sultations until many of the troubling uncertainties we face areremoved. Let us not deceive ourselves. Global events since thelast meeting in Wellington cannot be ignored, despite the veryreal uncertainties we face on these questions at this time. It isprudent to address this issue at an early time to avoid possiblefuture events that may not be in the best interest of all the gov-ernments represented here today. As the distinguished ForeignMinister of Norway suggested, leaps in technology in the con-text of changing world resources markets could outstrip ourability to control events which may shape our common destiny.

Mr. Chairman, let me be frank. The Antarctic Treaty doesnot refer to the exploration and exploitation of mineral re-sources. Such activities, in our view, are a permitted peacefuluse of the area. Certain provisions of the treaty would, of course,apply. Nonetheless, it can be expected that, in the absence of ashared understanding on the mineral resources question, gov-ernments will respond to any mineral resource activities in Ant-arctica in accordance with their underlying juridical positions.

The views of my government in this connection are wellknown. We, as well as several other states, do not consider thatany part of Antarctica is subject to the sovereignty of any state.

The views of some other governments represented in thisroom are clearly contrary to the views of my government. Thesituation is further complicated by overlapping and conflictingclaims.

These contrary views would result in serious problems shouldmineral resources be found in commercially attractive quanti-ties. In the absence of a shared understanding, those countrieswho do not recognize claims to sovereignty would surely haveto assert the right to commence mineral activities at their will,subject only to applicable provisions of the Antarctic Treaty.Those who have made claims to sovereignty would contest thatview.

Such a result would not be a happy one from the standpointof our mutual concerns. In the absence of a "common under-standing without preconceived ideas" as called for by you, Mr.Chairman, the environmental risks from mineral resources ac-

tivities, which are of greatest direct concern to those nearestAntarctica, could threaten our mutual interests in preservingthe antarctic environment. The precious scientific laboratorywhich the Antarctic Treaty was intended to preserve could bedestroyed. Living organisms in the region that are of commer-cial or scientific interest would be placed in jeopardy.

Mr. Chairman, the governments represented here todaywould be placed in an awkward position, indeed, should theseevents come to pass, or even threaten to come to pass. Our con-sultations over the years have consistently indicated a commonperception that Antarctica will better benefit mankind throughcontinued cooperation by the twelve. I suggest that we wouldbe hard-pressed to maintain this pattern of cooperation in theface of dissension over the mineral resources of Antarctica.

Mr. Chairman, this bleak picture goes to the heart of theprinciples and purposes for which our governments created theAntarctic Treaty—a treaty that has served us well. This is apicture of international discord, with Antarctica the scene andantarctic mineral resources the object.

The distinguished delegate of Belgium was correct when hesaid that the resources question could either destroy the treatyor put it on a stronger footing. The opening statements onMonday made it clear that all of our governments prefer tostrengthen the Antarctic Treaty and not destroy it. However,this broadly shared sentiment is not enough to avoid the dis-cord I referred to earlier.

My delegation is prepared to consult on the concrete prin-ciples and objectives which should guide our future considera-tion of this issue. In this connection, we call your attention toour preliminary views as presented in our opening statement.We welcome a full and frank exchange of views and will partici-pate to the end that all of us can leave this delightful city satis-fied that we have done our best to pursue our common interest.

A number of delegates have said here that time is running out.We do not believe that time has run out or that we cannot beatthe clock if we all approach this question with appropriateseriousness of purpose, in a constructive and statesmanlikeframe of mind.

Living resources of the southern ocean

SAVED Z. EL-SAVEDDepartment of Oceanography

Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas 77843

In recent years the world has witnessed a growinginterest in living resources of the southern ocean.Notable among these resources are those of marineanimals (whales and seals), the krill (Euphausiasuperba), fishes, squid, spiny lobsters, and king crab(figure 1). For hundreds of years the cold waters ofthe Northern Hemisphere have provided the bulkof the world's fish catch. With the burgeoninghuman demand for animal protein, attention isbeing focused on development and exploitation ofthe resources of tropical and antarctic waters.

Enormous resources

There is little doubt that, compared to the tra-ditionally exploited fisheries, the antarctic marineliving resources are enormous. Their magnitudeand distribution in the southern ocean have beendiscussed recently (El-Sayed, 1975). As an indica-tion of the richness of these resources, the stand-ing stocks of antarctic krill have been estimated tobe from several hundred million tons to 5 billiontons (figure 2). Thus krill is the world's largest

8

ANTARCTIC JOURNAL

Marine Mammals

1 Whales

Blue

Humpback

Sei

Minke

Southern right

Sperm

2 Seals

Crabeater

Weddell

Leopard

Ross

Elephant

Fur

Plants

3Seaweeds

Crustaceans

4Krill

5Spiny lobster Jlalandis

6King crab Lhd

Molluscs

7Squid

Fishes

8Nototheniids

9Antarctic cod Ditih(,

11Pollack

12Hake Merluccius hubbsi

13Rat tail M

" T

Figure 1. Living resources of the southern ocean.

single remaining unexploited resource. Fishery ex-perts predict that 100 million tons of krill could betaken annually without depleting these stocks. Thelatter figure is slightly less than double the 1973world fish and shellfish catch.

With such high stakes, a number of countries areexploiting these resources, while others are plan-ning exploitation. Of the former, the Soviet Unionand Japan are well advanced in krill harvestingtechniques; the Soviets are using three 3,500-tonstern trawlers, and the Japanese are using two. Asof this writing, West Germany has sent its researchship Walther Herweg, together with a commercialtrawler, to investigate krill catching and to do re-search on potential fishery of other species. Polandhas dispatched its research ship Professor Siedleckiand a fishing trawler to the Drake Passage and theWeddell Sea. Norway is developing plans for a krillexpedition. Other nations likely to become inter-ested are Chile, Argentina, South Africa, France,and Brazil.

Need for data

Scientists and several international organizationshave expressed concern over the need for propermanagement and conservation of the antarctic re-sources. The tragic history of whaling in the Ant-arctic is a painful reminder of the consequencesof irrational exploitation. The scientists are con-cerned because no one has adequate informationregarding the magnitude of these stocks. For in-stance, we have only very rough estimates of krillstocks, so rough that they cannot be used for man-agement decisions. We have no data on the density,dimensions, and distribution of krill swarms. Wevirtually have no estimates of the abundance andbiomass of fish populations, and we know next tonothing about antarctic squid. Yet, good conserva-tion and management depend on a continuing flowof data and information regarding these resources.

March 1976 9

The problem is further complicated when weconsider the complex interactions among seals,whales, sea birds, penguins, and fish—all compet-ing for food, mainly krill. Because krill is the keyspecies of this antarctic ecosystem, unwise exploita-tion of krill could trigger disastrous changesthroughout the ecosystem.

Organizational interests

Among the nongovernmental internationalbodies with interests in southern ocean resourcesare SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Re-search) and SCOR (Scientific Committee on OceanicResearch), both of the International Council ofScientific Unions (icsu). Among the interestedintergovernmental organizations (in the UnitedNations system) are the Intergovernmental Ocean-ographic Commission (ioc) of UNESCO, the Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the Inter-

national Whaling Commission (iwc). The AntarcticTreaty nations are of course highly interested. Theinterests of these groups are complementary ratherthan overlapping. The possibility for duplicationand conflict is dealt with through full exchange ofinformation among the different bodies.

SCAR has played a key role with regard to ex-ploitation of antarctic living resources. In August1972, its biology working group established a sub-committee on the marine living resources of thesouthern ocean. The subcommittee first met in May1974 at McGill University (Montreal, Canada), inconjunction with the SCOR/SCAR Polar Oceans Con-ference. At this meeting the subcommittee de-veloped a series of recommendations. One stated:

Because of the significant role played by krill in the ant-arctic marine ecosystem, and because of our concern for thewise management of krill stocks, we recommend that effortsshould be made to continue and expand investigations ofbiology, ecology, and population dynamics of krill, and of thedistribution of its swarms. We also recommend that in esti-

/ :. rguelen Is

Weddell Se

liki'Region of knit distribution

-Regions of heavy knit concentrationFigure 2. Krill distribution

in the southern ocean.

10 ANTARCTIC JOURNAL

mating the size of these stocks, modern techniques such asecho-sounding surveys should be used in addition to net hauls.

In another recommendation, the subcommitteewrote:

In view of the enormous gaps in our knowledge of thestocks of such potentially important and presently under-exploited fisheries resources as the cephalopods, pelagic anddemersal fishes, we urgently recommend that in-depth studiesof the biology, distribution, biomass, and population dynamicsof these resources he undertaken.

Perhaps the most significant recommendation ofthe Montreal meeting was number 5:

We call attention to the significance of the biological oceano-graphic studies in the southern ocean as prerequisites for thewise management of these resources. We wish to express ourconcern at the deceleration of many biological studies aboardresearch vessels in the southern waters. We realize the enor-mous difficulties of undertaking the formidable task of study-ing the marine ecosystem of the vast expanses of the southernocean when only one or two oceanographic ships are utilized.We therefore recommend that a well-coordinated InternationalBiological Investigation of the Southern Ocean (IBISO), uti-lizing multiple ships, be undertaken.

The objectives of IBISO might include:a. The study of the trophodynamics of the ant-

arctic ecosystem;b. the provision of data/information for the

conservation and wise management of theliving resources of the southern ocean;

c. the provision of data/information for moni-toring pollutants at all levels in the food weband in the water column.

The Montreal recommendations were approvedby the 13th meeting of SCAR in September 1974and by the International Coordination Group forthe Southern Ocean of JOC at its meeting in BuenosAires, Argentina, in July 1974. In March 1975, theexecutive council of IOC invited the SCAR subcom-mittee "to prepare practical proposals for collabo-rative investigations in biological oceanography inthe area and to prepare proposals for workingtowards the organization of multiship studies forsubmission to SCAR and SCOR, and through themto the JOC International Coordination Group."

The Antarctic Treaty signatories at their eighthconsultative meeting in Oslo, Norway, in June 1975urged SCAR "to continue its scientific work on thesematters and to consider convening, as soon as prac-ticable, a meeting to discuss current work and re-port on programs for the study of conservation ofantarctic marine living resources."

SCARJSCOR group of specialists

In recognition of these new responsibilities, SCAR,at its executive meeting in June 1975, upgradedthe status of the marine living resources subcom-mittee to a group of specialists. The terms ofreference adopted for this group are:

(1) To assess the present state of knowledge ofthe antarctic marine ecosystem from thepoint of view of structure, dynamic func-tions, and biomass of the organisms at dif-ferent trophic levels.

(2) To encourage and stimulate investigations ofthe ecology and population dynamics of theorganisms at different trophic levels withparticular references to krill, squid, fishesand whales.

(3) To maintain liaison with FAO.(4) To advise SCAR and SCOR and through them

other international organizations and in par-ticular to respond to relevant recommenda-tions of toc and the Antarctic Treaty con-sultative meetings.

In response to LOC and Antarctic Treaty requests,the SCAR group of specialists on living resourcesof the southern ocean first convened at ScottPolar Research Institute in Cambridge, England,6-8 October 1975. Members present were: S. Z.El-Sayed (United States; convenor), J A. Gulland(FAO), J . C. Hureau (France), R. M. Laws (UnitedKingdom), T. Nemoto (Japan), G. G. Newman(South Africa), and A. P. Tomo (Argentina).Members absent were: G. A. Knox (New Zealand),G. Hempel (International Association of BiologicalOceanographers), and D. B. Siniff (United States).Also attending were: S. J . Holt (FAO), 0. Mama-yev (toC), and several staff members of the BritishAntarctic Survey. Members added to the groupsince the Cambridge meeting are: David Tranter(Australia), Steinar Olsen (Norway), and I. G.Lubimova (Soviet Union).

Research planning

As a result of its 3 days of deliberation, the groupfound it necessary, as a first step, to review all exist-ing information and to bring together knowledgeof ongoing and presently planned programs ofmarine biological investigations. Members of thegroup will provide this document. The group alsowill prepare practical proposals for longer termcooperative investigation, which should includemultiship studies. Experts from the SCAR countriesand other knowledgeable persons will help draftand review this proposal.

March 1976 11

The group welcomed the offer of the UnitedStates to host a scientific meeting on the living re-sources of the southern ocean. The meeting willbe held under the auspices of the Polar ResearchBoard of the U.S. National Academy of Sciencesin Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 17-21 August 1976.Members of the group of specialists will serve as thesteering committee for this international meeting.Inquiries should be addressed to Louis DeGoes,executive secretary, Polar Research Board, Na-tional Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.20418.

In view of the objectives of the meeting and thefact that the accommodations at the proposed meet-ing place are limited, the group recommended thatthe meeting be restricted to no more than 60specialists. All international organizations with sig-nificant interests in antarctic marine living re-sources will be invited to designate participants tothe meeting. These organizations will include: SCOR(which, at the invitation of SCAR to cosponsor thegroup, designated the group of specialists as SCOR

working group 54), IABO (International Associa-tion for Biological Oceanography), IUBS (Interna-tional Union of Biological Sciences), bc, FAO, iwc,United Nations Environmental Program, UnitedNations Development Program, and the Perma-nent South Pacific Commission.

One hopes that, through the discussions of theseexperts at Woods Hole, steps will be taken to givea scientific foundation for development and wisemanagement of antarctic living marine resources.The meeting also will provide an opportunity toset a standard for international cooperation inconservation of these resources.

Reference

El-Sayed, S. Z. 1975. Biology of the southern ocean. Oceanus,18(4): 40-49.

Shallow-water marine associations,Antarctic Peninsula

T. E. DELACA and JERE H. LisDepartment of Geology

andInstitute of' Ecology

University of California, DavisDavis, California 95616

Since 1971 we have investigated the distributionand the ecology of shallow-water benthos on theAntarctic Peninsula, with particular emphasis onforaminifera. Our surveys demonstrated that fora-minifera were distributed heterogeneously in shal-low-water areas. Several species of foraminiferawere consistently found to co-occur in large num-bers, living on various invertebrates and on thefronds of certain macroalgae. To understand fora-minifera distributions, we surveyed macroalgaeand invertebrates in the immediate vicinity of An-vers Island (64°46'S. 64°04'W.) and, in a more cur-sory fashion, at many other places along the Penin-sula (figure 1). These investigations were based onthe premise that the distribution of some fora-

minifera is correlated with the distribution of theseinvertebrates and algae.

From these surveys we have determined the char-acteristic species and their associates in portions ofArthur Harbor (figures 2 and 3) and the variabilityof these associations along the Antarctic Peninsula.Previous surveys of plant and animal distributionshave been reported by others (for example, Neu-shul, 1964; Délépineetal., 1966; McCain and Stout,1969; Hedgpeth, 1971; Castellanos, 1973; Bellisioet al., 1972; Skottsberg, 1941), but their results wereusually based on a small number of observationsover a short period of time. Our observations andresults are based on year-round underwater workfrom December 1971 to March 1975, including

12 ANTARCTIC JOURNAL