Legislación Aplicable a las Actividades Mineras

The agenda for the Seattle meeting had been set at SC-CAMLR-1111 as follows:

DRAFT AGENDA

AD HOC VVORKING GROUP ON ECOSYSTEM MONrTORING

Meeting 6- 1 1 May 1 985

National Marine Mammal Laboratory National Marine Fisheries Service

Seattle, Washington USA

1 . Review the objectives of ecosystem monitoring.

2. Review the responses to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee of the SCAR Group of Specialists on Seals and the BIOMASS Working Party on Bird Ecology.

3. Review the life histo"ry characteristics and parameters of dependent and related species likely to be useful to ecosystem monitoring studies.

4. Identify dependent and related species which have the greatest potential to function as indicators of the possible effects of krill harvesting.

5. Consider the types of studies necessary to establish baseline data and to evaluate natural variation in biological and environmental variables.

6. Describe sampling and data collection procedures requires to detect effects of fisheries activities on components of the ecosystem.

7. Consider experiments to be undertaken in collaboration with fisheries activities.

8. Evaluate potential sites and areas for ecosystem monitoring programs.

9. Formulate and recommend specific actions for planning

and implementing multi-national ecosystem monitoring programs. 1 0. Other items.

1 1 . Adoption of report.

(SC-CAMLR-111 1984 Annex 9)

That this agenda attempted to cover an enormous field in a short time1 was recognised by the convenor/ who wrote to the prospective

participants in December 1984 advocating the preparation of working papers regarding potentially suitable areas prior to the meeting. He included a revised draft agenda that comprised a more focused approach

predators. The convenor's letter provoked 9 replies which mostly supported the revised draft agenda. (Ad hoc WG-CEMP Seattle 1985 unpublished). Some of the respondents' suggestions were later taken up, such as inviting SCAR and BIOMASS representatives to the Seattle meeting to discuss the answers to previously submitted CCAMLR

questions. Although the original draft agenda was adopted at the Seattle meeting (SC-CAMLR-IV 1985 Annex 7 §5), ideas that were part of the convenor's letter or which were generated as a result of it underlay the Seattle deliberations as already alluded to above.

5.5.3 O bjectives and terms of reference of

CEMP

The convenor had stated in his letter of 21 December 1984 that the objective of ecosystem monitoring in relation to the Antarctic marine ecosystem was :

to detect and record significant changes in critical components of the ecosystem, to serve as a basis for the conservation of Antarctic Resources. The monitoring system should be designed to distinguish between changes due to the harvesting of commercial species and changes due to environmental variability, both physical and biological.

· (Kerry 1984) (emphasis added)

These words appeared verbatim (except for the insertion of the words 'marine living' between Antarctic and resources) as the Objectives of Ecosystem Monitoring in the report to the Scientific Committee as the ad hoc group's definition of ecosystem monitoring (SC-CAMLR-IV, Annex 7, p 171 §11). Slightly amended in 1987, these were the objectives that underpinned CEMP's activities from 1985:

CEMP

• to detect and record significant changes in critical components of the

ecosystem, to serve as a basis for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources;

• to distinguish between changes due to the harvesting of commercial species and changes due to environmental variability, both physical and biological.

At the 1984 Scientific Committee meeting, terms of reference (TOR) for the ad hoc working group had been laid down. After the meeting of the ad hoc group, the Working Group for the CCAMLR Ecosystem

Monitoring Program was formally established by the Scientific Committee in 1985 under amended TOR.

Working Group on the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program Terms of Reference

Ad Hoc TOR WG-CEMP 1984

a) Review the objectives of ecosystem monitoring and review the life history characteristics of indicator species that are potentially suitable for monitoring studies, bearing in mind potential relationships between selected indicator species and harvested resources (especially krill)

b) Consider sampling and data collection procedures, including the collection of baseline data, required to detect any effect of fishery activities on components of the Antarctic ecosystem

c) Describe the types of studies that would be necessary to evaluate natural variation of relevant variables

d) Evaluate and recommend potential monitoring sites and areas

e) Consider the utility, feasibility, and design of controlled experiments undertaken in collaboration with fisheries activities to test hypotheses concerning cause/effect relationships and the possible effects of different methods and intensities of fisheries activities on components of the Antarctic marine ecosystem

f) Formulate and recommend specific actions for planning and implementing ecosystem monitoring programs to establish data baselines, monitor indicator species and undertake controlled

(SC-CAMLR-V 1986) §9.27

Formal TOR WG·CEMP 1985

1. To plan, recommend, coordinate and ensure the continuity of a multi-nation CCAMLR ecosystem monitoring program within the con vent ion area

2. To identify and recommend research including theoretical investigations to facilitate design and evaluation of the recommended ecosystem monitoring program

3. To develop and recommend metl1ods for the collection and storage and analysis of data including data formats for submission to CCAMLR

4. To facilitate the analysis of data, their interpretation, and to identify the

management implications

5. To report progress to each meeting of the Scientific Committee with recommendations for further work

(SC-CAMLR-IV 1985) §7.14

The later TOR focus on action rather than reflection. This was perhaps a pity, as will be discussed. Experimentation is mentioned twice in the ad

of the formally set up group. The group appeared to be confining its proposed activities to what was feasible, rather than what it might do at some uncertain time in the future.