Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 35 (2012) 384 388

AicE-Bs 2011 Famagusta Asia Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, Salamis Bay Conti Resort Hotel, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 7-9 December 2011

Scientists Paradise: Environmental Sustainability and Policy Governance

Rohani Mohd Shah* and Rugayah Hashim
Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam,Selangor Malaysia

Abstract There is a scientific consensus that global warming is due to human-induced activities and this effected the pristine environment of Antarctica. The past 40 years have seen a tremendous increase in scientists activities across the Antarctic continent and without proper supervisory policy the impact of urbanization will soon follows. Even when the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid Protocol 1991 dictates scientists conducts still it does not guarantees perfect preservation of the environment. The study is significant to assist the formulation of national legislation in adapting to the procedure for protecting Antarctica environment at the same time protecting the freedom of scientific activities. 2012 Published byby Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment 2011 Published Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Centre for EnvironmentBehaviour Studies(cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning && Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
Keywords: Antarctic Treaty System; Madrid Protocol 1991; global warming; environmental sustainability; policy governance.

1. Introduction Prior to 1990 the conflict over the future of Antarctica encapsulates many of the key issues of how Antarctica's environment can best be protected. Several environmental organizations argue that mineral exploration should be banned from Antarctica because of the continent's significance as one of the last undisturbed areas on the earth's surface. Preserving the natural state of Antarctica could benefit humankind. Later, scientists begun to understand Antarctica's importance in stabilizing the global environment. The Antarctic atmosphere serves as a global heat sink, drawing warm air from other

* Corresponding author. Tel:+603-55435854; Fax : +603 55211074. E-mail address: rohanimohdshah@yahoo.com.

1877-0428 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies(cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.102

Rohani Mohd Shah and Rugayah Hashim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 35 (2012) 384 388

385

continents and thus keeping the Earths tempreature cooler than they otherwise would be. If Antarctica's importance was not immediately apparent then, but, with this scientific discovery, it is now, an accepted fact that the Antarcticas pristine environment is a common heritage of mankinds and should be maintain at its best, for the future generation. 1.1. Significance of Antarctica The integrity of the Antarctic environment is important for at least three reasons. First, Antarctica is important to scientists. Second, it plays a major role in stabilizing the planetary environment. Finally, Antarctica is one of the last remaining wilderness areas on earth. The fact that Antarctica plays a major role in regulating the global climate made caused scientists to fear that a rise in particulate matter caused by pollution associated with oil and mineral development could alter the ability of Antarctica's ice cap to reflect the sun's heat, thus causing the atmosphere to warm. Furthermore, an increase in pollution through drilling, mining, and oil excavations will ruin Antarctica as a global laboratory for monitoring worldwide pollution levels. Hence, any mineral exploitation in Antarctica will result in significant environmental impacts. The scientists and policy makers agreed to "urge their claimant nationals and other interested States to refrain from all exploration and exploitation of Antarctic mineral resources while making progress towards the timely adoption of an agreed regime concerning Antarctic mineral resource activities." This agreement, however, did not suppressed the desire for nations to study certain areas for potential economic activity. Lots of discussion between scientists and governments took placed. It is difficult to imagine any oil regime that would not destroy the fragile Antarctic ecosystem. Offshore oil drilling may not yet be possible in the harsh Antarctic environment. Therefore it is impossible to predict all the difficulties that will be encountered. Even if, oil operators were to use perfect technology, accidents still could result from human error. An oil spill can destroy the local ecosystem. Spilled oil will be difficult to clean up. The recovery rate on land is also slow. Therefore, more stringent legal regime is needed and it must be a proposal that is workable to protect the Antarctic environment from any exploitation and exploration of mineral resources. 1.2. Application of International Law on Antarctica Since Antarctica's legal status is controversial because it is unclear whether claims of sovereignty in Antarctica are valid, or whether the continent is outside of any sovereign's jurisdiction, exploiters of mineral resources like to belive that they are free to exploit the untamed continent. The past fifty years, since the Antarctica Treaty was signed, Antarctica has been functioning in a legal "twilight zone" between an international commons and state sovereignty. If there is no law applicable to the cold continent, then mineral extraction can be done by any interested nation and capable nations. This, notion of understanding that Antarctica is free twilight zone is rebutted by a common principle of international law . The Principle of international law specificly dictates that each sovereignt state has an international duties to protect the environment of another States, and this law does apply to Antarctica in the same way they do in any other continent (Akenhust, 2000). Among these duties, is the to duty prohibits international environmental interference and to prevents any state from causing harmful consequences to the environment of other states, or to any areas outside its national jurisdiction. The second duty calls upon the states to cooperate in the duty of preventing and abating international pollution. Even if Antarctica is considered an international commons, then mineral activities there would be governed by international law. Because exploring for oil in Antarctica necessarily would involve detrimental environmental impacts, those impacts would be considered a violation of the international duty to prevent environmental degradation of common areas. If Antarctica is not an international commons, then those nations with

386

Rohani Mohd Shah and Rugayah Hashim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 35 (2012) 384 388

Antarctic claims may assert that international law does not apply because they are operating inside their own jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this latter view is rejected by international law and international community. Therefore claimant states on Antarcticas jurisdiction are also bound by the common international law duty. 2. Antarctica Treaty 1959 The scientists realized the importance of preserving the pristine and relatively untouched region of the Antarctic environment, by drawing up legal protective measures long before such issues became an international argument. Their suggestion that, if nobody benefits, then we all benefit, is a strong argument for preserving the Antarctic wilderness and its role as a scientific laboratory of the world. Antarctica's importance as a scientific laboratory was recognized officially by the signing of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959. Article II of the Treaty states that freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation shall continue. Moreover, all scientific research is supposed to be shared. As a result, Antarctica is host to some fifty science stations operated by twenty-one different countries. The largest such station, the United States' McMurdo Station, is home to approximately 1200 scientists during the summer months. Antarctica offers scientists ideal opportunities to study global environmental problems, including sealevel change, global climate, and global levels of atmospheric constituents such as ozone. In recent years, Antarctica's importance as a scientific laboratory increased due to greater awareness of these problems. The Antarctic Treaty 1959 protects the continent as a research preserve with nations freely exchanging scientific information. The Treaty applies to the area south of sixty degrees latitude, including ice shelves, but not to the areas of high seas, where the rights of international law controls. To ensure friendly relations, the Treaty parties agreed that "Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only," and they banned "any measures of a military nature." The Treaty provides for the free exchange of scientific information, personnel, and observations. The Treaty's most impressive achievement has been its durability in calling for recommendation from government participation. The Antarctic Treaty peacefully coordinated all the nations with interests in Antarctica. Unfortunately, it has several significant weaknesses. First some observers contend that the Treaty creates an exclusive club giving the wealthier nations control over Antarctica. Although in Article VIII it permits any member of the United Nations to accede to the treaty by ratifying it, a nation cannot become a voting member of the Treaty (a Consultative Party) unless it engages in substantial scientific research activity. Currently thirty-nine nations have acceded, of which twenty-two are Consultative Parties. Nevertheless, to become a Consultative Party, a nation must be wealthy enough to undertake a scientific research program. A second weakness is the Treaty System's lack of enforcement mechanisms. Because the Treaty ignores territorial claims, it is difficult to determine which nations are responsible for environmental problems. Consultative Parties have been hesitant to criticize each other's environmental records. The lack of any enforcement provisions in the Treaty can result in significant environmental damage before any international pressure is exerted. Under the language of the Treaty, members are required to refrain from actions that could endanger the Antarctic environment without extensive prior study. Throughout the same period, the Treaty members acknowledged that no clear mechanism for environmental protection does existed. Since the Treaty was incorporated all the parties that have had contact with Antarctica during the past years have shown their allegiance to the Treaty, it is likely that the Treaty has been enveloped by international law and the rules adopted as an international custom, therefore, any nation that drilled for oil would be violating international law. Additionally, the Consultative Parties of the Treaty persuaded by scientists created a new regime known as the Antarctic Protocol on Environmental Protection or simply as

Rohani Mohd Shah and Rugayah Hashim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 35 (2012) 384 388

387

the Madrid protocol 1991, a new legal measures that could enforce international environmental laws effectively. 3. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (The Madrid Protocol) 1991 The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty provides strict guidelines for the protection of the Antarctic environment and underscores its value to scientific research. Although rigorous application of the Protocol will help minimize the local impacts of both the tourism industry and national operators, and scientific activities, constant vigilance is essential. Its Conservation measures focus on achieving a better knowledge of the structure and functioning of Antarctic ecosystems and the longterm effects of persistent contaminants in Antarctic organisms and food chains. The environmental Protocol promises to ensure a fifty year moratorium on all mining and oil exploration in the Antarctic region. In addition, the Protocol provides numerous measures and guidelines that are intended to protect the pristine and fragile environment that is unique to Antarctica according to scientists preception of protective measures that is through self-policing methods. In law, the best legal measure to prevent and to preserve is by way of enforcement which in this Protocol is not favoured at all. This main question discuss how effective the new Protocol could affect the Antarctic environmet for the next fifty year period in dealing with the nagging issues of mining for resources in Antarctica. The important discussions are summerised here. Many nations whom are Parties to the Protocol and many more who are not, are still eager to explore for the possible wealth that may lie beneath Antarctica's icecap and along its extensive coastline. A major weakness in the Protocol is that it fails to provide a legal mechanism to prevent nations who are not bound by the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty or the Protocol from placing oil rigs off the region's coast. They could argue that by not being a member of the Protocol, they are not legally bound to preserve Antarctica's environment, and therefore, may commence drilling at any time. The Protocol has a walkout clause which could subject the continent and surrounding area to mineral exploitation after five years notice has been given by the members, what happen after that fifty years expired. Furthermore the issue of liability should an environmental accident occur by the fault of one of the Parties, is dealt with vaguely in the Protocol. The protocol is silent on who is responsible to bore the cause of cleaning up or reparing if any accident occurs. The Protocol is to be in effect for at least the next fifty years but the interpretations of its provisions may change in the future, as law is evolving and therefore the scientists may one day need to call upon Antarctica to provide future energy and resource materials to guarantess human survival. 4. Conclusion Since the inception of the Antarctic Treaty, the environment has been of primary concern. The recent agreement to adopt an Environmental Protocol which includes a fifty year mining moratorium for the Antarctic Treaty area the evidence. The agreement, however, contains weaknesses and allows nations to withdraw from the moratorium after sufficient notice is given. The Parties should begin formulating a minerals regime that will satisfy both the region's environmental concerns and the world's needs for resources while the rest of the nations whether parties to the legal regime or not should start drafting their own law or amend their local law to be in line with the desire to adhere to legal measures dictates in the Madrid Protocal, this is Scientists may want to exercise their diplomacy in persuading policy makers to leaves their heaven aside but the policy makers may want to argue back that if heaven is not shared then peaceful purpose of Antarctica may not be heavenly utilised.

388

Rohani Mohd Shah and Rugayah Hashim / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 35 (2012) 384 388

Acknowledgements The study is sponsored by Long Term Research Grant from Malaysia Antarctica Research Program (LRGS Grant) 1/ 2011-2014.

References
Andrew Neuman, Closing The Frozen Treasure Chest : Antarcticas New Environmental Protocol, 2011 Fordham Environmental Law Review, Vol 2, 57 -80 Anthony Giddens, The Politics Of Climate Change, Policy Network Paper, September 2008 Beck, Peter J., The United Nations and Antractica, 2002 Polar Record, Vol 39, Number 210, July 2003 Christ Abbot, An Uncertain Future: Law Enforcement, National Security And Climate Change, FRIDE Comment, Feb. 2008 Church, J.A., Gregory, J.M., Huybrechts, P., Kuhn, M., Lambeck, K., Nhuan, M.T.,Qin, D., Woodworth, (2001). Changes in Sea Level, Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, New York, 639-694 Colin Deihl, Antarctica: An International Laboratory, 18 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 423 (1991),423-456

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol18/iss3/2
Dodds, Klaus, Pink Ice, Princeton University Press, 2004 Dodds Klaus, Governing Antarctica: Contemporary Challenges and the Enduring Legacy of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, Global Policy, 2010, Vol. 1,Issue 1, page 108 Elaine Forman, Protecting the Antarctic Environment: Will A Protocol Be Enough, 1992 American University International Law Review,Vol. 7 Issue 3, page 813 -879 Farhana Yamin & Diana Deplege, The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules Institutions and Procedures, University Press, Cambridge 2004 Joyner, Christopher C., Governing the Frozen Commons : The Antarctic Regime and Environmental Protection 1998 J.T Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. Van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.): Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, New York, 639-694. John Turner, Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment, Scientifics Committee for Antarctica Research, In Contribution to International Polar Year 2007-2008. John Machowski, The Antarctic Environmental Legal Regime, 1992 Polish Polar Research Vol. 13. Pages 183- 214 Michelle Clarke, Regulation of Antarctic Tourism, Natural Environment Research Council British Antarctic Survey, 2004 Patricia Birnie, Alan Boyle, and Catherine Redgwell; International Law & the Environment, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009 Richard S. J. Tol; The Economic Effects of Climate Change, Journal of Economic Perspectives Volume 23, Number 2 Spring 2009, Pages 2951 Richard S.J. Tola & Roda Verheyen, State Responsibility and Compensation For Climate Change Damage: A Legaland Economic Assessment; 2004 Energy Policy Vol. 32 at page 1109113 Slaughter, Anne Marie, A New World Order, Princeton University Press, 2004