Antarctic Challenge: Conflicting Interests, Cooperation, Environmental Protection, Economic Development. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Symposium June 22nd - 24th, 1983 [1 ed.] 9783428455409, 9783428055401

Citation preview

Antarctic Challenge

VE ROFFE NTLICH UN GEN DES INSTITUTS FUR INTERNATIONALES RECHT AN DER UNIVERSITAT KIEL Herausgegeben von J ost Delbrück. · Wilfried Fiedler Wilhelm A. Kewenig · Rüdiger Wolfrum

88

Antarctic Challenge Conflicting Interests, Cooperation Environmental Protection, Economic Development

Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Symposium June 22nd- 24th, 1983 Organized under the Auspices of the Christian-Albredlts-Universität, Kiel, by the Institut für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel

Edited by

Rüdiger Wolfrum Assistant Editor: Klaus Bockslaff

DUNCKER &

HUMBLOT I BERLIN

The organization of the symposium and the publication of this volume have been made possible by generous grants from: Stiftung Volkswagenwerk Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie, Bonn Landeshauptstadt Kiel

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutsdlen Bibliothek Antarctic challenge: conflicting interests, cooperation, environmental protection, econom. development; proceedings of an interdisciplinary symposium, June 22nd 24th, 1983 I organized by the lnst. für Internat. Redlt an d. Univ. Kiel. Ed. by Rüdiger Wolfrum. Assistant ed.: Klaus Bodcslaff. Berlin: Duneiter und Humblot, 1984. (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Internationales Redlt an der Universität Kiel; 88) ISBN 3-428-05540-3 NE: Wolfrum, Rüdiger [Hrsg.]; Institut für Internationales Redlt (Kiel): Veröffentlidlungen des Instituts . . .

Alle Red:lte, elnsdilleßlld:l das der Ubersetzung, vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrüddld:le Genehmigung des Verlages Ist es nld:lt gestattet, das Bud:l oder Teile daraus in irgendeiner Welse zu vervielfiltlgen. @ 1984 Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 41 Gedruckt 1984 bei Vollhehr u. Strobel, Klei Prlnted 1n Germany ISBN 3-428-05540-3

Contents Preface

7

Opening Ceremonies Addresses by: Jost Delbrück

9

Gerd Griesser

11

Karl-Heinz Luckhardt

13

Jürgen Westphal . .

14

The Development of the Antarctic Treaty System 17

Finn Sollie

Comment 38

John Heap

Scientific Research and Cooperation in Antarctica Tore Gjelsvik

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

Comment 52

Roberto E. Guyer

Discussion

57

Present Knowledge of Living Marine Resources in the Antarctic, Possibilities for their Exploitation and Scientific Perspectives Dietrich Sahrhage

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

Comment Sebastian Gerlach

89

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Living. Resources: A Model for the Use of a Common Good? Rainer Lagoni

. . . . . . . . . . . .

93

6

Contents

Comment 100

Rudolf Illing

Comment Richard H. Wyndham

114

119

Discussion Antarctic Research in the Federal Republic of Germany Gotthilf Hempel

. . . . . . . . . . .

133

The Use of Antarctic Non-Living Resources: The Search for a Trustee? Rüdiger Wolfrum

143

Comment Christopher Pinto

164

The Impact of UNCLOS III on the Antarctic Regime Schamhorst Müller

Discussion

169 177

Present Knowledge of Non-Living Resources in the Antarctic, Possibilities for their Exploitation and Scientific Perspectives Pranz Tessensohn

189

Ecological Aspects of an Exploitation of the Non-Living Resources of the Antarctic Ludger Kappen

Discussion

211 218

Annex Convention an the Conservation of Marine Living Resources

229

Recommendation IX-1, Antarctic Mineral Resources

243

Recommendation Xl-1, Antarctic Mineral Resources

245

List of Participants

249

Preface This volume being part of the publication series of the Institute of International Law at the University of Kiel contains the presentations given and the contributions made to the discussions at an interdisciplinary symposium on uThe Antarctic Challenge - Conflicting lnterests, Cooperation, Environmental Protection, Economic Developmentu held June 22-24, 1983 in Kiel. The symposium had been organized on behalf of the Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, by the Institut für Internationales Recht. It was part of the wider programme of the Kieler Woche. The interest of the international community has in recent times more and more focused upon the administration and use of common spaces. The new UN-Convention on the Law of the Sea as well as the Treaty Governing the Use of the Moon and other Celestial Bodies are the best evidence that the existing law on common spaces is in the process of being revised sul;lstantially. This revision resulted - as far as the Law of the Sea and of Outer Space is concerned - in a substantial change of its underlying philosophy. Under traditional international law the common spaces were open to all States which, as far as the interests of competing users were not concerned, regulated their activities nationally. As to the distribution of benefits to be drawn this only depended upon the national capabilities to take part in the utilization of the said spaces. The new conventions mentioned instead provide for an internationally regulated and coordinated use of the common spaces and for distributive justice as far as the resources are concerned. After a new regime for the utilization of the sea has been established Antarctica remains the last region not assigned to national jurisdiction lacking a complete international regime for the utilization of its resources. This explains why the Antarctic Treaty Consultative States started to negotiate a supplementation of the Antarctic Treaty and why the General Assembly of the United Nations took up this issue in its 38th session. Antarctica is at the present moment of great interest for a wide variety of different groups, including the natural scientists of various disciplines, industry being interested in possibilities of exploitation of the alleged riches of the Continent, lawyers asking for the proper legal framework of such exploitation, environmentalists, frightened by the idea that this

8

Prelace

last unspoiled natural resort might be destroyed, and last but not least, the developing countries, asking for their share in the expected profits of exploitation. It was the purpose of the symposium to further the dialogue between these groups by providing a forum for the exchange of views and results of scientific research, thus enabling all interested parties to gain for their own work by putting it into a wider frame of understanding.

The symposium assernbled 60 participants frorn 14 countries which represented various backgrounds - diplomats (most of whom participated at the Special Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources in Bonn, 11 -22 July 1983), lawyers, scientists, environmentalists and representatives of the industry. The Institute expresses its deep gratitude to the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk, the Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie and the Landeshauptstadt Kiel for funding this symposium and the publication of these proceedings. Further, the warmest thanks go to the staff members of the Institute of International Law who have devotedly contributed to the symposium in all its stages. Thanks go especially to Mr. Bockslaff, the research assistant responsible for the organization of the symposium as well as for the publication of its proceedings. Rüdiger Wolfrum

Opening Address Jost Delbrück •

Herr Minister, Herr Abgeordneter, Herr Universitätspräsident, Ladies and Gentlemen. On behalf of the Institute of International Law at Kiel University, and the working group of Polar Seiences of Kiel University, we warmly welcome you at Kiel to our symposium "The Antarctic Challenge". We gratefully recognize that you have followed our invitation so numerously, and we are especially happy to have sudl a highly qualified expert group attending this important conference. Our sincere thanks go to those, who by their financial contributions, have made this meeting possible, namely the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk, the City of Kiel, and last but not least, the Bundesministerium für Forsdlung und Technologie. As time is a scare resource, at this symposium, and the programme is very dense, Iet me restriet myself to very few remarks concerning the aims and functions of our meeting. "Pax optima rerum" is the motto engraved in the seal of Christian Albrecht University. Antarctica is the last territory on earth not subject to the exercise of sovereign rights, and at the moment it serves as a model system of peaceful cooperation of States, in its exploration and as a truly demilitarized zone. As we strongly believe in this model role of Antarctica and motivated by a long tradition of Kiel University in Polar sciences, including international law, we thought it adequate to convene this symposion, in order to offer a neutral scientific forum for the thorough discussion of the problems involved in securing and enduring the regime of peaceful cooperation also in the uses of Antarctica's resources and the protection of its precious environment. We are here as experts from various backgrounds, all bound together in one common interest, that is, to promote present efforts for preserving and developing a suitable peaceful regime for Antarctica. It is in this spirit, that I again welcome the participants and guests to our symposium: "The Antarctic Challenge - Conflicting Interests, Cooperation, Environmental Protection, Economic Development". • Prof. Dr. Jost Delbrück, Direktor des Instituts für Internationales Redlt an der Christian-Albredlts-Universität, Kiel.

10

Opening Ceremonies

Ladies and Gentlemen, while we are assembled here in Kiel, a city celebrating its lOtst Kiel Week - a very pleasant atmosphere as we must confess- others are working hard out there in Antarctica's deep winter. Anrl following a good tradition of the consultative meetings, it was suggested to me that we send a message to those working out there in Antarctica. It reads as follows: "The pal'ticipants of the 1983 Symposium on the Antarctic Challenge at Kiel, Federal Republic of Germany, convey their warmest regards and best wishes to the crews of the Antarctic stations in recognition of their admirable fulfillment of the arduous work, carried out for the benefit of mankind." I hope that you will agree with me that we should send this message to our friends out in Antarctica.

Welcoming Address Gerd Griesser •

Your Excellencies, Herr Oberbürgermeister, Herr Wirtschaftsminister, Herr Abgeordneter, Mr. Chairman, very distinguished colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is my privilege and great pleasure to welcome you, the participants in the interdisciplinary symposium, "The Antarctic Challenge", very warmly on behalf of the Christian Albrecht University at Kiel. My particular welcome is directed to those participants coming from other European and from oversea countries, and to the very honourable excellencies, the Ambassadors present today. I have to thank you for coming to our place, located a little in the north, and for your willingness to contribute to this utmost important matter of Antarctica and its problems. I do hope that your participation and your special experience and knowledge will make this symposium a success. The fact that this conference takes place during the "Kieler Woche 1983", not in the premises of the University of Kiel, but in the City Hall, underlines the rather close connections and ties between town and gown. In this way, my colleagues of Christiana Albertina and their academic staff, having prepared this meeting to be held, so to speak in the public, can elucidate with your kind assistance the role of scientific researdl and the theoretically thinkable and practical implications to the population by means of such an exciting topic to be dealt with by this conference.

Thus, I want to extend my gratitude to the City of Kiel as a host of the Symposium, and to my colleagues of the Institute of International Law, which has a long scientific tradition. Your visit to Kiel, and your participation in the forthcoming conference on legal, environmental and economic problems of Anarctica is seen by the Presidium of the Christi.ana Albertina at Kiel as a kind of appreciation of the scientific efforts, made in the broad variety of research projects of the oceans and of the Polar regions. This field of scientific interest has a very long and good tradition in

Chrlstiana Albertina, founded in 1665. In the connection with tradition

I would like to mention that the first publication on maritime research • Prof. Dr. Gerd Grieser, Präsident der Christian-Albredlts-Universität.

12

Opening Ceremonles

at Kiel was donein 1696 by the Doctor Utriusque Juris Samuel Reyher, Professor Ordinarius of Law and Mathematics, describing a new method of evaluation of the salt-content of sea-water and the results achieved, in Latin: "Experimentum novum quo aquae marinae dulcedo". In fact, a vivid proof of the omnipotence of the juridical professionl The investigations in the second half of the 19th and in our century were not as simple and inexpensive as the first experiment was. Our marine and Polar research workers can now be found not only in the Baltic Sea, the "Mare Nostrum" of Christiana Albertina, and the Atlantic but also the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Round our Institute of Polar Ecology, an interdisciplinary working party could be established to which members of the Institute of International Law belong. So I confidently hope that you will find here in Kiel the necessary genius Ioci for dealing with the Antarctic problems. Furthermore, I would like

to wish you cordially a very successful performance of your symposium in a good scientific climate, ample time for vivid and intriguing discussions in community spirit and, last but not least, time to relax and enjoy the "Kieler Woche 1983".

W elcoming Address Karl Heinz Luckhardt •

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Admittedly Kiel was not successful in obtaining the seat of the German Institute for Polar Research. However, the strong interest which our publicity has awoken among scientists is, for me, a clear sign that Kiel with its natural science and technological capacities, is and will remain an important base for German work in the Antarctic. For this reason, this symposium is particularly close to our hearts. Your theme could give a layman the impression that the Antarctic, unlike the other continents, has still not been affected by human civilisation. However, the better informed layman must fear that this is a false impression and that even the remotest part of our small planet suffered the first damage long ago. It seems all the more important to me that the further discovery and development of the Antarctic is directed so that permanent damage to the sensitive ecological fabric and also, therefore, to the detriment of the whole of humanity is avoided. Humanity will be reliant upon the Antarctic as a source of raw materials. However, it must not be exploited and thereby destroyed.

Being able to do the right thing and prevent the bad depends upon basic knowledge and foresight, and certainly not only amongst scientists. We will have to pay more attention to the future of politics, because the Antarctic is no Ionger simply an object of research. The Antarctic eilallenge also has geopolitical character. Let's hope that the countries of this earth will overcome this mallenge in peace with each other and with the Antarctic Continent.

• Karl Heinz Luckhardt, Oberbürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Kiel.

Address Antarctic Challenges for the Federal R.epublic of Germany Jürgen WestphaJ•

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. On behalf of the Government of Schleswig-Holstein I warmly welcome all participants of this Antarctic symposium. It is a great pleasure for the Land Government that this important conference is held in the city of Kiel, the capital of the state of Schleswig-Holstein. First of all let me personally wish you a good stay and successful work in our state. We are proud to welcome leading representatives from nearly all Antartic Treaty States on the eve of the 2nd Special Consultative Meeting to be held in Bonn from 11th to 21st July, 1983. The wide scope of the Kiel Symposium, ranging from past activities and legal controversy to likely future developments reflects the broad interest which the Federal Republic of Germany is taking in Antarctic affairs. In spite of the fact that the new Altred Wegener Polar Institute is being built up in Bremerhaven, the city of Kiel remains something like the "secret capital" of German polar activities. In fac·t the Government of Sd:lleswig-Holstein was among the very few who initiated the accession of the Federal Republic of Gerrnany to the Antarctic Treaty back in 1976. The new German research vessel "Polarstern" has been built in Schleswig-Holstein by a consortium of two shipyards which specialize in the construction of research vessels. A few days earlier you might have had a d:lance to visit the "Polarstern" calling at the Kielshipyard for routine inspection before she went to do some research in Spitsbergen area. lt might interest you to learn that a marine research vessel of similar size for the Republic of India has been delivered by another shipyard in the city of Lübeck. In fact, our shipyards and the highly specialized marine and offshore equipment industries are wen prepared to face new mallenges in marine, offshore and polar activities. • Dr. Jürgen Westphal, Minister für Wirtschaft und Verkehr des Landes Schleswig-liolstein, l{iel.

Openlng Ceremonles

15

Moreover, Kiel is the seat of the new University Institute for Polar Ecology and of an old and very famous Institute for Marine Scientific Research. The Kiel Institute for International Law, specializing (among other things) in international law of the seas and in legal problems concerning the polar areas, has taken the initiative for this conference. Needless to say that many other German research institutes, represented at this symposium, are beginning to take an active interest in matters concerning Antarctica. It is my opinion, that intensive scientific research has to be the forerunner of all large scale economic activities. In this context I want to stress the importance of safeguarding the environment and protecting the integrity of Antarctica as a high responsibility which all Antarctic Treaty States share in the interest of all mankind.

Without getting too excited about the immediate economic prospects of Antarctica I may assure you that the Federal Government, as weil as the German scientific community, will continue to give polar activities a high priority when it comes to scientific programmes. The existing German Antarctic Research Programme, for which a total of 380 Million DM has been earmarked for the period ending 1983, covers a wide variety of research topics. As regards a future regime for the economic use of Antarctica it may be timely and appropriate to develop a new framework now. The wen established aims of the Antarctic Treaty, i. e. the freedom of scientific investigation, the reservation for peaceful purposes, the prohibition of nuclear activities, the freezing of territorial claims and the importance of Safeguarding the Antarctic ecosystem are whole-heartedly supported by the Federal Republic of Germany. Since these aims correspond at the same time to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations there is, in my view, no immediate necessity for the United Nations to take additional responsibilities for this part of the world. A first step towards resource management has already been achieved by the "Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources" of 1980. This convention strikes a remarkable balance between environmental and resource-related interests, and simultaneously takes into account the interests of non-member-states. These aims and instruments should provide for guidelines when it comes to the elaboration of objectives, principles and components of a regime for Antarctic mineral resources, provided that these acitivities can be conducted in a safe and environmentally sound fashion. Nearly 20 years of experience show that the Antarctic Treaty represents an organizational model for the careful development and manage-

16

Opening Ceremonles

ment of common spaces and common resources - more than the new United Nations Law of the Seas Convention will, in my view, ever adlieve for its sphere of competency. As a late-comer for the Antarctic Treaty the Federal Republic of Germany is ready to share the rights and obligations under the Antarctic Regime, as a means of extending the range of opportunities for scientific and tedmological cooperation with other nations. In doing so we profit from the well established system of cooperative international relations whidl have been designed and implemented by the original Antarctic Treaty States. On the occasion of opening this conference it may be appropriate to express our sincere respect for all those who set the Iandmarks for Antarctic cooperation in sudl a fruitful allid pragmatic way. It is my hope that the deliberations of this symposium will contribute to maintain Antarctica as a zone of peace, free of international conflict and discord, and at the same time enhance the understanding of our planet.

The Development of the Antarctic Treaty System Trends and Issues Finn Sollie •

I. IntroducUon The organization of an interdisciplinary symposium in Kiel, with broad international participation in a discussion of the present-day Antarctic eilallenge in terms of conflicting interests and problems of cooperation, and of economic development and protection of the environment, is in itself a remarkable demonstration of current trends and problems in the continuing development of the Antarctic Treaty System. Three main trends are immediately evident from the manner in which the conference has been set up: First, organization of the symposium in Kiel is a reminder that new members are demonstrating their active interest and participation in the development of the Antarctic Treaty System. The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) acceded to the Antarctic Treaty only in 1979, but as a result of its quite considerable research program the FRG became a Consultative Party with a right to participate in Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings in 1981, thus following Poland which acceded to the Treaty in 1961 and became the first acceding party with consultative status in 1977. With increasing international interest in Antarctica, additional parties may be expected to join the group that is active in the Antarctic Treaty System1 • Secondly, the symposium has invited participation beyond the traditional "inside group" of participants in discussions about Antarctic affairs, thus reflecting an international interest in Antarctica which is now rapidly growing and which is not tied to active participation in activities in Antarctica or to a role within the Antarctic Treaty System. This is an interest which is particularly noticeable in some Third World countries, and in environmentalist groups who share doubts and reservations about the Antarctic Treaty and the present functioning of the Antarctic Treaty System. Their participation offers an opportunity for open d.iscus• Dr. Finn Sollie, The Fridtjof Nansen Foundation at Polh"gda, Lysaker, Norway. t Brazil and lndia added their names to the list of Consultative Parties at the Twelfth Consultative Meeting in 1983. 2 Antarctlc Challenge

18

Finn Sollie

sion and exchange of views between traditional "insiders• and interested outsiders from the Antarctic Treaty System, for wbich tbe organizers of tbe Kiel Symposium sbould be complimented. Thirdly, tbe symposium program clearly reflects tbe current interest and present-day preoccupation witb problems and issues relating to tbe potential development of Antarctic mineral resources. Tbis is a new interest wbidt was not relevant at tbe time wben tbe Antarctic Treaty was negotiated. Today it is a root cause of international interest in Antarctica and a key problern witbin tbe Antarctic Treaty System.

II. The Antarctic Treaty System Only twelve states were involved wben tbe Antarctic Treaty was negotiated. All of tbem bad been actively engaged in tbe massive scientific program wbich was carried out in Antarctica during tbe International Geopbysical Year (1957-58) and tbeir prevailing interest in continued scientific investigation and peaceful cooperation led to tbe signing of tbe Treaty of 1 December 1959 to secure tbat "Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation to tbat end, as applied during tbe International Geopbysical Year (I.G.Y.), sball continue, subject to tbe provisions of tbe present Treaty" 2 • Witb tbe Treaty, tbe twelve signatory states gave political approval and legal status to arrangements tbat bad worked informally and bad proved tbeir viability during tbe I.G.Y. Ta maintain tbese relationsbips, tbe Contracting Parties agreed tbat "Antarctica sball be used for peaceful purposes only" and tbey banned "any measures of a militarynature ... "3 Tbey also included a specific probibition against nuclear explosions4 , and tbus adopted the first test-ban treaty and establisbed tbe first nuclear-free zone in a troubled world. To secure tbe twin goals of scientific cooperation and of avoidance of conflict and entanglement of Antarctica in wider international disputes, tbe Treaty provided for exchange of information an plans, programs and results of investigations, as weil as of scientific personnel5 , and for verification procedures under wbidt • All areas of Antarctica, including all stations, installations and equipment ... and all sbips and aircraft at points of discharging or embarking cargoes and personnel in Antarctica . . . sball be open at all times to inspection . . . " by observers designated by any one Consultative Party6 • 2 Article II Antarctic Treaty of December 1, 1959, text reprinted in Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBI.) 1979 Teil II, 420 seq. a Op. cit., Article I. 4 Op. cit., Article V. 5 Op. cit., Article 111. 6 Op. cit., Article VII sec. 3.

19

Antarctlc Treaty System

Furthermore, to allay fears that continued, free scientific operations might arose tension and political conflict about territorial claims, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction, the Treaty formally set aside the disputes between states claiming territorial sovereignty in Antarctica7 and disagreements between claimant States and States not recognizing such claims8 , by providing that Nothing contained in the present Treaty ... nor llacts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force . . . shall prejudice the respective positions of the parties in regard to territorial claims or Constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty ... 118 11

II

II

11

Because of the opposite positions and the disagreement on territorial claims and sovereignty, suggestions to include provisions relating to resource development and commercial activities in Antarctica were bound to meet the strengest opposition during the negotiation of the Treaty10• Such proposals would Iead to questions about land title and property rights and about regulatory power and sovereign rights. Such questions would complicate or even prevent agreement on the moratorium on sovereignty, which was an essential precondition for any agreement on the whole Treaty. At that time, there was no prospect of resource development other than the living resources of the sea, which could be hunted without arosing direct conflicts about territorial sovereignty. Hence, there was no urgency in 1959 to come to grips with commercial operations involving rights on Antarctic land. However, and most important for the continuing development of cooperation in Antarctica, the Treaty provided for regular meetings at suitable intervals and places, for the purpose of exchanging iilformation, consulting tagether on matters of common interest pertaining to Antarctica, and formulating and considering and recommending to their Governments, measures in furtherance of the principles and objectives 11

1 Of the participating states, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Australia, Norway, Chile and Argentina (in duonological order) have made formal claims to territory. Of these, the British, the Chilean, and the Argentine claims overlap in part and are in conflict with eadJ. other. As a consequence of the dispute, various episodes have occurred, including incidents with the use of weapons. 8 Belgium, Japan, South Africa, the Soviet Union, and the United States as non-claimant states partly do not accept claims made by other states and partly do not accept the principle that claims can be made. There are nuances in the attitude of the various states, as well as more or less evident shifts in the position of individual states over time. · 8 Art. IV Antarctic Treaty. 10 The subject of economic interest I activities apparently was mentioned" in informal talks at early stages of deliberations, but met with direct rejection from some parties, notably for interfering with national, sovereign rights. 11

2"

20

Finn Sollie

of the Treaty . "11 By this procedure, a nurober of recommendations have been adopted to provide more specific regulation of subjects within the scope of the Treaty12. Through the consultative .procedure and by force of the demonstrated desire and will of the parties to avoid conflict, to promote cooperation, and to act jointly for objectives that include "preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica"13 the Antarctic Treaty, rather than remaining a fixed set of agreed provisions, has become an evolving network of decisions and measures to apply and promote agreed principles and objectives. With the Treaty as a basis, the Antarctic Treaty System has acquired an organic quality of growth and development. That development includes deliberations on a regime for the exploration and potential exploitation of mineral resources14. The question now is if this system is sufficiently well founded and viable to meet the double mallenge of vastly expanded interest in the Antarctic region and of managing the new and complex problems that arise when that interest focuses upon the development of natural resources rather than upon the less conflict-prone activities of the scientific investigator. In part, this is a question of the internal elasticity of the Antarctic Treaty System itself, of its ability to adjust to conditions produced by expanding membership and new tasks and problems relating to potential resource development and to the regulation of commercially oriented activities. It is also a question of the external acceptability of the system, of its ability to win sufficient approval beyond its original membership to be allowed to continue to function in a world where the common interest of mankind is measured against the limited interests of active participants. Art. IX Antarctic Treaty. The number of recommendations varies greatly from meeting to meeting (from 28 at the Fourth to 3 at the Eleventh Meeting). with a total of 130 having been adopted at the first eleven meetings. A number of them deal with purely procedural matters and many others serve to implement prior, general measures, e. g., by establishing specially protected areas under the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna und Flora (Recommendation 111-VIII, (1964) ). Some of the recommendations, however, including the Agreed Measures, are "substantive legislation•. 18 Art. IX sec. 1 (f) Antartic Treaty. 14 The problem of mineral resources was first raised informally at the Sixth Consultative Meeting (1970) and put on the agenda for the first time at the Seventh Meeting (1972), where it was recommended that "the subject 'Antarctic Resources - Mineral Exploration' be carefully studied and included in the Agenda of the Eighth Consultative Meeting" (Recommendation VII-6, (1972) ). Since then, the subject has been discussed at every regular meeting as weil as at various expert meetings and extraordinary meetings dealing exclusively with the minerals problem, until it is now clear that agreement on a minerals regime may soon be reached. 11

12

Antarctic Treaty System

21

Such questions have no easy answers, nor do political developments flow from facile predictions. The future development and fate of the Antarctic Treaty System is and must be essentially a political issue subject to pressures from many directions and deliberations at many Ievels. Nevertheless, the survivability of the Antarctic Treaty System in a changing world will be determined also by the inherent qualities and attractions of the system itself. In this context, it is important to identify essential qualities in the system and to understand the advantages, as well as the weaknesses of the developing system. The qualities of the Antarctic Treaty System and, with them, the advantages whic:h are affered by that system and whic:h cannot be matc:hed by other agreements and arrangements for Antarctica, will be decisive for the will and the determination of the parties to the Treaty to continue their cooperation and to maintain the system. Furthermore, the qualities and advantages of the Antarctic Treaty System and the determination of the parties to maintain and further develop that system will be decisive also for the desire of new parties with an interest in Antarctica to accede to the Treaty and to join the system. With increased international interest in the question of Antarctic development generated by more or less well-founded hopes and expectations that mineral resources may be developed, the decision of additional states to "join the club" to work within the Antarctic Treaty System, or to stay outside the system and to call for its replacement by another international organization may determine the ultimate fate of the Antarctic Treaty. With more accessions to the Antarctic Treaty and an increasing number of states as Consultative Parties in the Antarctic Treaty System, the strength of the system to withstand objections and attack.s from those who want to replace it with other international arrangements clearly will increase. With continued limited membership and participation in the "Antarctic Club", the Antarctic Treaty System will retain a quality of exclusiveness and, consequently, become increasingly vulnerable to attack. from the general international community. On the other hand, "over-expansion" by rapid increase of the nurober of parties who qualify to participate in the consultative process presumably may give rise to fresh tensions within the Treaty System. The student of international politics may see this as a dilemma of critical size in an organization of special-interest-states with a desire to preserve the tdentity as well as the existence of their organization against pressures from common-interest-states with a desire to enforce the principle of universal participation. In practical politics, the question may be one

22

Fintt Sollle

about political acumen and ability to accept the adjustments whidl are required if the system is to continue to function "in furthermore of the prineiples and objectives of the Treaty ... M

111. The Question of Excluslveness

To all appearances, and indeed for all practical purposes, the Antarctic Treaty System until now has functioned as an exclusive club for the dedicated few. Its original membership of twelve signatory states whidl had qualified by their active participation in the I.G.Y. program increased only by two in the flrst twenty years. The aura of exclusiveness is further emphasised by the fact that within member states the number of persons with an active interest and involvement in Antarctic affairs is quite small and generally restricted to a group of dedicated seientists and an even smaller group of public offleials, legal experts and political seientists who have become engaged in antarctic affairs and are faseinated by the functioning and the prineiples and the ideals of the system. The scientists have their own forum in SCAR - the Seientiflc Committee on Antarctic Researdl15 - but also take part as advisers to delegations at Consultative Meetings. The offleials and legal experts meet regularly at Consultative Meetings and occasionally at various expert meetings18• Many of the seientists of course have Cl permanent interest in polar researdl and cosequently tend to hold lifelong membership in the Antarctic group. Public offleials often are bound by flxed tours of duty, but partly because expertice in Antarctic affairs in scare and partly as a result of personal interest and dedication, they too tend to hold long-term membership in "the Club". These are people who meet regularly, who discuss freely and openly17 and who actually enjoy eadl other's company. As one who has had the good tortune to follow developments in the Antarctic Treaty System for twenty years, I can certainly testify to the easy informality and the dedication to cause that prevails within the group. This no doubt has contributed greatly to a quiet 15 "SCAR ~ is a Scientific Committee of ICSU (International Council of Scientific Unions) charged with furthering the coordination of scientific activity in Antarctica, with a view to framing a scientific programme of circumpolar scope and significance -• (SCAR Constitution). 18 In addition to Consultative Meetings, which normally are held every two years, and extraordinary meetings and experts' meetings at irregular intervals, one or more preparatory meetings usually will be held to prepare the agenda of consultative meetings. 1 7 The often strong disagreement between member states on non-antarctic matters, including open hostilities on one occasion (Falkland I Malvinas war), so far has not been allowed to interfere with deliberations within the Antarctic Treaty System - with the one exception that the Soviet Union is not willing to participate if a meeting were to be held in South Africa and, conversely, that South Africa will not participate in the Soviet Union.

Antarctlc TreatySystem

23

effectiveness in the work within the Antarctic Treaty System that may be lacking in other and !arger internationa,l groups. It has been in a sense a "secret weapon" that has offset the weaknesses of Iack of support from a permanent secretariat and of central administrative services, and it has been a contributing cause for successful operation of the Antarctic Treaty. And yet the Antarctic Treaty System is in fact an open system in so far as the Treaty is "open for accession by any State which is a member of the United Nations ... "18 and that any acceding state is entitled to join the twelve original signatories at Consultative Meetings "during such time as that Contracting Party demonstrates its interest in Antarctica by ·conducting substantial scientific research activity there ... "18 The fact that so few states have availed themselves of the opportunity to become involved in the Antarctic Treaty System by joining the consultative procedure20 bears witness to failure on the part of nonparticipants to demoostrate real interest in Antarctica itself and is no proof of exclusivity on the part of "the Club". It may be argued of course that proof of interest in the form of substantial research activity is indeed a high entrance fee and, moreover, that it is unfair to require that a new member must maintain its research to remain a Consultative Party while the twelve original signatories retain "full status" even in periods when they do not carry out any substantive research. This latter fact weakens to some extent the argument that a solid scientific basis is required for the knowledge and understanding upon which decisions and measures for Antarctica should be based - the fund of knowledge that was achieved during the I.G.Y. cannot last forever without renewal and new members may be just as qualified for permanent consultative status through non-permanent research programs as are original members with terminated scientific activity. 18 Art. XIII sec. 1 Antarctic Treaty; the requirement of membership in the UN was definitely political and reflected the fact that the Treaty was negotiated at a time when international tension was high and membership in the UN was still denied to some nations. As an "escape clause" in the Treaty, it was added that in addition to UN members "any other state - may be invited to accede." 19 Art. IX sec. 2 Antarctic Treaty. 20 Under rules adopted at a Special Consultative Meeting in 1971 (on the case of Poland), it was established that "An acceding state whidJ. considers itself entitled to appoint Representatives in accordance with Article IX, sec. 2, shall notify the Depositary Government -·, whereupon the host country for the next ordinary Consultative Meeting, "shall convene a Special Consultative Meeting in order that it may determine, on the basis of information available to it, whether to acknowledge the acceding state -". The procedure thus is through notification and not by application, from the acceding state.

24

Finn Solile

This is not the place to argue the merits of specific details of the application of the principle of a scientific base requirement for participation in the consultative procedure within the Antarctic Treaty System. It should be noted though, that the requirement that acceding parlies must have a continuing research program to maintain consultative status does prevent a development where new parties accede to the Treaty and mount brief, onetime research programs to achieve consultative status only to abandon their interest in the Antarctic region as soon as they have acquired a right to participate in the formulation of measures for Antarctica. Such practices clearly would tend to emphasize the political element in the Antarctic development at the cost of the more "professional" approach based on knowledge and apprecialion of the unique characteristics of the antarctic region. The requirement that a real, scientific interest in Antarctica be demonstrated before consultative status is established clearly has not encouraged accessions to the Antarctic Treaty. During the sixteen years from the Treaty entered into force in 1961 until Poland established consultative status in 1977, no more than seven states deposited instruments of accession21 • The next six years, however, brought nine additional accessions22 and the total nurober of contracting parties (signatories and acceding states) now is close to thirty. A quickening pace of accessions (three in 1978---80, six in 1981-83) might appear to reflect generally increased attention given to the question of mineral resource potentials in Antarctica and a desire to be a participant in an eventual development of those resources. For this reason acceding parties may show an increased tendency to engage in research that will establish consultative status and a right to parlicipate fully in the development within the Antarctic Treaty System. Even so a major rush for membership would not seem to be probable at this time. Active and long-term research programs in Antarctica require an investment in personnel and equipment which relatively few states are able to make and which many governments will hesitate to make as long as the prospect of profitable resource development is uncertain and lies in a still distant future. Thus, while the Treaty and the Treaty System is open to any one willing to join and to make the necessary commitments, there would seem to be a natural upper Iimit of parlies with sufficient interest to pay the actual and full cost of active Antarctic involvement. 11 Poland (1961), Czedloslovakia (1962), Denmark (1965), The Netherlands (1967), Romania (1971), German DemocraUe Republic (1974), Brazil (1975). zz Bulgaria (1978), Federal Republic of Germany (1979), Uruguay (1980), Papua New Guinea (1981), Italy (1981), Peru (1981), Spain (1982), People"s Republic of China (1983), lndia (1983).

Antarctic Treaty System

25

However, the Consultative Parties now have taken one significant step to counteract the aura of exclusiveness around Consultative Meetings where participation is limited and deliberations in general are confidential. At the Twelfth Consultative Meeting in 1983, acceding parties without consultative status were invided for the first time to be present as observers. This does give them an opportunity to follow the development of the Antarctic Treaty at close range and this inside view may give them a better base for their own decisions, notably those that will determine their future policy and role in regard to Antarctica. IV. Avoldlng Conßict The most notable success of the Antarctic Treaty has been its effective prevention of international conflict in the Treaty Area (south of 60° South Latitude) by defusing tension over the potentially explosive sovereignty issue and by avoiding that Antarctica was drawn into the arena of international power politics. Indeed, the Treaty has been so effective in this respect that today it is easy to forget the tension and the risks of political conflict and the dangers of military intervention that did exist before the I.G.Y. and the Antarctic Treaty. The shift from an atmosphere of jealous competition for national influence and control of Antarctic territory to an atmosphere of relaxed international cooperation is in a sense illustrated by the fact that a Norwegian has been invited to speak in Germany on the development of the Antarctic Treaty System. This is in striking contrast to an episode shortly before the Second World War, when Norway and Germany tried to outwit each other in a dramatic play for control of Antarctic territory.23 In December 1938 Norwegian authorities were alarmed by reports that a German ship (S/S "Schwabenland ") was on its way on an expedition to a part of Antarctica where Norwegian expeditions had long been active and where Norway also had significant whaling interests. The circumstances of the expedition, including the degree of secrecy surrounding it and prior German inqlliries about the sector principle and questions about annexation of territory in polar regions, gave every indication that German occupation of that part of Antarctica was imminent and, consequently, that Norway was now in danger of being squeezed out from the coast of the Atlantic sector of the Antarctic. In view of this the Norwegian Government found it necessary to abandon its policy of 13 The description of the episode is based on documentation in official files, and on information given by Adoll Hoel (in manuscript form). Hoel was the director of Norges Ishavs- od Svalbard-unders"kelser (predesessor of the Norwegian Polar Institute) and played a key role in the ploy after having leamed about the German expedition during a visit to Berlin.

26

FinnSollie

non-annexation in Antarctica and by Royal Decree of January 14, 1939, a few days before the "S ·~ 0 !:)) . •"' ..... .....

u Q)

tz..IJ..Ul

...

g~~ory~~~~~

0

the Frendl authorities to foreign and national fishing vessels are granted now only in accordance with the lower level of permissable exploitation. For both the Atlantic and Indian Ocean sectors there is an urgent need for assessing the status of the commercially important fish stocks so as to improve the scientific basis for the consideration of adequate management measures. It appears that this important task must receive high priority now by A.M;L.R. Convention.

80

Dietrich Sahrhage

Rather rough estimates led Russian scientists to the assumption that the overall biomass of the fish resources in the Southern Oceans might be in the order of 15 Mill. tons. Many of these fishes are largely or almost entirely predating on krill, and the total amount of krill eaten by fish has been estimated at araund 25 Mill. tons annually. However, these figures should be treated with reservation since there is presently still a serious Iack of knowledge. The amounts of squid and fish eaten by fish cannot yet be assessed. Cephalopods form another important element within the ecosystem. However, much less is known for them than for fish and krill. Squid are very good swimmers, and it is rather difficult to catch them. Sampling tedmiques are still inadequate. There is no commercial fishery for squ1d in the Antarctic; the southernmost fishery is carried out south of New Zealand on Nototodarus sloani. Squid must be abundant in the Antarctic. This is shown by their common occurrence in the stomach contents of whales (sperm whale}, seals (elephant seal) and birds. The remains, particularly the beaks, indicate that some of these squid must be rather large. Presently it is impossible to even guess how large the cephalopod resources are. lt is thought, however, that squid are major predators on krill and that they also live on fish and feed on other squid. Better knowledge of these resources is urgently required and the development of adequate sampling techniques would be an important step. Turning now to the whales, we are dealing with stocks which have been seriously reduced by man. Whaling in the Antarctic started in 1905 with a basis on South Georgia. It was however mainly after the introduction of the highly effective and mobile pelagic whaling with motherships and catching boats in 1924/25 that the large baleen whale resources were fished down one species after the other (Fig. 10). The main catching areas - which are to a large extent also the areas of high krill concentrations on which the whales feed during the austral summer - are shown in Fig. 11. The arrows indicate the seasonal migrations of the whales leaving the Antarctic waters during winter and returning to the feeding grounds next spring. An International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1946 under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in order to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus ensure the orderly development of the whaling industry. The establishment of a proper longterm management of the whale population tumed out to be a very difficult task. A moratorium on whaling has been adopted recently by IWC to come into effect in 1985/86 and to be reviewed by 1990. Some countries have objected to this moratorium, and Japan and the USSR remain the only countries whaling in the Antarctic.

81

Llving Marine Resources

RECRUITED POPULATION (Thousands)

80~--------------------~ I I

I I

/ ',_1

I

,~

I I

I

························ ~ ··. .,.;"'" 60 -------------------··::~---------------MINKE ~.

50~

·........ . .

HUMPBACK ~

-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-:-·-·, :. . .,

....

\

·.

0 1910

Fig. 10

20

30 40 50 60

·,.

\

'•........

80

Size of baleen whale stodc.s in the Antarctic (after BEDDINGTON and MAY, 1982).

Biological investigations combined with censuses provide estimates for the various whale stock.s and the quantities of krill, squid and fish eaten by these whales (Fig. 12). It has been estimated that the size of the whale stocks today may be only one-third of the original number of whales in the Antarctic. Five large whale species (blue, fin, sei, humpback and minke whales) are mainly feeding on krill, fin and minke whales eating the largest quantities. The sperm whales consume about 4.6 Mill. tons squid annually. 6 Antarctic Challenge

82

Dietrich Sahthage

::}}}}:

lower concentration

::::::::::

higher concentration

. . . . . migration ways edge of the ice shelves

Fig. 11

Main catdling areas for whales in the Southern Oceans and seasonal nugration of whales (modified, after STONEHOUS E, 1972).

Seals are another component of the Antarctic ecosystem with 6 species (Fig. 13). The most numerous is the crabeater seal with about 15 Mill. individuals. They are almost exclusively living on krill, and the annual consumption of krill by this species alone may be estimated at 63 Mill. tons. The other 5 species are much less numerous and less dependent on krill.

83

Llving Marine Resources

Amual food Biomass Consun:'ption in Stock

WHALES

1roo ndiv. J

11000 m~rctJcp!-iill .mt)

.

83o Fin ~-:--~:-~

Sei

Humpback

84

4032

40

709

3

79

I 3.41

~~

o.o3

l16.4l 0.2

o.o1 0.3

12.91 0.03 0.06

~

+

Minke

200

1400

l2nol 0.2

Sperm

43

1200

~

+

0.4 025

Fig. 12

Present size of whale stodts in the Antarctic (1977) and related annual food consumption (after LAWS, 1977).

Annual food Biomass Consumption in Stock

SEALS

((X)() i"ldiv.)

.,. __

-----~-~ 15000 ~·

1000

m:tt;

3000

Ant~~'iillm.tJ

163.21 13

2.0

300

~ @Q] OS

~

Weddell

730

180

Leopard

~ 220

60

Q5

0.1

Q2

~

220

38

0.1

~

Q2

~~

350

17,5

[@

0.1

0.1

Ross Fur Fig. 13

A

Present size of seals stodts in the Antarctic (1977) and related annual food consumption (after LAWS, 1977). 6'

84

Dietrich Sahrhage

Ross and Weddell seals are living near to the Antarctic continent in the dense padt ice areas. Crabeater seals are to be found from the padt ice out to open waters in small ice floe environments. The Ieopard seal, living in similar areas, often solitary, feeds on other seals, particularly young crabeater seals, penguins, but also on krill and fish. Fur and elephant seals are breeding further north on the Antarctic and Subantarctic islands, even north of the Antarctic Convergence. The former is feeding to !arge extent on krill, but also on fish, the latter mainly on cephalopods and fish. Fur seals had been hunted since the early 19th century to near extinction but this hunting faded out until 1919, and later there was a steep increase in the population, particularly on South Georgia. Presently there are 600 000-700 000 fur seals, and there are signs that the speed of the increase is slowing down. Also the elephant seal, the largest seal in the Antarctic, was almost exterminated in the 19th century on South Georgia. Management measures restricted hunting between 1910 and 1964 to adult males only, and since then there was no harvesting. The population increased considerably over the last 50 years. Today any possible future hunting of seals can be regulated under the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, signed in 1972. Fig.14 provides a summary on the estimated numbers and the biomass of Antarctic marine resources, and rough estimates of the quantities of krill, squid and fish eaten by them. For the birds it has been calculated that there is a total biomass of about 850 000 tons with roughly 350 Mill. individuals. They are particularly the penguins, albatrosses and petrels. There are seven species of penguins in the region. They comprise about 87 Ofo of the stodts of birds in the Antarctic (with the Adelie penguin as by far the most important species) and 53 Ofo in the Subantarctic. Birds are supposed to eat annually about 34 Mill. tons of krill, 14 Mill. tons of squid and 8 Mill. tons of fish. However, the figures are still rather rough and some ornithologists consider them as too high. Altogether it has been estimated that whales, seals, birds, fishes and squids consume annually at least 165 Mill. tons of krill, 25 Mill. tons of squ~d, and 17 Mill. tons of fish. This may still be an underestimation since the figures for the consumption by squid are not included due to the ladt of knowledge. Again it is evident that the resources of krill are very large indeed. Through the decrease of the whale population by two-thirds, the amount of krill eaten annually 'by whales may have decreased from 190 Mill. tons to around 40 Mill. tons (Fig. 14). The 150 Mill. tons of

Livlng Marine Resources

85

Stock

(1000 ndiv.l

InitiaL......_.._...,."___

~~ ~-~ 975

WHALES

~~

Present

338

SEALS .~ 17000 3600

[M]

6

8

BIRDS

800

00

14

8

15000

@]

+

+

?

IEJ

+

+

ASHES

0

344000

Fig.14

Living Antarctic marine resources and their estimated annual food consumption in the Antarctic - whales excluding figures for sperm whale shown in Fig. 12 (after LAWS, 1977).

krill now unutilised by whales cannot be expected to float in the sea but other animals within the Antarctic ecosystem have taken advantage of this food surplus to expand their abundance. Likewise the surplus of squid and fish now not consumed by whales is available to other animals. Substantial increases in abundance have in fact been observed for the stocks of several penguin species (Adelie, dlinstrap and gentoo penguins) and some seals (particularly crabeater and fur seals). There are also indications to show that the abundance of minke whales may have increased and that the behaviour of certain whale species c:hanged. Furthermore it can be shown that a more abundant food supply has other biological effects with increased growth and reproductive rates in whales and certain populations of seals. Pregnancy rates of fin, blue and sei whales increased during the last 20 years, the mean age at sexual maturity of female sei and fin whales, and of crabeater seals, decreased (Fig. 15). This means that the animals grow now faster, reac:h maturity earlier and reproduce more, all biological factors whic:h may aceeierate the recovery of the stocks, if they remain strictly protected. This brief outline on the marine living resources may provide some idea on the structure and the complexity of the processes within the Antarctic ecosystem. lt is a great challenge and huge task for science with inten-

86

Dietrich Sahrhage

70

...

J

50

50

30

Fin %pregnant

50

. ~=n-: ·~

Q,

~

50

Blue /o pregnant

30

/l~

.. ~

;, ~

Q,

~

12

10 8

8

6

5

--------

2

4

~

Crabeater seal maturity 1930-31 Fig. 15

50-51 Antarctic season

"'

~ c

3 60-61

"' e

70-71

Changes in pregnancy and age at sexual maturity in some whale and seal species (after LAWS, 1977).

Living Marine Resources

87

sive collection of data and free international collaboration to improve further our knowledge on these valuable resources and on the unique ecosystem. A combination of the sampling of empirical data with the development of mathematical models for the various parts of the Antarctic ecosystem may lead to a better understanding and scientific guidance required by A.M.L.R. Convention to make progress in the proper management of the stocks and the ecosystem. Of special importance is now the development of the management goals.

REFERENCES : BEDDINGTON, J. R. I MAY, R. M., 1982, The harvesting of interacting species in a natural ecosystem, in: Scientific American, vol. 247 (1982), 42-49. BIOMASS 1977, Biological Investigations of Marine Antarctic Systems and Stodcs, vol. 1: ReseardJ. Proposals, Cambridge 1977. BIOMASS 1980, Working Party of Fish Biology, Report of the Second Meeting, 27-31 May 1980, BIOMASS Rept. No. 12, Cambridge 1980. BIOMASS 1981, Biological Investigations of Marine Antarctic Systems and Stodcs, vol. 2: Selected contributions to the Woods Hole Conference on Living Resources of the Southern Ocean 1976, Cambridge 1981. EVERSON, I., 1977, The living resources of the Southern Ocean. FAO Southern Ocean Fisheries Survey Programme GLO/S0/77/1, Rome 1977. FAO 1981, Yearbook of Fishery Statistics, vol. 52, Rome 1981. HEMPEL, G., 1981, Das antarktisdJ.e Okosystem und seine fisdJ.ereilidJ.e Nutzung, in: JahrbudJ. der Wittheit zu Bremen, vol. 25 (1981), 55----68. HUREAU, J. C., 1980, La faune idJ.thyologique du secteur indien de l'ocean antarctique et estimation du stock. de poissons autour des iles Kerguelen, in: Memoirs du Museum National d"Histoire Naturelle, vol. 43 (1980), 235-247. LAWS, R. M., 1977, Seals and whales of the Southern Ocean, in: Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, vol. 279 (1977), 81-96.

88

Dietrieil Sahrhage

MACKINTOSH, N. A., 1912, Life cycle of Antarctic krill in relation to ice and water conditions, in: Discovery Reports, vol. 36 (1912), 1-94. MARR, J. W. S., 1962, The natural history and geography of the antarctic krill (euphansia superea dana), in: Discovery Reports, vol. 32 (1962), 33--464. MOUGIN, J. L. I PREVOST, J., 1980, Evolution annuelle des effectifs et des biomasses des oiseaux antarctiques, in: Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie), vol. 34 (1980), 101-133. STONEHOUSE, B., 1912, Animals of the Antarctic, London, U. K., 1912.

Comment Should One Catch Antarctic Krill or Better Hunt Whales? Sebastian A. Gerlach" Professor Sahrhage in his preceding contribution gave a good illustration about the living resources of the Antarctic region: whales have been exploited too mudl, fish are going to be overexploited, and a large sto