Análisis descriptivo para definir las variables explicativas del modelo
2. Análisis de la muestra
107. The Final Report for this meeting gives no information on this discussion or on the content of SCAR’s recommendations.
108. Incineration is permitted for combustible materials (except batteries which are to be removed from the Treaty area). Non-combustible materials may be disposed of at sea. Plastic packaging and plastic and rubber products are to be removed.
109. Some national Antarctic operating agencies, particularly the US, had been applying environmental impact procedures to their activities in the Antarctic.
110. The first environmental impact assessment in the Antarctic seems to have been conducted for the Dry Valleys Drilling Project in 1973 (Frazier 1974b:60) because earth scientists wanted to explore the geological record in rock, and biologists wanted to protect the unique valley ecosystems from any disturbances.
122 As Auburn notes (1982:287) the Code was weaker than the SCAR proposals in a number of ways. Most important, he suggests, was the omission of the requirement for a
comprehensive statement of anticipated short-term and long-term effects on the environment and its ... associated macro- and micro-biota, together with their primary, secondary and tertiary consequences; a delineation of all probable unavoidable adverse effects, with suggestions for means of minimising them (Auburn 1982:287).
Some (unnamed) delegations felt that this recommendation could have been even stronger, and expressed their reservations accordingly (Final Report 1975:8).111 This code provided the only specific guidelines for expeditions for almost a decade.
The code of conduct and the issues of waste disposal and environmental impact assessment were not addressed again until the 12th consultative meeting in 1983, eight years later. By this time, the consultative parties’ implementation of the Code of Conduct was being publicly challenged by non-govemmental organisations and by others. Bonner and Walton (1985:357)112 argued that little effort was made at many research stations to observe the Code of C o n d u ct113 Over the years, as Lemonick notes (1990:30) the consultative parties "spilled oil into the seas, dumped untreated sewage off the coasts [and] burned garbage in open pits".
As Campbell and Claridge (1987:333) suggested one of the greatest concerns in the Antarctic was the management practices, or more importantly the lack thereof, employed to cope with increasing densities of people at scientific stations. Indeed, the Parties themselves recognised that since the Code of Conduct was adopted in 1975 their record "has been longer on intention than action" (Handbook 1989:2103).
v. Waste Disposal
The problem of disposing of waste in the Antarctic grew with the increase in human activity in the 1980s. Most of the material brought into the Antarctic stayed there. Waste included not only sewage and food scraps, but fuel, batteries, chemicals, packaging, old machinery and equipment. The cumulative effects of waste disposal impacted on local habitats as well as being aesthetically unpleasant. A conspicuous feature of many Antarctic bases is their associated dumps.
111. It was at this meeting that consultative parties also adopted the general norms that no activity with an inherent tendency to modify the environment should be undertaken unless appropriate steps had been taken to exercise appropriate controls (recommendation VIII-13).
112. Scientists with the British Antarctic Survey.
113. This point has been consistently made by NGOs as well. See, for example, Merriam (1990:19- 20).
Schofield (cited in Campbell and Claridge 1987:332) suggests that the enormously accelerated rates at which materials are being introduced into the Antarctic is irreconcilable with ecological reality. Bonner and Walton (1985:357) explain that every year thousands of tonnes of cargo and millions of gallons of fuel are brought into Antarctica, very little of which is ever rem oved.114
As noted above waste disposal was addressed in the Code of Conduct of 1975. It was inscribed on the agenda again in 1983, but it was not until 1989 that a substantive recommendation was adopted.
At the 12th consultative meeting in 1983 the host Australian delegation proposed amendments to the Code of Conduct.115 However, while recommendation XII-4 refers to a general increase in consultative party awareness of the environmental impacts of waste disposal in the Antarctic region, governments are recommended only to seek the advice o f their national Antarctic operating agencies on any problems which have arisen in implementing the Code of Conduct and the desirability of revising the Code, especially in respect of the on-site treatment and removal of wastes. This reflects the consultative parties’ assertion that practical experience (which, they argued, only they possessed) was the best basis for decision-making.
SCAR undertook a preliminary review of this matter and it was on the agenda for the 13th consultative meeting in 1985. Again the Australian delegation submitted a draft proposal (ANT/XIH/WP 25, 1985) noting that since the 1975 Code of Conduct was adopted there had been changes in both the perception of what constituted pollution and in analytical techniques. Thus demand for new rules and procedures was in direct response to new knowledge. Suggested guidelines on waste disposal procedures were annexed to the draft but were not accepted by the meeting for inclusion in recommendation XIII-4. SCAR was asked to undertake a "comprehensive review" of the waste disposal aspects of the Code of Conduct.
SCAR’s Panel o f Experts was unable to prepare a final report for the 14th ATCM in 1987, although an interim report was available. Its efforts were hindered by "variable and insufficient information provided by national program operators" (Kimball 1987d:10). Indeed, the Final Report of this Meeting (1987:31) made a point o f noting that delegates were concerned at the limited replies received to date. National Antarctic operators were urged to respond promptly and as fully as possible to the SCAR questionnaire. No recommendation was adopted but the Final Report sets out a number
114. The US Antarctic program brings in over 6 millions gallons of fuel into the Antarctic each year (Merriam 1990:19-20).
124
of points of agreement among the delegates on the need to improve waste management practices (Final Report 1987:32-34). Parties were also urged to take into account a number of goals in the conduct of their Antarctic activities: cleaning up existing sites, minimising the amount of waste, recycling wherever possible and removing waste which could not be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. It was unusual for such a lengthy and detailed statement of action to be included in a final report.116
SCAR’s report on Waste Disposal was completed and published before the 15th consultative meeting where it was considered by the consultative parties. The recommendation adopted (XV-3) not only revised the Code of Conduct but went further than the SCAR suggestions, in an attempt to improve waste disposal practices in the Antarctic (see chapter seven).
In improving waste disposal rules the consultative parties were mobilised by the activity of non-governmental organisations.117 As noted earlier in this chapter, Greenpeace had begun to conduct environmental inspections of Antarctic stations and to make the results of these widely known. In doing so, they exposed poor waste disposal practices and minimal compliance with the code of conduct.
As an example, they found 47 drums of discarded fuel (many of them leaking) near the airstrip of an abandoned UK base on Deception Island (Anon 1988k: 18). At the US Palmer station, raw sewage, plastics, rusting metal and laboratory chemicals were disposed of into the sea. The waters near McMurdo (the main US base and the largest in the Antarctic) were found to contain high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals than would be permitted in the U S.118 Again, compliance went to the heart of the issue of environmental protection.
vi. Environmental Impact Assessment
The question of the utility of EIA procedures in the Antarctic was also raised in the 1980s in the context of a reassessment of the adequacy of the Code of Conduct. Debate on this issue continued to be marked by resistance to centrally imposed rules which might be seen to compromise national autonomy over the conduct o f Antarctic activities. The debate was also hampered by the fact that many of the consultative
116. The Final Report was adopted by consensus so it is fair to assume that all parties were in agreement with this statement Its status with regard to the requirement of governments to take action is unclear.
117. For example, ASOC members had conducted a survey o f states waste disposal practices and suggested a model waste disposal program which they produced in a paper for distribution to the consultative parties. (See ECO X L V (l), October 1987)
118. A report in The Guardian o f 20 February 1989 noted that seven 40 gallon drums of untreated waste had been collected from the McMurdo outfall, and that the waters contained levels of cadmium which would be illegal in the US.