Abstract:/ 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

Antarctica as a global protected area: perceptions and reality

DEEP-SEA mining: Policy options to preserve the last frontier - Lessons from Antarctica’s mineral resource convention

Governing International Spaces: Antarctica And Beyond

Preservation amenity, research laboratory, or mineral reserve? International perspectives on the values of Antarctica

Cleaning up after human activity in Antarctica: legal obligations and remediation realities

IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM

The Antarctic Specially Protected Species conservation management tool: Development, use and future outlook

Sustained Antarctic Research: A 21st Century Imperative

Antarctic Governance:From ATCM towards a Permanent Antarctic Organization?

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

How to Perceive National Governance Networks in the Global Commons of the Earth's Surface: A Case Study of the Antarctic

Governing the Antipodes: International Cooperation in Antarctica and the Arctic

Environmental contamination in Antarctic ecosystems

Threat management priorities for conserving Antarctic biodiversity

How the COVID-19 pandemic signaled the demise of Antarctic exceptionalism

Systematic conservation planning for Antarctic research stations

Mapping scientific fieldwork data: a potential tool for improving and strengthening Antarctic Specially Protected Areas as an effective measure for protecting Antarctic biodiversity

Geophysics in Antarctic Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA): a case study at Rothera Point providing tools and perspectives for the implementation of the ASPA network

What are the real environmental impacts of Antarctic tourism? Unveiling their importance through a comprehensive meta-analysis

The Arctic Science Agreement Propels Science Diplomacy.