PROFILE: Environmental Impact Assessment Under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

/ Antarctica has been set aside by the international community for protection as a natural reserve and a place for scientific research. Through the Antarctic Treaty of 1961, the signing nations agreed to cooperate in protecting the antarctic environment, in conducting scientific studies, and in abstaining from the exercise of territorial claims. The 1991 signing of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Protocol) by representatives of the 26 nations comprising the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (Parties) significantly strengthened environmental protection measures for the continent. The Protocol required ratification by each of the governments individually prior to official implementation. The US government ratified the Protocol by passage of the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1997. Japan completed the process by ratifying the Protocol on December 15, 1997. US government actions undertaken in Antarctica are subject to the requirements of both the Protocol and the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). There are differences in the scope and intent of the Protocol and NEPA; however, both require environmental impact assessment (EIA) as part of the planning process for proposed actions that have the potential for environmental impacts. In this paper we describe the two instruments and highlight key similarities and differences with particular attention to EIA. Through this comparison of the EIA requirements of NEPA and the Protocol, we show how the requirements of each can be used in concert to provide enhanced environmental protection for the antarctic environment. NEPA applies only to actions of the US government; therefore, because NEPA includes certain desirable attributes that have been refined and clarified through numerous court cases, and because the Protocol is just entering implementation internationally, some recommendations are made for strengthening the procedural requirements of the Protocol for activities undertaken by all Parties in Antarctica. The Protocol gives clear and strong guidance for protection of specific, valued antarctic environmental resources including intrinsic wilderness and aesthetic values, and the value of Antarctica as an area for scientific research. That guidance requires a higher standard of environmental protection for Antarctica than is required in other parts of the world. This paper shows that taken together NEPA and the Protocol call for closer examination of proposed actions and a more rigorous consideration of environmental impacts than either would alone. Three areas are identified where the EIA provisions of the Protocol could be strengthened to improve its effectiveness. First, the thresholds defined by the Protocol need to be clarified. Specifically, the meanings of the terms "minor" and "transitory" are not clear in the context of the Protocol. The use of "or" in the phrase "minor or transitory" further confuses the meaning. Second, cumulative impact assessment is called for by the Protocol but is not defined. A clear definition could reduce the chance that cumulative impacts would be given inadequate consideration. Finally, the public has limited opportunities to comment on or influence the preparation of initial or comprehensive environmental evaluations. Experience has shown that public input to environmental documents has a considerable influence on agency decision making and the quality of EIA that agencies perform.KEY WORDS: Environment; Impact assessment; Antarctica; NEPA; Protocol; Antarctic Treatyhttp://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00267/bibs/24n1p13.html