Antarctica (Hansard, 10 December 1990)

§ Mr. Hill
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusions between the treaty parties that met in Santiago de Chile to discuss exploitation of minerals and environmental protection for Antarctica; and what conclusion was made on a percentage of the land mass to be used as a wildlife park.

Mr. Garet-Jones
The meeting, which was called by the United Kingdom and Chile, ended on 7 December. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment.
A communiqué will be issued by the conference secretariat in due course, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House.

§ Sir Richard Body
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the countries represented at the conference on Antarctica which support a ban of future mineral mining and those which do not do so.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Of the consultative parties to the Antarctic treaty, Australia, France, Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden and Peru supported the call for a total ban on mining; the remaining 18 consultative parties (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Germany, India, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, China, Poland, South Korea, South Africa, Spain, USSR, USA, United Kingdom and Uruguay) did not.

§ Sir Richard Body
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he now supports a permanent ban on mineral mining in Antarctica.

§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Our primary objective is to achieve a return to consensus within the Antarctic treaty system. There remain differing views on how best to achieve this, and we remain prepared to discuss the options. We do not believe that a permanent ban on mineral activity will achieve a consensus which is rational and scientifically based.