A VISION FOR ANTARCTICA - THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE

Christchurch Town Hall

Ladies and gentlemen

I am delighted to welcome you all here to Christchurch at the outset of the 21st Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

As Minister responsible for Antarctic affairs and also as Minister for the Environment, I take a keen interest in environmental management. This evening I would like to promote a vision for Antarctica that enhances the protection of the Antarctic environment in a way that sustains the integrity of the continent's ecosystems and meets the aspirations people around the world hold for the continent.

It is a pity that the Committee for Environmental Protection cannot meet for the first time in Christchurch. But I am pleased at the progress that has been made towards ratification of the Madrid Protocol. I hope that it will not be too long before the remaining Parties, Russia and Japan, can complete the necessary formalities.

New Zealand welcomes the dawn of the Protocol era. The Protection of Antarctica is a cause New Zealanders feel strongly about. It has taken too long, in my view, to get where we are today. We must press forward if the world is to see our concerned words for the protection of Antarctica matched by our deeds.

The environment has always been important to Antarcticans: the Protocol takes that recognition to a new level. It rightly sets environmental management alongside peace and science as a fundamental principle of the Antarctic Treaty System.

But it is not, and cannot be, the last word on environmental protection of this great continent and its surrounding seas. The management of the human presence in Antarctica and of human interaction with its immensely valuable eco-systems poses a huge and continuing challenge. The major challenge to the CCAMLR Convention currently being posed by large-scale illegal and unregulated fishing for toothfish is a timely warning of the danger that such interaction can pose for the Antarctic region.

It is also an indication of the major practical difficulties that we face when the determined exploitation of the resources of Antarctica conflicts with the environmental management regime we have set in place. As we are seeing, the lure of big profits threatens the workability and viability of CCAMLR.

The Southern Ocean is a huge ocean. Our ability to use national measures effectively to manage the resources of this region is very limited. To succeed, we must work together collectively. That is the challenge to us all if we are to protect Antarctica.

In the case of fishing there are things that we can do. I hope that in the margins of this meeting CCAMLR parties will be able to work together on ways of combating the threat. We must share information. This will help us to put the spotlight on those who are breaching the CCAMLR regime. There are effective ways of doing this: the use of satellites, tracking fish transhipments, and monitoring major fish markets are all proven means of collecting information. We must encourage new parties to join, to reduce the risk of new flags of convenience, and to put pressure on at ports where catches are landed.

We must look imaginatively at new ways of tackling the problem. Among the ideas that I hope will be looked at are a register of vessels who fish in compliance with the Convention and end-user certificates for the toothfish caught in accordance with CCAMLR regulations.

Illegal and unregulated fishing may be the tip of the exploitation iceberg. Collectively we must rise to this challenge to CCAMLR, or inevitably we shall face the same threats elsewhere in Antarctica.

Our immediate task in Christchurch is to prepare for the Committee for Environmental Protection. I am confident that this year's final meeting of the Transitional Environmental Working Group will set in place firm foundations for the Committee by finalising its Rules of Procedure and the process by which it is given its mandate by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM).

The Committee will be the ATCM's specialist advisory body on the Protocol. Our approach to its substantive work should be far-sighted and bold - and not be based on minimalist and grudging acceptance of the need for environmental protection. It should also be marked by urgency. Antarctica is no longer protected by remoteness and distance. Improved technology, transport and communications are offering new ways of accessing Antarctica the year-round.

Virtually every other part of the world has been irrevocably transformed by humankind - some parts over millennia, in most of New Zealand only a few generations ago. I should explain to delegates that it is the very recent nature of the ecological transformation of this micro-continent that probably influences New Zealand views. These were the last major islands on the face of the planet to be reached by human beings. Just 1000 years ago there were no people here. Less than a millennium has seen dramatic ecological changes at great cost to the indigenous biota of these islands. Polynesian and in particular European colonists set in train mass extinctions. Such extinctions have been part and parcel of the spread of human civilisation over the last million years. For the people of the long-settled continents, these extinctions are in the palaeontological record, far distant from human memory. Here in New Zealand that memory is alive and current. That is why New Zealanders feel so keenly that this generation has, for the last time in history, the chance to handle human contact with an hitherto largely isolated environment in an ecologically responsible way.

The fragility of the continent's dependent and associated eco-systems is unchanged. And it is under challenge as never before, both from direct impact and from impacts originating well beyond the continent. Changes can happen with dramatic speed. Our Treaty System must be able to respond quickly and effectively to those changes.

New Zealand strongly believes that we must have a process that enables the Committee to work intersessionally. Otherwise we find it hard to see how the Committee will be able to develop and maintain momentum. We also expect the Transitional Environmental Working Group to identify ways of progressing work on key issues prior to ATCM XXII and prior to the formal establishment of the Committee.

We can indicate our purposefulness and concern at the outset by identifying at ATCM XXI key priority tasks for the Committee for Environmental Protection.

We see State of the Environment reporting for Antarctica in this category. A Report will provide essential benchmarking against which future human activities on the continent can be assessed.

We should also consider how to develop our system of Environmental Impact Assessment to make it more useful, and how to ensure effective response action should environmental disruption or disaster happen.

But an Environmental Impact Assessment alone will clearly not be enough. Clear focus at the wider political level on the values of Antarctica that we are committed to uphold is needed.

That requires us to take a broader view of the issues facing the continent and its seas. I assume that none of us want it to become a great ``theme park'' where all sorts of different activities are promoted and encouraged? Already New Zealand is finding in its management of tourism and non-government activities in the Ross Sea region, that tour operators are ever more ingenious in the provision of experiences and opportunities for their clients.

It is our view that such activities must be conducted in a way that is compatible with the over-riding integrity of Antarctic eco-systems.

We must also reaffirm our commitment to the Protocol in our national practices. We are all aware of the complexities of jurisdiction that have remained unresolved. These should not be allowed to obstruct us. We can all work together to develop common standards and to aspire to best practice in our management of Antarctica.

We must also think constructively and imaginatively about the cost consequences of what we propose. We are rightly seeking to impose significant compliance costs on scientists, national programmes and others working in Antarctica where they are justified by the common goal of wise environmental management. However, as New Zealand has found, we are also imposing a not inconsiderable burden on our own taxpayers who are funding much of the work we are doing to meet the costs associated with the Protocol's implementation.

We need to be able to talk about cost-recovery in a businesslike and practical way while ensuring that we do not challenge the principles set out in Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. It is, in our view, only proper that a fair proportion of the costs of management, protection or remediation borne by those whose activities have necessitated protective measures and remedial action.

New Zealand has worked very hard in recent years to put flesh on the bones of the Protocol. We have sought to develop practical approaches to implementation in our national practice. We have developed guidelines and procedures for managing visitors to the Ross Sea region, for example. And we have tried to do so by working with our partners and friends, especially those with whom we work closely in the Ross Sea region.

Tonight I am announcing two new initiatives by New Zealand related to the Ross Sea region which are aimed at stimulating and aiding the work of the Committee for Environmental Protection..

The Ross Sea region is a particularly important part of Antarctica. It is a superb access point to the continent. It contains half of the continent's ice-free land. It incorporates extraordinary natural, physical and historical features. And it is an area where several nations work co-operatively together. New Zealanders are acutely conscious that what happens here affects Antarctica as a whole.

First, I have instructed our delegation to begin work on a framework for a Ross Sea region State of the Environment Report, with a target date of the year 2000. Our feasibility studies will be based on our national experience with State of the Environment reporting, and will draw on the advice and expertise of the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research. This report, whose parameters will be eco-systemic, rather than political, will be a bench-mark study for the region. It will be a major contribution towards an Antarctic-wide State of the Environment Report.

Secondly, I have asked our delegation to begin discussions with our partners in the Ross Sea on a comprehensive Antarctic Specially Managed Area that could embrace most of the Ross Sea region. The area would incorporate existing protected areas which will be designated as Antarctic Specially Managed Areas and Antarctic Specially Protected Areas once the Protocol is in force. It will enhance well-coordinated management of the many and diverse activities in the Ross Sea region. It will also enable us, in a cost-effective way, to identify gaps in our knowledge and to build up the information we need to ensure that the dependent and associated eco-systems of the whole Ross Sea region are identified, afforded specific protection and managed in such a way as to protect the special values of the region in line with our vision for Antarctica.

We look forward to discussing these ideas with Parties both in this year's final meeting of the Transitional Environmental Working Group, and in the Committee for Environmental Protection when it meets for the first time at the 22nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.