiative recommending that 
Parties take action within the International Maritime 
Organization (IMO) to extend the Antarctic Special Area, and 
its restrictions on vessel discharges, northward from the 
Treaty Area to the Antarctic Convergence.  It proposed that 
Parties assess the feasibility of individual vessels 
observing Special Area provisions whenever they find, by the 
measurement of seawater temperature, that the Convergence is 
located further north than that northern limit set in the 
CCAMLR Convention. 
 
¶20. While there was broad support for measures protecting the 
entire Antarctic marine ecosystem, questions were raised by 
the United Kingdom and Russia, among others, about the role 
and competency of the ATCM to recommend action north of the 
Treaty area; i.e., 60 degrees South latitude.  The United 
States chaired discussion on the margins after which the 
Meeting adopted a Resolution urging Parties to enhance 
environmental protection of the entire Antarctic marine 
ecosystem, to seek the views of CCAMLR on the proposed 
recommendation to the IMO, and to consider at the next ATCM 
the views of CCAMLR in deciding whether to recommend steps be 
taken within the IMO to extend the Antarctic Special Area 
northward to the Antarctic Convergence.  The United States 
and several other countries underscored that jurisdictional 
concerns were unfounded and that the Treaty,s Environmental 
Protocol commits all Parties to the comprehensive protection 
of the Antarctic ecosystem and dependent and associated 
ecosystems.  It was also noted that the ATCM had previously 
acted in support of measures before the IMO to extend 
environmental protection to the Antaractic Convergence in 
Resolution 3 (2006) on Practical Guidelines for Ballast Water 
Exchange in the Antarctic Treaty area, where such exchanges 
should occur outside the treaty area and north of the 
Antarctic Convergence. 
 
¶21. The Russian Federation proposed in a paper on the role 
and place of COMNAP in the Antarctic Treaty system a Decision 
approving COMNAP,s new constitution and providing the body 
additional formal recognition.  While the United States did 
not consider such additional recognition necessary given 
COMNAP,s observer status at the ATCM, it joined in adopting 
a Resolution noting the important role that COMNAP plays in 
supporting the Antarctic Treaty Parties. 
 
¶22. The Parties finalized an eight-year effort to revise 
Annex II of the Treaty,s Environmental Protocol and ensure 
that it comports with latest science.  Australia proposed in 
a working paper language drawing on progress made at the 31st 
ATCM and, on the margins, led discussions that led to the 
adoption of a Measure that will replace the original Annex II 
once it is approved.  Notable amendments to the original text 
included (1) extending protections afforded by the Annex to 
include native terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates, (2) 
strengthening protections for those species designated as 
Specially Protected Species pursuant to the Annex, and (3) 
further developing the procedures for listing a species as a 
Specially Protected Species.  The United States cited during 
negotiations the complex interaction between Annex II and the 
Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, and 
noted the need for additional discussions on how two 
agreements would now relate to each other. 
 
¶23. In accordance with Article 9 of the Annex, the amendments 
will be deemed to have been approved and will become 
effective one year from the close of the Meeting, unless one 
or more Consultative Parties notifies the depositary that it 
needs an extension or that it will be unable to approve the 
Measure.  At this juncture, the United States must determine 
whether Senate advice and consent will be needed to approve 
the Measure or whether it can be concluded as an executive 
agreement.  Additionally, some edits and additions to the 
existing implementing legislation for Annex II will be 
required before the United States can approve the Measure. 
 
¶24. Norway proposed and the ATCM adopted a Decision convening 
an Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts.  Among topics to be 
discussed at the meeting, which will be hosted by Norway on 
April 6-9, 2010, are 1) key scientific aspects of climate 
change and their consequences for Antarctica,s environment, 
2) their implications for managing Antarctic activities, and 
3) the relevance to Antarctica of conclusions reached at the 
upcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change.  In addition 
to the Parties, a range of ATCM observers and expert 
organizations were invited to attend, including 
representatives of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate 
Change (IPCC). 
 
¶25. The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat submitted several papers 
which described its activities in 2008-09, proposed a 
Secretariat program for 2009-10, and presented its budget for 
the years 2007-2011.  The Executive Secretary reviewed 
progress since the last ATCM on a range of tasks with 
emphasis on the establishment of an Electronic Information 
Exchange System (EIES), and making available a comprehensive 
electronic archive of ATCM documents, final reports, and 
measures adopted over the past 50 years.  He cited an updated 
version of the Antarctic Treaty Handbook, heretofore prepared 
by the United States as the Treaty,s depositary, as the sole 
area on which meaningful progress had not been made.  The 
United States asked for and received information concerning 
the status of efforts to develop on the Secretariat,s 
website a dynamic database of Antarctic specially protected 
and managed areas, for which OES had provided funding during 
¶2008. 
 
¶26. The heads of delegation participated in interviews of 
five leading candidates for the position of Executive 
Secretary of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat.  After several 
rounds of voting, heads of delegation decided to extend to 
German Antarctic scientist and program administrator Dr. 
Manfred Reinke an offer to serve as Executive Secretary for a 
four-year period beginning on September 1, 2009.  In his new 
capacity, Dr. Reinke will implement a Secretariat program 
over the next year which will include full implementation of 
the EIES and further development of the protected areas 
database, as well as preparation of a final report of the 
32nd ATCM and logistical support for the 33rd ATCM. 
 
¶27. Secretariat finances were a major focus of work in the 
Legal and Institutional WG.  There was broad agreement among 
Parties that further cuts, especially in areas of IT 
equipment and staff training, could undermine the 
Secretariat,s ability to do its work.  Modest additional 
savings were nonetheless achieved through the adoption of 
revised guidelines for submission, translation, and 
distribution of ATCM and CEP documents. 
 
¶28. Parties discussed the implications of pending approval by 
all Parties of Measure 1 (2003), which will shift the burden 
of paying for ATCM interpretation from the hosting Party to 
the Secretariat.  If its assumption of new fiscal 
responsibilities occurs during the next year, the Secretariat 
budget is expected to grow from approximately USD 900,000 to 
USD 1,300,000.  The annual U.S. assessment, currently pegged 
at $40,500 for 2010-11 could grow to $58,300 as early as the 
payment made in January 2011 for 2011-12.  With a view to 
anticipating possible budgetary shortfalls in paying for ATCM 
translation, a Decision approving the Secretariat,s program 
and budget for 2009-10 also provided for creation of a USD 
30,000 Translation Contingency Fund. 
 
¶29. Thirteen Parties (including the United States) reported 
on progress having been made during the past year on 
approving Annex VI of the Treaty,s Environmental Protocol, 
which deals with liability arising from environmental 
emergencies in the Treaty area.  Several of those Parties 
indicated that it was likely that they may be able to approve 
Measure 1 (2005) before the 33rd ATCM.  Legal representatives 
and others held an informal meeting at which they discussed 
their experience in crafting domestic legislation needed to 
implement the Measure. 
 
¶30. The Legal and Institutional WG devoted considerable time 
to a discussion of the ATCM,s role in regulating biological 
prospecting.  Australia, joined by New Zealand, submitted a 
paper describing current controls over Antarctic biological 
prospecting and recommending that the ATCM adopt a Resolution 
noting that the Antarctic Treaty was the appropriate 
framework for governing biological prospecting in the Treaty 
area and highlighting existing regulatory arrangements.  The 
United States expressed support for this initiative which 
closely tracked its position that the Treaty,s existing 
legal framework (with its focus on environmental protection) 
is adequate, and that the free exchange of scientific 
information under Article III of the Treaty is not 
unconditional, but rather subject to what is feasible and 
practical. 
 
¶31. The Australian initiative recast debate that might 
otherwise have been driven by a paper submitted by the 
Netherlands.  That latter paper reflected discussions among 
19 Parties (not including the United States) who attended a 
meeting hosted by the Netherlands without an ATCM mandate on 
Antarctic biological prospecting in February 2009. Purporting 
to conduct a gap analysis for managing biological prospecting 
under the Antarctic Treaty system, the Dutch paper was 
coordinated with separate submissions by Belgium and Sweden 
which respectively attempted to address the current scope and 
definition of biological prospecting in the Treaty area. 
Chile independently submitted a paper which addressed 
elements of a possible Antarctic biological prospecting 
regime, including its proper scope and the complicated issues 
of benefit sharing.  SCAR reported on halting progress it had 
made in canvassing Parties, pursuant to a request from last 
year's ATCM, for input on their biological prospecting 
activities.  Argentina and Brazil submitted papers reporting 
independently on their national activities. 
 
¶32. After consultations on the margins of the Meeting, the 
Parties adopted a Resolution based on the Australian proposal 
which reaffirmed that the Antarctic Treaty system is the 
appropriate framework for managing the collection of 
biological material in the Treaty area and for considering -- 
as opposed to also managing -- its use.  While more forward 
leaning than the original draft or what the United States 
would have preferred, the final Resolution stopped well short 
of reflecting positions taken by Sweden and South Africa that 
the ATCM needed to look to other international forums and be 
pro-active in considering the sharing of monetary benefits of 
biological prospecting.  The United States and Australia 
responded to such arguments by underscoring how regulation of 
biological prospecting should not discourage research and 
innovation, and questioning why biological prospecting should 
be treated differently than other commercial activities such 
as fishing or tourism. 
 
¶33. The ATCM established terms of reference for an 
intersessional contact group which would examine and report 
to the next Meeting on a range of issues including both those 
carefully crafted by the Dutch to frame their call for a 
comprehensive regulatory scheme, and others volunteered by 
New Zealand.  The latter include identifying which activities 
qualify as biological prospecting, practical limits on the 
sharing of scientific information, and the relevance of 
applicable intellectual property regimes.  While unenthused 
about establishment of the ICG, the United States favored 
broad discussion enabling it and others to dispute freely the 
merits of overly broad regulation.  Importantly, the United 
States successfully turned back calls for a formal Antarctic 
Treaty Meeting of Experts where discussions would be less 
manageable than in a web-based discussion group. 
 
Meeting of the Committee on Environmental Protection 
 
¶34. The twelfth meeting of the Committee met concurrently 
with the Legal and Institutional WG during the ATCM,s first 
week. The Rules of Procedure for the Committee were amended 
via a Resolution to reflect changes to work practices that 
have occurred since the Protocol on Environmental Protection 
to the Antarctic Treaty came into force. Changes included 
creation of means to establish intersessional work for the 
Committee, which would allow the Committee to better respond 
to requests from the ATCM and to emerging issues. 
 
¶35. The five-year work plan of the Committee was updated. 
Topics of high priority include the introduction of 
non-native species, the environmental impacts of tourism 
activities, the impacts of global climate change and of 
global pollution, and the processing of new and revised 
protected area management plans, including marine spatial 
protection and management. 
 
¶36. The Committee agreed to undertake a study of the 
environmental aspects of tourism and non-governmental 
activities in Antarctica. The study will include a status 
report on current activities, an assessment of potential 
environmental impacts, an assessment of the effectiveness of 
existing management measures, and the identification and 
assessment of on-going research and monitoring. New Zealand 
offered to staff the study, which will be directed by a CEP 
Management Group. 
 
¶37. The ATCM adopted thirteen new or revised protected or 
managed area management plans. The Committee,s Subsidiary 
Group on Management Plans (SGMP) reviewed three of these 
plans, which had been referred to it for intersessional 
review at the 2008 Committee meeting. Five of the plans were 
submitted by the United States, including two which are the 
only fully marine Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. 
 
¶38. The work of the SGMP over the next two years will include 
a revision of the Guide to the Preparation of Management 
Plans for Antarctic Special Protected Areas and the 
development of similar guidance for the development of 
Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA) management plans. 
The U.S. expects to play a significant role in the guidance 
document for ASMAs. Of the seven ASMAs in place, the 
management plans for four of the sites were developed or 
co-developed by the United States. 
 
¶39. The ATCM also adopted a Resolution providing new 
guidelines for managing the list of Historic Sites and 
Monuments; these were aimed at improving the quality of 
protection afforded to present and future sites. A Measure 
added two new sites to the list. 
 
¶40. Seven new Site Guidelines for visitor sites were approved 
by the ATCM. An intersessional contact group, chaired by 
Chile, was formed to review the current Site Guidelines and 
to develop revised and updated guidance for visitors, 
including the development of a common format where 
appropriate. 
 
¶41. Marine spatial management and protection was given a 
priority by the CEP.  Plans were made to develop a strategy 
for the establishment of an effective, representative and 
coherent spatial protection of marine biodiversity with the 
Antarctic treaty Area, within the next three years, through 
the designation of specially protected and managed areas 
under Annex V of the Protocol. As far as possible, 
cooperation was encouraged with SCAR and CCAMLR, including 
focusing work on those priority areas of the Southern Ocean 
agreed by CCAMLR. 
 
¶42. The Committee established an intersessional contact 
group, chaired by France, to address the issue of non-native 
species in Antarctica, one of the Committee,s high priority 
areas. Over the next two years, the group will develop an 
overall objective and key guiding principles for Parties, 
actions to address concerns, develop a suggested set of 
generally applicable set of guidelines to prevent the 
introduction of non-native species, and identify areas of 
operations in which further work is needed. 
 
¶43. The Committee welcomed SCAR,s advice on its summary 
report on persistent organic pollutants in the Antarctic 
region, which was prepared in response to a request from the 
Stockholm Convention Secretariat in 2008. The Meeting 
authorized the Secretariat to forward the final edited report 
to the Stockholm Conventional Secretariat when completed in 
the near future. 
 
¶44. The first joint meeting of the CEP and the Scientific 
Committee of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 
Marine Living Resources (SC-CCAMLR) was held prior to the CEP 
meeting (April 3-4) to discuss five key areas of overlapping 
interests. The aim of the workshop was to develop a shared 
understanding of conservation objectives and priorities of 
the two bodies, identify areas of common interest, define 
mechanisms for practical cooperation, and identify lead 
bodies on issues of mutual interest.  Shared objectives and 
priorities include climate change, non-native species, 
species requiring special protection, spatial marine 
management, and environmental monitoring. Lead groups were 
identified for several topics and future joint meetings are 
planned with the aim of coordinating efforts. 
 
¶45. The Committee elected Veronica Vallejos of Chile to the 
position of first Vice-Chair. The positions of second 
Vice-Chair and Chair of the CEP will be the subject of 
elections at the fourteenth meeting of the CEP in 2010. The 
Committee thanked Yves Frenot for his two terms as first 
Vice-Chair and congratulated Neil Gilbert for a shortened yet 
highly productive meeting. 
 
Operational Issues 
 
¶46. The Operations WG met concurrently with the Tourism WG 
after adoption of the CEP Report by the ATCM sitting in 
plenary at the beginning of the Meeting,s second week. 
COMNAP presented a paper on improving search and rescue 
coordination and response in the Antarctic.  That document 
informed the meeting on the outcome of a workshop on that 
subject held in Chile in August 2008.  COMNAP asked the ATCM 
to consider adopting a Resolution incorporating those 
recommendations from the workshop that were directed to 
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties.  Although the Parties 
were generally encouraging of the work of COMNAP, some 
Parties expressed concern about adopting a resolution and it 
was agreed instead to continue working intersessionally on 
the issue. 
 
¶47. Uruguay presented a paper offering hydrographic experts 
from its Antarctic Program to vessels of opportunity 
operating in the Antarctic Peninsula region.  Services of a 
hydrographer would be free of charge to train crewmembers on 
guidelines for the collection of hydrographic data issued by 
the IHO Hydrographic Commission on Antarctica. 
 
¶48. SCAR made a presentation on the accomplishments and 
challenges of the just completed International Polar Year. 
The Parties strongly supported continuation of IPY work, 
particularly in the arena of long-term observation systems, 
data and information gathering, storage and exchange, and the 
encouragement of young scientists. The Meeting adopted a 
Resolution on ensuring the legacy of the International Polar 
Year along these lines. 
 
¶49. Several papers were submitted concerning inspection 
protocols for permanent Antarctic stations and installations. 
 WG discussion focused on the work of an intersessional 
contact group led by Argentina which had made significant 
progress on improving inspection procedures.  The ATCM agreed 
to extend the work of the contact group for an additional 
year. 
 
Tourism 
 
¶50. While visitor numbers in 2008-09 had declined from record 
year-earlier levels, the ATCM remained deeply concerned about 
the safety and potential environmental impact of tourism 
within the Treaty area.  Grounding incidents off the 
Antarctic Peninsula involving the M/V Ushuaia in December 
2008 and the M/S Ocean Nova in February 2009, underlined for 
Parties the need for vigilance in ensuring the safety of 
passenger vessels and the sufficiency of search and rescue 
assets and protocols.  Both IAATO and ASOC presented papers 
responding to concern at the 31st ATCM about possible growth 
in land-based tourism facilities.  Argentina restated that it 
reserved its right to install land infrastructure at bases 
similar to those already existing in Antarctica and 
encouraged, with support from others, the deploying of 
national observers on vessels either flagged by or carrying 
expeditions regulated by Parties. 
 
¶51. The United Kingdom presented, in follow up to its 
undertaking at the 31st ATCM, a proposed strategic vision for 
Antarctic tourism over the next decade.  It incorporated 
elements suggested by several other Parties, including the 
United States, during informal consultations over the 
intersessional period.  Discussion of the proposed vision for 
tourism focused on the distinction between general principles 
and prescriptive action, the value of tourism in general and 
type of tourism the Parties wished to encourage.  The United 
States joined others in noting that a properly worded 
statement of principles could be useful, especially as the 
ATCM reflected on its future agenda during this anniversary 
Meeting.  The United States argued that a vision document 
should be aspirational in nature and acknowledge the positive 
role of tourism in promoting public appreciation for 
Antarctica,s unique aesthetic, scientific, and other values. 
 There was broad consensus that tourism should be organized 
so as to minimize its environmental impact and maximize the 
safety of operations.  Parties also agreed that it should not 
interfere with scientific research. 
 
¶52. After informal consultations, the ATCM adopted a 
Resolution noting the value of properly managed tourism and 
asserting that it should not be allowed to contribute to the 
long-term degradation of the Antarctic environment, or its 
wilderness and historic values.  In the absence of adequate 
information about potential impacts, Parties agreed that 
decisions on tourism should be based on a pragmatic and 
precautionary approach which incorporates an evaluation of 
risks. This Resolution incorporated only part of the UK 
proposal, and did not break much new ground from a policy 
perspective. 
 
¶53. Russia presented a paper which highlighted problems of 
uneven or occasionally absent national regulation of 
Antarctic tourism which resonated with the Parties and 
spurred discussion of better implementing the pre-season 
exchange of information.  Russia cited as areas of special 
concern tour operators seeking to flag vessels and/or 
organize activities in nations with more lenient laws, and 
their possible use of subchartering arrangements to escape 
proper regulation. 
 
¶54. In the first of two signature initiatives on Antarctic 
tourism, the United States proposed a Measure making 
mandatory guidelines in Resolution 4 (2007) ) a U.S. 
proposal adopted at the New Delhi ATCM ) which discouraged 
the landing of persons from vessels carrying more than 500 
passengers, the simultaneous presence of more than one 
tourist vessel at any landing site, the debarkation of more 
than 100 passengers at a time, and a ratio of less than one 
guide for every 20 landed passengers.  Many parties welcomed 
the U.S. initiative as an important step toward more 
proactive management of tourism.  The ATCM ultimately adopted 
a Measure which maintained the substance of the US proposal 
but took into account certain technical concerns of the 
Japanese delegation. 
 
¶55. Chile proposed that the ATCM curtail, as a priority 
matter in the regulation of Antarctic tourism, the staging of 
marathons which it viewed as potentially unsafe, 
environmentally damaging, and disruptive to scientific 
activities.  Its submission of a paper on this topic won 
support among other Parties concerned about the growth of 
adventure tourism to the continent.  The United States noted 
how proper planning of marathon activities, as well as close 
regulation by responsible national authorities, would address 
these concerns.   The ATCM agreed to establish an 
intersessional contact group tasked with reviewing the 
management and proposing to the 33rd ATCM means of better 
regulating large-scale sporting and marathon running events. 
The United States noted that industry had drafted guidelines 
for conducting marathons that would be relevant to 
intersessional work. 
 
¶56. Shipping safety was the subject of a joint session of the 
ATCM,s Tourism and Operations WGs.  The group,s first order 
of business was hearing and responding to a presentation on 
the November 2007 sinking of the M/V Explorer by a 
representative of the Liberian International Ship and 
Corporate Registry.  An investigative report dated March 26, 
2009, had just been submitted to the IMO, where Parties hoped 
that its findings on the competence of the ship,s master, 
adequacy of lifesaving equipment, the sufficiency of vessel 
construction, and evacuation protocols would be reviewed in 
detail.  Argentina and Chile took strong exception to the 
report,s allegation of deficiencies in rescue coordination. 
 
¶57. Following on this discussion, the United States 
introduced its second tourism-related initiative which 
recommended that Parties cooperate at the IMO to require that 
passenger vessels operating in the Treaty area carry 
sufficient and suitable lifeboats for all passengers and 
crew, and ensure that those lifeboats are outfitted with 
equipment to facilitate timely search and rescue.  The U.S. 
proposal was broadly welcomed by Parties as an important step 
in more pro-active ATCM involvement in minimizing the 
possibility of a maritime disaster.  Given the technical 
complexity, practical obstacles to implementation, and 
broader vessel safety issues currently under consideration in 
the IMO, the Parties decided to broaden the U.S. initiative 
into a more general endorsement of mandatory shipping rules 
for vessels operating in Antarctic waters.  A Resolution 
directed the ATCM chairman to write to the IMO and welcome 
its progress to date in developing Guidelines for Ships 
Operating in Polar Waters.  He was further directed to 
request that the IMO commence as soon as practicable the 
development of mandatory design, construction, and 
provisioning requirements including but not limited to 
survival craft and lifesaving equipment. 
 
¶58. U.S. leadership in the matter of Antarctic maritime 
safety was further underscored in the work of an 
intersessional contact group asked by the 31st ATCM to 
continue its examination of issues concerning passenger ship 
operations in the Treaty area.  Norway presented a report 
that identified potential regulatory gaps which, if closed, 
might lessen the risks posed by certain hazards of priority 
concern.  The contact group suggested as the possible focus 
of more detailed gap analysis potential inadequacies in 
training, search and rescue, lifesaving equipment, vessel 
construction, and other items such as more accurate charting 
and weather forecasting.  Given the need for broader 
participation and greater interaction among maritime experts 
than could be facilitated through a web-based discussion 
forum, the ATCM chose not to renew the contact group. 
Norway, however, undertook to submit its conclusions to the 
IMO,s Maritime Safety Committee. 
 
¶59. New Zealand reiterated its offer at the 31st ATCM to host 
in Wellington on December 9-11, 2009, an Antarctic Treaty 
Meeting of Experts focused on humanitarian and environmental 
risks associated with an increase in ship-borne tourism in 
the Treaty area.  The Parties adopted a Resolution setting 
the terms of reference for that meeting and decided that it 
would examine 1) trends in Antarctic ship-borne tourism, 2) 
relevant developments at the IMO and enhanced cooperation 
with the IHO, 3) a range of topics bearing on the prevention 
and mitigation of a maritime accident, 4) environmental 
safeguards and emergency response, and 5) problems posed by 
vessels flagged to non-Parties.  The ATCM anticipated further 
discussion and possible elaboration on work of the contact 
group on passenger vessel issues when maritime experts meet 
in Wellington later this year. 
 
Future Agenda 
 
¶60. In a specially constituted 50th Anniversary WG, Parties 
discussed a range of systemic issues and a future agenda for 
the ATCM.  Their interventions were framed in part by a U.S. 
paper on those topics submitted at the 31st ATCM and a 
Russian paper submitted this year on the strategic role of 
the Antarctic Treaty.  Parties canvassed as future priorities 
for the ATCM issues including climate change, advancement of 
science, establishment of marine protected areas, promotion 
of renewable energy, and review of biological prospecting. 
They emphasized the ATCM,s need to coordinate with other 
international bodies, and the Parties, obligation to 
implement and comply with the Treaty and all approved ATCM 
Measures.  Approving the Environmental Protocol,s Liability 
Annex, and effectively managing Antarctic shipping, aviation, 
and tourism were all identified as priority concerns. 
 
¶61. The Parties discussed -- but took no formal action to 
adopt ) a number of proposals to streamline and better focus 
their work.  Foremost among these was the need for strategic 
planning, possibly in the form of a work plan keyed to the 
next five to ten years.  Also discussed were the benefits of 
more issue-specific ATCM agendas, adjusting the frequency and 
duration of future ATCMs, and making better use of smaller, 
more technical, and intersessional forums.  The Parties 
endorsed expanding ATCM outreach to the general public and 
strengthening ties to other polar entities, including the 
Arctic Council and CCAMLR. 
 
¶62. The 32nd ATCM closed on a positive note with Parties 
celebrating the Treaty,s achievements over the past five 
decades, but also taking stock also of the challenges the 
ATCM faces in rapidly changing world.  There was consensus 
that the Meeting had been among the most productive and best 
run in recent memory.   Participants greeted with the 
enthusiasm Uruguay,s announcement that it would host the 
33rd ATCM in Punta del Este on May 4-15, 2010.  Argentina 
announced that the 34th ATCM would convene in Buenos Aires on 
June 20-July 1, 2011, and Australia confirmed its intention 
to host the 35th ATCM in 2012 at a place and time to be 
determined. 
 
 
CLINTON