FOR MEDIA 23 NOVEMBER 1990
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER
ANTARCTIC POLICY
In August last year, together with the Prime Minister of
France, I lau~ nched an initiative within the Antarctic Treaty
System to promote the protection of the Antarctic
environment. We proposed that Australia and France work
together to ban mining and to achieve a Comprehensive
Environment Protection Convention which would preserve
forever Antarctica as a nature reserve and a land of
science. The thirty-eight nations of the Antarctic Treaty System are
currently neg~ otiating in Vina del Mar, Chile, on the future
of Antarctica at a Special Consultative Meeting of Antarctic
Treaty PartiE's. We cannot expect that all our objectives
will be met at this one meeting. But the mere fact that
Treaty Parties have embraced the need for a meeting devoted
to environmen~ tal matters is a mark of progress.
The decision my Government took in May last year not to sign
the Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral
Resources Activities was a bold one. Not only was it made
in the face of almost total opposition from other nations of
the Antarctic Treaty System, it also presented us with a
challenge to develop an acceptable alternative for the longterm
environmental management of the Antarctic region.
We made this difficult decision because, at the end of the
day, we identified a fundamental flaw in the Minerals
Convention the fallacy that ' safe mining' was an option in
the Antarctic.
In fact, the Minerals Convention provided an incentive to
mine, and to that we responded with a resounding the
risks to the Antarctic environment are too great and too
unpredictable. In short, the Minerals Convention was based
on an illusion the illusion of human infallibility in a
region which hosts the most delicate and fragile ecosystems
in the world.
In place of this illusion, our aim is to make a reality of
plans for an internationally binding agreement to protect
the fragile continent against the threat of mining forever.
And it is already becoming clear that we have greater reason
for confidence than ever before that our efforts will
succeed. Those who continue to hold to the hope that some form of
exploitative minerals regime will be established are now a
fast dwindlin~ g minority.
The concept that mining will be prohibited, at least for the
foreseeable future, now has common currency amongst Treaty
Antarctic Par-ties. Support for a permanent ban is growing.
But this is oinly half of our achievement so far. Together
with the idea. of a mining ban, Australia recognised that a
comprehensive regime for environmental protection was also
needed. When Australian and French negotiators put this
proposal to Antarctic Treaty Parties in October last year,
it was met with steely opposition. Now, as Antarctic Treaty
Parties meet again, the need for a new international
agreement to deal with Antarctica's environment has near
universal acceptance.
Not only do we have agreement to the Australia-France
proposal from Belgium and Italy, others such as Sweden,
India, Poland., Finland, Denmark, the EC, Greece, Romania
and New Zealand have adopted positions very close to our
own. Indeed, even among those countries which we expected
would provide the staunchest opposition to our position such
as the United. States and the Soviet Union, there is now
ready agreement with many of our views.
The United States administration has declared its support
for a new environmental instrument, and legislation
prohibiting mining in Antarctica by U. S. citizens has now
passed through Congress, and become law in the United
States. In the Soviet Union, President Gorbachev has given
support to the protection of the Antarctic as a wilderness
preserve. This support reflects the impact that our ideas are having
in other countries, and the level of support which the
preservation of Antarctica has within these other
communities. The world wide environment movement not
least the WWF has played a large part in this success, and
I pay tribute here to their substantial role.
That does not mean, however, that securing agreements which
fully satisfy our aspirations will be easily or readily
achieved. As I said at the outset, when Prime Minister Rocard and I
launched our joint initiative we did so in the full
realisation that we had a considerable task ahead.
The speed with which we have been able to achieve this
significant turn-round of world opinion is a testimony not
only to the priority which we have accorded our goal, but
the absolute correctness of our views, and the growing
international sympathy for an environmentally sound future.
Nevertheless, in spite of the inherent good sense of our
proposals, some continue to have misconceptions about
elements of our position. Some have asserted that our
initiative may undermine the special role science has in the
Antarctic region.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Antarctic: is a global scientific laboratory. Its near
pristine condition provides a baseline against which we can
measure environmental effects on other continents, including
our own.
Our proposal to make Antarctica a ' nature reserve land of
science' encapsulates the symbiotic relationship between
science and environmental protection that we envisage for
the continent. The draft convention that we and France have
proposed places science in a pre-eminent position over all
other activities in Antarctica.
Because of Antarctica's vulnerability, its importance to
science in a pristine condition, and its wilderness
qualities, few now question the need for careful
environmental management. The challenge that we face today
is to develop, within the existing Treaty System, a new and
comprehensive regime to manage human activity in the region.
Some have mistakenly painted this ambition to find a new
approach as a challenge to the Treaty System itself. Let me
re-affirm that our intention and our expectation for the
initiative are that it will strengthen and enhance the
Treaty System.
The record of the Treaty is a proud one.
Since the time when the continent challenged men like
Amunsden, Scott, Shackleton and our own Sir Douglas Mawson
to discover its secrets, Antarctica demanded an unrivalled
level of international cooperation. This has become the
hallmark of the continent, and the special international
regime which has evolved to manage activity there.
Emerging as it did in an era of cold-war hostilities, and
covering a wide spectrum of interests including developed
and developing countries, aligned and non-aligned, North and
South alike, the Treaty System has provided a firm
foundation for the coordination of scientific and other
activities on the continent, and the framework for stability
and peace in the region. With its assurances of peaceful
activity in the Antarctic and freedom of scientific
research, the: Treaty is an agreement in which Australia has
much at stake.
It is with this in mind that I wish to make absolutely clear
that the maintenance of the Treaty System is an essential
element in the proposal that Australia and France are
pursuing. But we must niot lose sight of the fact that the Antarctic
Treaty was developed in an era vastly different from our
own. Many of the environmental problems that we now face
were simply unheard of in the 1950s. The Treaty itself
makes no reference to environmental protection or to the
challenges that mineral resource exploitation of the region
would bring. Our aim, therefore, is to improve the Treaty
System by add~ ing comprehensive environmental protection to
its already impressive list of achievements.
There are encouraging signs of a growing understanding of
the need to protect Antarctica.
What we aim t~ o achieve at this first meeting in Chile is
agreement to a process of negotiation, a process which will
lead to agreement on rules which will protect Antarctica
forever, an agreement in solemn, legal form governing all
activity in Antarctica by all nations and all their
citizens. We do not pretend that this process will be uncomplicated.
We will naturally need to take into consideration the views
of others. But I want to make absolutely clear at the
outset that cur basic aims for the protection of this
special environment will not be compromised.
These aims embrace the following fundamental pillars:
First, no package for protection of Antarctica's environment
would be acceptable which does not include a prohibition on
mining a prohibition which is effective, which is
comprehensive, and which ensures that mining will never
occur. The logical corollary of this requirement is that
the Minerals Convention cannot be part of the outcome. it
is simply illogical and unrealistic to try to outlaw mining
in a mining treaty.
Second, any new arrangements for the protection of the
Antarctic must be comprehensive. The uniqueness of
Antarctica and its importance to the global environment make
fragmented and informal approaches to environmental
management inadequate. Any agreement must ensure the
protection of the environment against the whole range of
activities which may threaten it. A piecemeal approach,
taking in only selected threats to the environment is not
enough. Nor can we accept any approach which would provide
a nebulous framework, but leave the essential measures for
environmental protection for later agreement. Any agreement
must provide protection immediately on its entry into force,
and across the gamut of foreseeable activity.
The protection we seek must be rgorous. We must be certain
that it will allow no activity which would in any way
jeopardise the fragile ecosystems of the continent. The
standards adopted must afford Antarctica the highest levels
of protection.
Finally, for these measures to take effect, we need
oraanisational arrangements that will work effectively and
efficiently. Measures must be legally binding, they must
enshrine the principle of prior impact assessment, and there
must be a capacity to modify and, if necessary, halt harmful
activity. Where an accident occurs, there must be provision
for emergency response and effective remedial action, and
liability for damage to the environment. A permanent
institution, or some means by which ongoing monitoring of
Antarctic activity is ensured, is also a necessity.
By taking these steps, the Treaty System will demonstrate
its ability t~ o adapt to the challenges that environmental
problems bring, and will promote its credibility in the
effective management of activity in Antarctica. If and only
if it can meet the challenges that environmental awareness
brings with it, the Treaty System will demonstrate its
continued relevance and ensure its survival into the twentyfirst
century.
A great strength of the Treaty System is its consensus
approach to issues. Australia does not seek to change this.
At the same time all of us should be concerned if calls for
consensus are used as a smokescreen to avoid an open-minded
examination of issues and to disguise an unwillingness to
take account of major changes in community and international
concern. We trust that, with goodwill on all sides, the next steps
toward our goal will be achieved without drawn-out argument,
and that the Chile meeting will be a success. I want to
make clear, however, that we will not be prepared to
sacrifice principle for the sake of a short term solution.
We are not afraid of finding ourselves again in the
minority, if others fail to see the need for progress.
Central to this effort to pursue the Australia/ France
initiative over the coming months is the need to generate
informed debate about our proposal and to promote a wider
understanding of the importance of the Antarctic region and
its preservation.
It is with these objectives in mind that I wish to outline
today details of the establishment of a new Antarctic
Foundation to be based in Hobart. I announced the proposal
in February, and $ 1 million was allocated in this year's
budget for this purpose.
It has long been recognised that Hobart is a world-renowned
centre of Antarctic expertise. The Foundation will enhance
this role, and complement the activities pursued there by
the Antarctic: Division, the Secretariat of the Convention
6.
for the Conseirvation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources,
the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the
University of Tasmania, and the Fisheries and Oceanography
Division of the CSIRO.
The Foundation will underline Australia's deep commitment to
Antarctica, a~ nd will promote the importance of the Antarctic
environment. It will underscore the special relationship we
have with Antarctica, forged by the ties of history and
proximity, and cement the already strong affinity that
Australians feel for the continent. It will ensure that
Australia's interests in the continent receive specific
funding and conspicuous attention. Further, it will
demonstrate t~ o the world our commitment to fulfil our
special responsibility for the Antarctic region and its
ongoing protection. Consistent with these aims, the
Government has in mind that among the first tasks of the
Foundation would be the development in consultation with
the Antarctic Division of the Department of Arts, Sport,
Environment, Tourism and Territories of a Conservation
Strategy for the Australian Antarctic Territory.
I am very pleased to announce that the Foundation will be
chaired by Sir Ninian Stephen. He will bring to the
organisation his considerable energy, intellect and
environmental conviction. This role will complement his
invaluable efforts as Ambassador for the Environment. And
he will be assisted in it by a Board of the new Foundation
which will reflect the involvement in Antarctica of both the
Federal and Tasmanian Governments, as well as the broad
community interest in the continent.
Antarctica has long fascinated and excited. Not only is it
the world's last great wilderness and a unique sanctuary for
millions of seals, whales, penguins and sea-birds, its
awesome size and dramatic beauty are unparalleled.
Antarctica is a land of extremes and one of the most
inhospitable -places on the earth. The world's coldest,
driest and windiest continent and yet its most vulnerable.
As we renew our efforts to protect Antarctica, I am fully
aware of the debt the community owes to our new pioneers
pioneers not of new lands but of new ideas. The World Wide
Fund for Nature has been at the forefront of the new
environmental consciousness which is the hallmark of this
decade. To you, as environmentalists, I extend my
congratulations and my best wishes for your continuing
endeavours.