In 1985 the David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies decided to embark on a study of the future of Antarctica. I was invited to chair a Group to produce a book covering the principal aspects of this subject. What follows is the result of our work which has extended over several meetings and a period of about eighteen months.

There is no doubt about the timeliness of this exercise. Many factors are converging in such a way as to oblige governments and other interested bodies to focus their attention on developments in and regarding Antarctica. First, the Antarctic Treaty contains a provision which could open the way for proposals from within the membership for modification or amendment of the Treaty after the expiration of 30 years from its entry into force. This date, 1991, is getting close. Second, an outside challenge to the continuation of the Treaty in its present form has been gathering momentum at the United Nations since 1982. A group of non-aligned States, led by Malaysia, have been canvassing the argument that the present arrangements are too exclusive, particularly in the light of the possibility, however remote, of commercial exploitation of Antarctic mineral and other resources. They are advocating that a more universal system should be negotiated in replacement or extension of the Antarctic Treaty: this would apply to the continent the notion of the ‘common heritage of mankind’ as enshrined in the Convention on the Law of the Sea, thus bringing Antarctica into line with the concepts of the New International Economic Order.

The Antarctic amounts to nearly one-tenth of the land surface of our planet and a tenth of the world ocean. This significant geographical extent, if for no other reason, calls for research activities, but the general case is strengthened by the following considerations. It is the highest and coldest continent by virtue of its polar position, which results in all but 2 per cent of the land surface being covered by ice (over 4 km thick in places). It was the ‘keystone’ of the former supercontinent of Gondwana, and hence of great interest in terms of plate tectonics. As the strongest cooling centre of the global system it has importance for meteorological and climatic studies. Its isolation from the other continents by a wide and deep ocean is in part responsible for the fact that it is still relatively unaffected by man, and therefore provides a baseline for studies on global pollution of various kinds. Finally, a number of biological problems can be better studied there than anywhere else, and a vast, unplanned, long-term perturbation experiment caused by the over-exploitation of the southern stocks of whales provides further unique opportunities to study interactions within a marine ecosystem.

An additional advantage of the Antarctic for scientific research is the unparalleled political situation which exists there: the absence of national boundaries under the Antarctic Treaty helps to promote large-scale international co-operation in scientific programmes.

Since the first decade of its existence the United Nations has devoted much time and effort to the achievement of two objectives, namely decolonisation and universality. Both have now, to all intents and purposes, been achieved. The European empires have disappeard, giving way to an array of newly independent States in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. The founding membership of the United Nations in 1945 of 51 States has risen to the present total of 159. Where there were originally twelve African and Asian member State, there are now no fewer than 90. With the exception of one or two disputed territories and unresolved problems of self-determination such as the two Koreas and Namibia, it is true to say that every State in the world which feels itself capable, in terms of economic base and size of population, of sustaining the obligations of membership, is now part of the international community.

It can therefore be assumed that, in the decades to come, there will be no significant change in the composition of the United Nations. By the same token it can also be assumed, although with less absolute certainty, that the present politico-economic groupings into which the world is divided will persist, namely the Group of 77 (G77) (which comprises 127 developing countries, including all 101 members of the politically important Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)), Group B (roughly speaking the members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)), and Group D (the Soviet Union and the States of Eastern Europe).

Reading this extravagent assertion about the search [sic] for hydrocarbons in Antarctica, one immediately asks how this accords with the facts. Even assuming that there are hydrocarbon or other mineral resources, could they be exploited economically and in an environmentally acceptable way? To what extent could the experience of mineral exploitation in the Arctic be extrapolated to the Antarctic? These are just a few of the many questions that come to mind. This chapter attempts to assess the likelihood of mineral exploration and exploitation in the light of what is known and, more importantly, what is not known about Antarctica.

In the world of international political affairs Antarctica has been the forgotten continent. Notorious for its harsh climate, renowned for the heroism which characterised its discovery and exploration, appreciated for its spectacular beauty, Antarctica was for most purposes simply there, a standing challenge to human endeavour. Although occasionally the scene of events bringing it to temporary notice, Antarctica's dominant international characteristic was its obscurity.

That obscurity is disappearing. Antarctica is now thought about and discussed not only by States with a direct and active interest in Antarctica but also by States which in the past have never given it more than a passing thought. Each year since 1983 Antarctica has been on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly, current interest beginning with the statement made in the General Assembly in 1982 by Dr Mahathir, Prime Minister of Malaysia. As a factor in international relations it can no longer be ignored, and as a possible source of friction between States, its future calls for the most careful and responsible consideration.

Antarctica's future is rooted in its present, in the form of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and the developments which have flowed from it since its entry into force in 1961, and which together now comprise the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). But that Treaty did not emerge in a vacuum and the immediate background to it is relevant to both its present significance and its future value.

For many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) the current interest in the future of the Antarctic has been a wonderful opportunity. Where else can one at the same time question concepts of sovereignty, security, international equity, the environment and the rule of international law, without regard to indigenous people? Where else can the untouched beauty of the Earth be presented so evocatively, and the opportunity for political adventurism, or even mischief making – all in the name of ideals – be so easily secured? Yet when all the initial rhetoric of the campaigners is peeled away what remains is not entirely clear, or straightforward. It is easy enough for them to call for ‘internationalising the area’, ‘creating a World Park’, and ‘opening up the Antarctic system’, but when the implications of such demands are understood in terms of continued demilitarisation, non-exploitation or regulated exploitation of resources, and modifications to the sovereignty claims, then their demands become mixed up with the realities of political power and, as a result, become less clear.

Contrary to popular belief many of the demands of the NGOs are hardly radical. Greenpeace International, for example, does not call for the abolition of the Antarctic Treaty, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) has modified its original demands for a World Park in Antarctica. When faced with the representatives of governments the leaders of most organisations appear to be open to argument and compromise.

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

The Contracting Parties,

Recognising the importance of safeguarding the environment and protecting the integrity of the ecosystem of the seas surrounding Antarctica;

Noting the concentration of marine living resources found in Antarctic waters and the increased interest in the possibilities offered by the utilization of these resources as a source of protein;

Conscious of the urgency of ensuring the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources;

Considering that it is essential to increase knowledge of the Antarctic marine ecosystem and its components so as to be able to base decisions on harvesting on sound scientific information;

Believing that the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources calls for international co-operation with due regard for the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, and with the active involvement of all States engaged in research or harvesting activities in Antarctic waters;

Recognising the prime responsibilities of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties for the protection and preservation of the Antarctic environment and, in particular, their responsibilities under Article IX, paragraph l(f) of the Antarctic Treaty in respect of the preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica;

Recalling the action already taken by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties including in particular the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, as well as the provisions of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals;

Bearing in mind the concern regarding the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources expressed by the Consultative Parties at the Ninth Consultative Meeting of the Antarctic Treaty and the importance of the provisions of Recommendation IX-2 which led to the establishment of the present Convention;

There are two potential conservation threats posed by activities in the Antarctic: the over-exploitation of living resources, and the impact on the ecological systems of human activities such as the logistic support of scientific expeditions, tourism and mineral exploitation. These two aspects are explored in turn below. In each case the problems of reconciling conservation and development within Antarctica are complicated by the fact that the ownership of the area is either in dispute or in doubt.

Exploitation of living resources

In the case of direct exploitation of Antarctic living resources we are concerned only with the marine environment. This is particularly a problem since the Southern Ocean is one of the few areas where productive continental shelf waters do not lie within an operating 200-mile EEZ (the exception within the Southern Ocean being around the lies de Kerguelen, where the French authorities have imposed one). It is thus comparable to most of the waters over continental shelves in the pre-UNCLOS era. Much of the over-exploitation of the world's fish resources that occurred in the years before UNCLOS was directly attributable to this lack of ownership. Hardin's ‘tragedy of the commons’ has a direct parallel in fisheries where, in the absence of control, new investment is attracted into a fishery until profitability is entirely dissipated and the resource depleted.

Introduction

Réunion is the largest and least ecologically disturbed of the Mascarene Islands, but has nevertheless lost more of its original avifauna than Mauritius (Chapter 1). Only the Réunion Cuckoo-shrike Coracina newtoni is rare and at risk, and for that reason more time was devoted to it than to the other species. Gill (1971a, 1973b) has considered the ecology of the two native white-eyes Zosterops spp., and Clouet (1976, 1978) has studied the harrier Circus maillardi, but little other ecological work has been published since that of Pollen (Schlegel & Pollen 1868). Berlioz (1946) compiled a check-list, which Milon (1951) corrected and augmented, and more recently an identification guide has appeared (Barré & Barau 1982). Barré's important paper (1983) appeared too late for full consideration here.

I visited Réunion five times during 1973-5, for a total of 12 weeks: 29 October to 12 November 1973, 25 April to 26 May, 7-27 August (with my brother, Dr R. A. Cheke (RAQ), and 1-26 November (with Ms R. E. Ashcroft (REA)) 1974, with a very brief stopover, 12-14 February 1975.1 made a further short visit from 10 to 12 October 1978. Dr A. W. Diamond (AWD) was on the island in January 1975, and has kindly allowed me to use his notes on his visit to the Plaine des Chicots; I have also been able to use information from M. Harry Gruchet (HG), curator of the natural history museum in St.-Denis, M. Charles Armand Barau (CAB), M. Théophane Bègue (TB), gamekeeper at the Plaine des Chicots, Dr M. de L. Brooke (MdeLB), M. Nicolas Barré (NB), Dr Michel Clouet (MC), Mr M. J. E. Coode (MJEC), M. Emile Hugot (EH), M. Bertrand Trolliet (BT) and Messrs A. Forbes-Watson, S. Keith and D. A. Turner (cited as AFW).