From D. J. DREWRY
The article ‘British plans for Antarctic station cause alarm’ (This
Week, 6 April) presents an inaccurate, biased and emotional view of the
environmental situation at the British Antarctic Survey’s research station
at Signy Island.
BAS wishes to replace the ageing accommodation and scientific facilities
at Signy to improve its ability to support the high demand for quality research
at a location which is addressing topics of global relevance, ranging from
ecological processes, population dynamics and survival strategies to climate
change. It has the longest record of environmental monitoring of ecological
change anywhere in Antarctica and has produced over 300 referred scientific
papers during the last 10 years (not 200 in total as quoted by Michael Cross).
BAS prepared and published an Initial Environmental Evaluation to address
specifically the impact that might result from an expansion from 27 to a
maximum of 40 personnel at the station. The IEE was circulated for comment
to eminent scientists, and to participants in the Special Antarctic Treaty
meeting Chile in November 1990; this included Antarctic Treaty consultative
parties as well as non-governmental organisations. To date no adverse comments
have been received by BAS. It is only through feedback that modifications
and improvements can be made. No reference to this consultation process
was made in New Scientist. The rebuilding will, in any case, be the subject
of a full and detailed Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation, before any
work is undertaken, which will be widely circulated for comment.
The IEE deals with the general effects of rebuilding the station, the
removal and disposal of the old structures, the improvement to waste disposal
and the wider impacts on Signy Island. It concludes that a potential increase
to 40 scientific and support personnel will not be significant providing
there is strict enforcement of waste disposal regulations and establishment
of new codes of conduct for personnel.
Advertisement
Michael Cross recounts a Greenpeace view that because of the serious
science activity at Signy, it should be judged more harshly. I repudiate
this view. All stations should strive to achieve the best environmental
practice possible; that some stations undertake little effective science
as a benefit to balance their impact is the real scandal.
D. J. Drewry Director British Antarctic Survey Cambridge
