Merry Christmas!!
Last week we looked at oil drilling in the Arctic, through the eyes of two very different parties - Greenpeace and Shell. So, you know what's next - we need to take a look at Antarctica!
The good news is, all exploitation of oil, gas and mineral resources is prohibited under the Antarctic Treaty (ATS, 2013). This came into effect on 23rd June 1961, after being signed by 12 countries on 1st December 1959 (NERC-BAS, 2014). A total of 50 countries have now acceded to the Treaty (ATS, 2013).
The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) comprises the original Treaty in addition to three further international agreements. One of these - 'The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty' (signed in Madrid, 1991) - has the aim of maintaining Antarctica as "a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science" (ATS, 2013). This agreement came into effect in 1998, with Article 7 placing a ban on "any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research" (NERC-BAS, 2014). Only a unanimous decision of all Consultative Parties - accompanied by "a binding legal regime on Antarctic resource activities" - could alter this agreement, up until 2048 (ATS, 2013, NERC-BAS, 2014).
Even without the Treaty, mineral exploitation in Antarctica would be dangerous, difficult and highly expensive (Department of the Environment, Australian Antarctic Division). Mining here is therefore an unattractive prospect, in stark contrast to what we have seen in the Arctic...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, here's an early Christmas present for you... Click on the link to unwrap it!
 |
| Source: www.animalsplannet.com |
I think that there's a lot of hypocrisy around the ATS. For me it seems like there's a lot of reasons why there wouldn't be mining in Antarctica (at the moment) in the same way as there is in the Arctic - such as cost, distance from key Western states and so on. Therefore it becomes a really good PR move to sign an agreement not to do something that wasn't going to be done anyway. I think that when the other global supplies run out, the ATS will be worthless and Antarctica will be targeted in just the same way as anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteThanks William - I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, and it's actually something that crossed my mind while I was writing this. Mining in Antarctica would indeed be very dangerous and expensive, with many associated risks (such as damage to mining equipment from icebergs...). The isolated location of the continent would also make resource-exploitation here logistically difficult. Therefore, you're probably right in thinking that most countries wouldn't want to mine here, even if it wasn't prohibited. I think the next step will depend on the state of our resource-reserves in 2048. If the risks associated with mining in Antarctica still outweigh the need to do so, another agreement may be signed. However, if it looks like surveying the continent to assess its potential for exploitation may be necessary in the near-future, perhaps a different sort of agreement will come about. In the 1980s, the 'Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities' (CRAMRA) was set up, to regulate mining in the region - if it should occur. It wasn't ever used, because the ban on mining came about shortly after. But perhaps a similar agreement may be necessary in the future. It's reassuring to know that a regulatory system was set-up and ready to go, if it was required...Only time will tell, I suppose!
ReplyDeleteA bit more information on what I've just said can be found here: http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/geology/mining