Search

Governments involved in Arctic and Antarctic governance have been well aware of the increasing human pressure on the Polar Regions and particularly the last two decades many initiatives have been taken to protect the Arctic and Antarctic environment. But what values are to be protected? This paper studies two central questions: a) To what extent does wilderness protection receive attention in the international governance systems for the Polar Regions? b) Should wilderness protection be acknowledged as an emerging issue for international law and policy development for the Polar Regions? First, on the basis of a definition of the term 'wilderness', the role of law in protecting wilderness is debated. This includes a discussion on the relationship between wilderness protection on the one hand and sustainable development and the protection of biological diversity on the other. Next, attention is focused on the Arctic and Antarctic. It is concluded that the international governance systems of both the Arctic and the Antarctic pay very little attention to the preservation of the Polar Regions as the last relatively untouched wildernesses on earth. The applicability of various multilateral environmental agreements to the Polar Regions (particularly the Arctic) is not very helpful in this respect as wilderness protection does not receive substantial attention in these legal instruments either. The broad acknowledgement of the wilderness values of these regions, the current lack of attention for wilderness protection at the international level and the fast increase of commercial activities in both Polar Regions are strong arguments for a positive answer to the second question and for urging the states involved in the Arctic Council and the Antarctic Treaty System to open the debate on relevant questions: What are wilderness values in the context of the Polar Regions more precisely and when would these values be adversely affected? What are the consequences of wilderness protection for human activities? And for the Arctic, how could wilderness protection be integrated in the efforts regarding sustainable development to ensure the right balance between wilderness protection and the protection of indigenous peoples rights? The good news is that there are various opportunities to discuss these questions in the near future. For the Antarctic the issue of wilderness protection is included in the five years work plan of the Committee for Environmental Protection and - in parallel - the issue may receive attention during the debate on the development of a common strategic view on the future of Antarctic tourism. For the Arctic one of the opportunities to discuss wilderness protection would be the 'restart' of the work on the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network. In trying to find answers to the relevant questions it is worthwhile to study and identify the lessons learnt (including best practices) of the present domestic systems of wilderness protection. The questions are certainly complex; however, excluding these questions from the international governance debate and simply denying relevance of wilderness protection with the argument that the concept is too vague and subjective will most certainly result in a continuing loss of untouched nature, both in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Climate change will have a variety of consequences for marine capture fisheries within the broadly defined Arctic marine area. Among these are new and expanding fisheries in the Arctic Ocean. This chapter provides an overview of current Arctic fisheries, the current international legal and policy framework with respect to Arctic fisheries and some national regulation over Arctic fisheries. This is complemented by the identification of gaps in the international legal and policy framework and national regulation and options for addressing them. Among the options are ensuring the availability of relevant scientific data; individual action by Arctic Ocean coastal states and other states in their capacities as flag, coastal, port and market states and with regard to their natural and legal persons; bilateral or subregional arrangements between the relevant Arctic Ocean coastal states on the conservation and management of shared fish stocks; a regional declaration on new fisheries in the Arctic marine area; and one or more state-of-the-art RFMOs or Arrangements.

This publication focuses on the instrument of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that has been developed within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) as one of the tools to promote environmental protection. The states involved in the ATS already recognized the importance of this instrument in 1975 (Recommendation VIII-13). Since then, within the ATS, the EIA instrument has been further developed through the adoption of recommendations. In 1991, with the adoption of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, EIA became obligatory for most types of activities in the region south of 60 degrees South latitude, including scientific research and tourism activities. Section 2 provides a brief introduction to the ATS and a general overview of the history of Antarctic EIA. Section 3 describes the main characteristics of the Antarctic EIA system, particularly based on an analysis of the Protocol's provisions and related instruments (e.g. guidelines). Section 4 discusses general trends and developments in the practice of EIA for Antarctic activities. Section 5 discusses a case study of EIA practice as it applies to the proposal by Russia for scientific drilling into subglacial Lake Vostok. Section 6 contains the main conclusions, including the stronger and weaker characteristics of the Antarctic EIA system.

This is the final chapter of a book, published by Brill/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, on international systems of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a well-established instrument of Environmental Law and policy that aims to ensure that potential adverse environmental effects of human activities are assessed before decisions on such activities are made. The instrument is increasingly being applied in respect of activities that may cause environmental effects across the borders of a state. In the book, thirteen systems of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) are assessed that exist or are in development in different parts of the world. Although TEIA is generally associated with EIA between territorial states, this book takes a broader approach and is divided into three sub-parts: Transboundary EIA between states, EIA for activities in international and shared areas, and EIA required by international financial institutions. Knowledgeable experts (scholars and practitioners) provide an overview of the history, content, and practice of the individual systems. In this concluding chapter of this book, the state of the art concerning TEIA and possible future developments are discussed.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a well-established instrument of environmental law and policy that aims to ensure that potential adverse environmental effects of human activities are assessed before decisions on such activities are made. The instrument is increasingly being applied in respect of activities that may cause environmental effects across the borders of a state. This is the introductory chapter of a book that offers an assessment of thirteen systems of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) that exist or are in development in different parts of the world. Although TEIA is generally associated with EIA between territorial states, the book takes a broader approach and is divided into three sub-parts: Transboundary EIA between states, EIA for activities in international and shared areas, and EIA required by international financial institutions. Knowledgeable experts (scholars and practitioners) provide an overview of the history, content, and practice of the individual systems and, based on these discussions, the state of the art concerning TEIA and possible future developments are discussed. This introductory chapter outlines the normative landscape of TEIA both in general terms and in respect of each of the three parts of the book. The status of TEIA in general international law is the first issue examined (section 2) - a discussion continued in more specific terms in the concluding chapter of the book. The section pays a good deal of attention to the no-harm principle, as we consider this to be one of the fundaments of TEIA. Section 3 then takes up the normative development related to each of the three parts of the volume. This provides the reader with a general framework before reading the chapters dealing with individual systems. Finally, the chapter sets out the focus and scope of the book in more detail (section 4).

Wilderness is a central feature of the Arctic and the Antarctic, and both regions are commonly known to contain vast areas of it. However, the legal frameworks to protect either region’s wilderness expanses differ significantly. While for the Antarctic, the legal protection of wilderness falls under the international Antarctic Treaty System – generally known as the Antarctic Treaty and related agreements adopted thereunder; wilderness areas in the Arctic are primarily governed by the domestic legislation of the eight Arctic States – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation and the United States. As for the Antarctic, wilderness values receive explicit legal protection under the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty (AT). In practice, however, these values are rarely considered, mainly because of different opinions concerning the meaning of wilderness in the AT context and the consequences that may arise from the legal duty to protect it. These deficiencies become especially problematic with regard to the increase of tourism activities in the region and their potential to cause negative impacts on its wilderness. Against this background, the present PhD research project, sponsored by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NOW), has been conducted. Its central aim was to study the relevance of the wilderness concept for regulating and managing tourist activities in Antarctica. In doing so, the project took particular notice of experiences and possible ‘lessons learnt’ in wilderness areas of the Arctic. For this purpose, three case study areas were examined in detail – the Hammastunturi Wilderness Reserve (Finland), the Archipelago of Svalbard (Norway) and the Denali National Park and Preserve (Alaska, United States) – all of them, fully or partially, designated as legally protected wilderness areas and, at the same time, characterized as important tourist destinations. The results of the case studies reveal, among others, that wilderness protection policies and regulations in each area differ according to the specific legal regime in each country as well as due to the various cultural contexts and traditions. Nevertheless, important similarities could be also recognized, especially in terms of certain minimum standards characterizing wilderness. These standards, which are central to the diverging wilderness protection approaches, can be summarized as (a) a relatively large size of the area in question; (b) the prevailing of natural intact species and ecosystems in the area; and (c) the absence of major human-related infrastructure as well as minimum distances from such facilities and developments. As to the threats or risks caused by tourism to wilderness, the PhD-thesis points out, first, that the relevant impact factors in each area have common characteristics which can be found also in Antarctica: (a) significantly growing numbers of tourists, (b) the use of more and more visiting sites, (c) an increasing diversity of tourist activities, and (d) the establishment of tourism related infrastructure. Secondly, the thesis outlines already observed and possible consequences of this development for the wilderness of the concerned area or region. Regarding this situation, a multitude of measures, referring either explicitly or implicitly to the protection of wilderness, could be identified in each case study aiming at the regulation and management of tourism in the areas. These measures are often of a similar kind in each case study area. Most of them could be applied in Antarctica as well. Thus, they provide a substantial number of possible policy approaches and legal instruments that could be used also in the AT context, and might, if adopted, contribute – this is at least the hope of the author – to improve the status of wilderness protection in Antarctica