The ANTOSTRAT Legacy: Science Collaboration and International Transparency in Potential Marine Mineral Resource Exploitation of Antarctica Alan Cooper, Peter Barker, Peter Barrett, John Behrendt, Giuliano Brancolini, Jonathan Childs, Carlota Escutia, Wilfried Jokat, Yngve Kristoffersen, German Leitchenkov, Howard Stagg, Manabu Tanahashi, Nigel Wardell, and Peter Webb ABSTRACT. The Antarctic Offshore Stratigraphy project ( ANTOSTRAT; 1989?2002) was an extremely successful collaboration in international marine geological science that also lifted the perceived ?veil of secrecy? from studies of potential exploitation of Antarctic marine mineral resources. The project laid the groundwork for circum- Antarctic seismic, drilling, and rock coring programs designed to decipher Antarctica?s tectonic, stratigraphic, and climate histories. In 2002, ANTOSTRAT evolved into the equally successful and cur- rently active Antarctic Climate Evolution research program. The need for, and evolution of, ANTOSTRAT was based on two simple tenets within SCAR and the Antarctic Treaty: international science collaboration and open access to data. The ANTOSTRAT project may be a helpful analog for other regions of strong international science and geopolitical interests, such as the Arctic. This is the ANTOSTRAT story. ANTARCTIC OFFSHORE STRATIGRAPHY PROJECT: THE EARLY YEARS In 1986, the science community established the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Group of Specialists on Cenozoic Paleoenviron- ments in Southern High Latitudes to study and assess geologic sample and core data as well as geophysical remote sensing data to better comprehend Antarc- tica?s geologic history and its impact on global sea level and climate change (Figure 1). Recognizing that Antarctica is 98% ice covered, the Antarctic Alan Cooper (emeritus), U.S. Geological Survey, and Department of Geological and Environmen- tal Sciences, Stanford University. Peter Barker (retired), British Antarctic Survey, and Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birming- ham. Peter Barrett, Antarctic Research Centre and New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington. John Behrendt, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, and (emeritus) U.S. Geo- logical Survey. Giuliano Brancolini (retired), Is- tituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale. Jonathan Childs, U.S. Geological Survey. Carlota Escutia, Instituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra, Consejo Superior de Inves- tigaciones Cient?ficas?Universidad de Granada. Wilfried Jokat, Alfred Wegener Institute. Yngve Kristoffersen, Department of Earth Science, Uni- versity of Bergen. German Leitchenkov, Research Institute for Geology and Mineral Resources of the World Ocean, VNIIOkeangeologia. Howard Stagg (retired), Geoscience Australia. Manabu Tanahashi, Geological Survey of Japan. Nigel Wardell, Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale. Peter Webb, School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University. 2 2 4 ? S C I E N C E D I P L O M A C Y Offshore Stratigraphy project (ANTOSTRAT) was es- tablished under the aegis of the Group of Specialists to focus geoscience investigations on Antarctica?s offshore regions (Cooper and Webb, 1992). The stated objec- tive of ANTOSTRAT was to bring together all research groups responsible for collecting offshore geological and geophysical data, to collaborate in field and laboratory studies directed toward understanding Cenozoic paleoen- vironments, to plan future offshore geologic studies, and to promote scientific deep drilling. preluDe To poTenTIal MarIne MInerals Data relevant to ANTOSTRAT had been collected in Antarctica since the early 1970s, but these were com- monly unavailable to anyone except the data collectors (or to collaborators via private data exchange agreements). The geologic and geophysical data collected during the pre- ANTOSTRAT years were also being used for assess- ments of offshore mineral resources by national, aca- demic, and corporate research groups. Because many of the offshore geologic and geophysical data, especially the seismic reflection data, were not openly accessible, there was a perceived ?veil of secrecy? on the eventual uses of ongoing geoscientific studies. Many beyond the Antarctic community were asking whether these studies were for re- search purposes or for mineral exploration. In the decade preceding the establishment of ANTO- STRAT, interest in Antarctica?s potential mineral resources was increasing (e.g., Behrendt, 1983; Splettstoesser and Dreschhoff, 1990), with the escalating price and demand for such resources. The most important of these resources were hydrocarbons. collaBoraTIon In scIence With the implementation of ANTOSTRAT in 1989 and the first ANTOSTRAT symposium in April 1990 (Cooper and Webb, 1990), at which the emphasis was on offshore geoscience data, the level of interest in the sci- ence and geopolitics of the offshore areas blossomed. At the 1990 symposium, the groundwork for collaboration in studying the offshore data was laid down with the forma- tion of working groups for the five principal marine regions around the Antarctic continent accessible by surface vessels (i.e., Ross Sea, Wilkes Land, Prydz Bay, Weddell Sea, and Antarctic Peninsula). The working groups were tasked to collate, analyze, and publish collaborative research papers on the geoscience data from each region. The first tenet of ANTOSTRAT (i.e., collaboration in science) was now in place, and the interest in, and support for, ANTOSTRAT gained momentum among all countries engaged in con- ducting marine surveys of the Antarctic margin. THE ANTARCTIC SEISMIC DATA LIBRARY SYSTEM FOR COOPERATIVE RESEARCH: OPEN ACCESS TO DATA?A LINK TO THE ANTARCTIC TREATY There was, however, still no mechanism in place for open access to the most valuable of all Earth science data FIGURE 1. The ANTOSTRAT logo and an early 1990s ANTOSTRAT model linking global sea levels to Antarctic ice sheet history (modified from Cooper and Webb, 1992). C O O P E R / T H E A N T O S T R AT L E G A C Y ? 2 2 5 for research and hydrocarbon exploration: multichannel seismic reflection (MCS) data (Figure 2). The MCS data are used to image the structure of the Earth, from the sea- floor down to 10 km or more below the sea floor. Such information is needed to decipher how continents and their margins formed. They also help to identify where hy- drocarbons may be present. The MCS data are therefore both a powerful research tool and a basic and widely used tool in the exploration for petroleum. A key criterion for establishing their intended use is the level of access to the data. MCS data used for research purposes will be openly accessible to others (via publication and later release), but data collected for commercial exploration purposes will rarely be made accessible. In late 1990, with the level of debate on Antarctica?s mineral resources increasing, it was clear to members of the ANTOSTRAT steering committee that the second tenet of ANTOSTRAT (i.e., open access to data in accord with Article III of the Antarctic Treaty) needed to be addressed promptly to clearly demonstrate that ANTOSTRAT was truly a science project and not mineral exploration of Ant- arctica undertaken under another name. In April 1991, AN- TOSTRAT convened a special workshop in Oslo, Norway, to develop and agree to a system by which the highly valued MCS data would be made openly accessible. This would help ANTOSTRAT move forward faster with its collabora- tive science agenda of making circum- Antarctic maps needed for understanding Antarctica?s geologic and climate history. FIGURE 2. Multichannel seismic reflection (MCS) data. Maps showing track lines of data: (A) collected before 1988 (modified from Behrendt, 1990) and (B) collected as of late 2009 (about 350,000 km). (C) Example MCS profile across the Ross Sea with seismic stratigraphic units (RSS) and Deep Sea Drilling Project site noted (modified from Cooper et al. 2009). About 275,000 km of MCS data are now in the SDLS. 2 2 6 ? S C I E N C E D I P L O M A C Y The Oslo workshop included lead scientists from groups in the 11 countries that had collected MCS data (Cooper and the ANTOSTRAT Steering Committee, 1991; Figure 2A,C).1 The participants developed a plan for a new science data library. All participants agreed to the plan and forwarded an outline of it to the XVI Ant- arctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (October 1991). There the outline statement was discussed and adopted as Rec- ommendation XVI- 12, thereby formalizing the SCAR Antarctic Seismic Data Library System for Cooperative Research (SDLS) as part of the Antarctic Treaty System (Figure 3). The second tenet of ANTOSTRAT (i.e., open access to data) was now in place. In the same year, 1991, the Madrid Protocol on Ant- arctic Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Antarctic Treaty System, 1991) was signed establishing a 50- year moratorium on resource exploration and exploi- tation. The MCS data can be used for both exploration and basic research, yet the adoption of the SDLS into the treaty opened access to these data and removed the per- ceived veil of secrecy about how they were being used. Because MCS data are critical for understanding Earth history and paleoclimates, they continue to be collected and made openly available for research purposes. a unIque approach The SDLS is unique in its approach to resolving the difficult issue of open access to highly valued data. The SDLS is a research library system under SCAR and the treaty and not an international data bank linked to na- tional or other agencies. The focus is on promoting col- laboration and data sharing for research purposes, while respecting and preserving intellectual property rights. The World Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc/) has primary responsibility for archival of data. The SDLS operates under clearly defined guidelines in SCAR Report 9 (Cooper et al., 1991; Childs et al., 1994). These guidelines apply to all MCS data collected in Ant- arctic regions. A key guideline of the SDLS is that the restrictions on use and access to MCS data decrease with time after the data are collected (Figure 4): ? For an initial period (zero to four years after collec- tion), data collectors retain full intellectual property rights to their data. ? For the succeeding period (four to eight years), MCS data go into the SDLS, where they can only be used for collaborative research purposes with the data col- lector. The data collector cannot deny the collabora- tive efforts unless another research group is already working on the same proposed project. ? In the final period (after eight years), the MCS data then become openly accessible to anyone, with the only restriction being that persons who use the data cite the data collector. The open access is via the FIGURE 3. Generalized organizational diagram showing the former relationships of SCAR, ANTOSTRAT (now ACE), SDLS, and the Antarctic Treaty. The SDLS is now under ACE. FIGURE 4. (top) Locations of SDLS branches and(bottom) concepts of the SDLS (modified from Cooper and the ANTOSTRAT Steer- ing Committee, 1991, and SDLS, http://www.scar- sdls.org, accessed January 2010). The SDLS provides open access worldwide to Ant- arctic seismic reflection data for use in cooperative research projects. C O O P E R / T H E A N T O S T R AT L E G A C Y ? 2 2 7 World Data Center, other unrestricted data centers, and/or the SDLS Web site (http://www.scar- sdls.org). A key hurdle in organizing the SDLS was how it was to be funded. Summarizing from SCAR Report 9 (Cooper et al., 1991), SCAR provides no funds for the SDLS. Fund- ing for library branches is the responsibility of the host organization. Data are currently sent to branches on CD- ROM and DVD- ROM; hence, a room and computer sys- tem that is supervised by a senior Antarctic researcher (to ensure SDLS guidelines are followed) is sufficient. Funds for the data standardization and preparation of the CDs and DVDs containing the MCS data are the responsibil- ity of the data collector, via National Antarctic Programs and/or institutional funds. The funds are submitted to the group producing the CDs and DVDs when the MCS data are submitted. Currently, the CDs and DVDs are produced by the Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale (OGS) in Trieste, Italy. Oversight and management of the SDLS is done by a three- member executive committee, currently with two members at the U.S. Geological Survey and one member at OGS. achIeveMenTs In Transparency anD collaBoraTIon The implementation of the SDLS under ANTOSTRAT purview has provided an acceptable and rational mecha- nism for graduated open access to seismic data (Figure 4) and has removed the secrecy of data collection for mineral exploration. The eventual use of MCS data is not guided by SDLS guidelines. Yet the SDLS has, since 1991 (i.e., for 19 years as of the time of this report), facilitated and promoted a culture of geoscience collaboration on large- scale (i.e., more than 10 countries) international projects in Antarctica?s offshore regions, projects that would not otherwise be possible. The SDLS has further helped encourage a greater will- ingness to cooperate in sharing of expensive and difficult- to- collect MCS data. The reality is, however, that each organization?s practice in their data submissions to the SDLS is influenced by many factors, including funds avail- able to submit data, national agency policies, protecting students and others undertaking research projects, and incomplete data processing. Hence, data submissions are frequently behind the SDLS schedule and vary between countries. Patience and persistence has been required to achieve the SDLS- stipulated and Antarctic Treaty Con- sultative Meeting (ATCM)- approved data submissions. Nevertheless, over the years, the SDLS, initially under ANTOSTRAT and more recently under the Antarctic Climate Evolution program (ACE), has gradually incorpo- rated about 275,000 km of MCS data, which is 85% of the MCS data due at the SDLS and 79% of all data collected (Figure 2B). A majority of those data are older than 8 years and are therefore openly accessible (Cooper et al., 2009). The SDLS, like the Antarctic Treaty, is a dynamic body that requires constant attention and participation of the science community for its success, and to achieve this, the SDLS holds yearly to biyearly workshops. The SDLS now has 13 branches in 11 countries (http://www .scar- sdls.org). ANTOSTRAT: LATER YEARS AND SUCCESSES The history of ANTOSTRAT and its principal research findings (see Cooper et al., 2008) would not be complete without listing some of the successes achieved under its two principal tenets of science collaboration and open access to data. The ANTOSTRAT project has spawned and helped a generation of young researchers to learn how science is accomplished in Antarctica, under SCAR and the Antarctic Treaty, and to promote their science and the greater collab- orative interests within the science community. It has also inspired and promoted a generation of major offshore Ant- arctic drilling projects and currently, under ACE, a project to create circum- Antarctic stratigraphic and paleobathy- metry maps for climate history. Scientists working under ANTOSTRAT collaborations have ? published hundreds of individual research papers (see the 54- page bibliography in Cooper et al. [2008]); ? held numerous international ANTOSTRAT symposia and workshops to disseminate research results and SDLS workshops to assess SDLS operations and plans; ? compiled and published several geoscience map at- lases of offshore regions based on multinational data sets from areas around Antarctica; ? promoted, designed, and conducted many offshore drilling operations for climate history (e.g., Ocean Drilling Project Legs 178, 188, and 318 (2010), Cape Roberts Project drilling [http://www.victoria.ac.nz/ geo/croberts/], and others); ? submitted to the SDLS about 275,000 km of MCS data estimated at more than $300 million to collect and process; and ? carried the valued tenets of ANTOSTRAT into the next generation as significant elements in the ACE program (Florindo and Siegert, 2008; ACE, 2010). 2 2 8 ? S C I E N C E D I P L O M A C Y ANTOSTRAT was one of many successful long- term international science projects under the leadership of SCAR. Unlike all other geoscience projects, ANTOSTRAT was directly linked to the Antarctic Treaty System, a link that has continued, now under ACE, for 19 years, via the SDLS and ATCM Recommendation XVI- 12. In a small way, ANTOSTRAT and the SDLS helped carry the treaty through one of its most challenging periods during the search for a solution to the Antarctic minerals exploration problem. As with all dynamic institutions, the continuing suc- cess of the SDLS relies on the proactive determinations of its constituents, the scientists and their national Antarctic programs, to keep it vibrant with their creative ideas, ac- tive science participation, and funding for data submis- sions. We see long- term value for these endeavors and urge continued support of the SDLS. ANTOSTRAT: FUTURE ANALOGS Can ANTOSTRAT, with its successes in facilitating international collaboration and open access to valuable data for marine geologic studies of the Antarctic continen- tal margin, be adopted as a template for studies of other continental margins with potential mineral resources and inherent scientific value in paleoenvironment and climate histories? As an example, could the ANTOSTRAT template be applied in the other polar region, the Arctic? The Arctic Ocean and its continental margin is an area of great international and economic interest, but there is yet no established guiding treaty for the region as there is for Antarctica. With regard to mineral resources and geoscience research (i.e., ANTOSTRAT analog), the Arctic region is now governed by laws of the encircling nations and further subject to the tenets of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Yet these laws and guidelines do not promote or achieve the greater goal of open access to data to facilitate scientific stud- ies of benefit to all. Although large geoscience data sets, including a growing amount of seismic reflection data (e.g., Kristofferson and Mikkelsen, 2004), already exist for the Arctic Ocean region and many of these have been published, there are still many such data sets that are not yet openly accessible to the international science commu- nity. Furthermore, there is currently no internationally adopted mechanism by which future data sets would be made openly accessible. In the Arctic example, as in other regions of inter- national interest, adopting the straightforward tenets of ANTOSTRAT (and the SDLS) could facilitate greater geo- political harmony by promoting scientific research over national and commercial interests. Such research is needed to answer fundamental questions about Earth processes that are key to our survival. acKnowleDgMenTs We thank the editors for the invitation to relate the ANTOSTRAT success story, one in which the real ? heroes? to be thanked are the hundreds of geoscience investigators and managers from research institutions in more than 20 countries, people whose dedicated collaborations within SCAR and under treaty guidelines provide a role model for Antarctic science endeavors. We thank Jerry Mullins and Ginger Barth for their helpful reviews. expanDeD auThor InforMaTIon Alan Cooper (emeritus), U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94301, USA, and Department of Geological and Environmental Sci- ences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94306, USA. Peter Barker (retired), British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK, and Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. Peter Barrett, Antarctic Research Centre and New Zea- land Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria Uni- versity of Wellington, Kelburn Parade, Wellington 6012, New Zealand. John Behrendt, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo- rado 80309, USA, and (emeritus) U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225, USA. Giuliano Brancolini (retired), Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale, Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c, I-34010 Sgonico, Trieste, Italy. Jonathan Childs, U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94301, USA. Carlota Escutia, Instituto Anda- luz de Ciencias de la Tierra, Consejo Superior de Inves- tigaciones Cient?ficas? Universidad de Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, E-18002 Granada, Spain. Wilfried Jokat, Alfred Wegener Institute, Am Handelshafen 12, D-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany. Yngve Kristoffersen, Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, Alle- gaten 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway. German Leitchenkov, Research Institute for Geology and Mineral Resources of the World Ocean, VNIIOkeangeologia, 1 Angliysky Avenue, 190 121 St. Petersburg, Russia. Howard Stagg (retired), Geoscience Australia, GPO Box 378, ACT 2609, Australia. Manabu Tanahashi, Geological Survey C O O P E R / T H E A N T O S T R AT L E G A C Y ? 2 2 9 of Japan, AIST C-7, Tsukuba 305-8567, Japan. Nigel Wardell, Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale, Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c, I-34010 Sgo- nico, Trieste, Italy. Peter Webb, School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. Correspondence: acooper@usgs.gov; akcooper@pacbell .net; peter@pnjbarker.co.uk; peter.barrett@vuw.ac.nz; john.behrendt@colorado.edu; giuliano.brancolini@libero .it; jchilds@usgs.gov; cescutia@ugr.es; wilfried.jokat@awi .de; yngve.kristoffersen@geo.uib.no; german_l@mail.ru; hstagg@apex.net.au; tanahashi-m@aist.go.jp; nwardell@ ogs.trieste.it; webb.3@osu.edu. NOTE 1. The People?s Republic of China was not represented at the work- shop because no one was aware that they had collected MCS data in 1990?1991 until they reported this fact at ATCM XVI. LITERATURE CITED ACE. 2010. Antarctic Climate Evolution. http://www.csam.montclair .edu/earth/eesweb/scar_ace/ (accessed January 2010). Antarctic Treaty System. 1991. Protocol on Environmental Protec- tion to the Antarctic Treaty. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_ antarctica/geopolitical/treaty/update_1991.php (accessed January 2010). Behrendt, J. C., ed. 1983. Petroleum and Mineral Resources of Antarc- tica. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 909. Reston, Va.: U.S. Geo- logical Survey. ???. 1990. ?Recent Geophysical and Geological Research in Ant- arctica Related to the Assessment of Petroleum Resources and Po- tential Environmental Hazards to Their Development.? In Mineral Resources Potential of Antarctica, ed. J. F. Splettstoesser and G.A. Dreschhoff, pp. 163?174. Antarctic Research Series, No. 51. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Childs, J. R., R. W. Sliter, and A. K. Cooper. 1994. A Progress Report on the Antarctic Seismic Data Library System for Cooperative Re- search (SDLS). Terra Antarctica, 1(2):243?246. Cooper, A. K., and the ANTOSTRAT Steering Committee. 1991. A SCAR Seismic Data Library System for Cooperative Research (SDLS): Summary Report of the International Workshop on Antarc- tic Seismic Data Oslo, Norway, April 11?15, 1991. SCAR Report 9. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. http://www.scar.org/ publications/reports/9/#summary1 (accessed January 2010) Cooper, A. K., P. Barrett, R. DeConto, R. Dunbar, C. Escutia, M. Siegert, N. Wardell, and J. Childs. 2009. Harmonies of Ice and Past Climate Change: Antarctic Paleoclimate, SCAR and Treaty Successes, Abs., Abstract Book for Antarctic Treaty Summit, p.45. Cooper, A. K., G. Brancolini, C. Escutia, Y. Kristoffersen, R. Larter, G. Leitchenkov, P. O?Brien, and W. Jokat. 2008. ?Cenozoic Cli- mate History from Seismic- Reflection and Drilling Studies on the Antarctic Continental Margin.? In Antarctic Climate Evolution, ed. F. Florindo and M. Siegert, pp. 115?228. Developments in Earth and Environmental Sciences, No. 8. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cooper, A. K., and P. N. Webb, eds. 1990, International Workshop on Antarctic Offshore Acoustic Stratigraphy (ANTOSTRAT): Over- view and Extended Abstracts, Pacific Grove, California, June 1990. U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 90- 309. Menlo Park, Calif.: U.S. Geological Survey. ???. 1992. ?International Offshore Studies on Antarctic Cenozoic History, Glaciation and Sea- Level Change: The ANTOSTRAT Proj- ect.? In Recent Progress in Antarctic Earth Science, ed. Y. Yoshida, pp. 655?659. Tokyo: Terra Scientific Publishing Company. Florindo, F., and M. Siegert, eds. 2008. Antarctic Climate Evolution. Developments in Earth and Environmental Sciences, No. 8. Amster- dam: Elsevier. Kristofferson, Y., and N. Mikkelsen, eds. 2004. Scientific Drilling in the Arctic Ocean and the Site Survey Challenge: Tectonic, Paleoceano- graphic and Climatic Evolution of the Polar Basin. JEODI Workshop, Copenhagen, 2003. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Special Publication. Copenhagen: Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. http://www.geus.dk/program- areas/nature- environment/ international/reports/geus_special_publ_nov_2004.pdf (accessed January 2010). Splettstoesser, J. F., and G. A. Dreschhoff, eds. 1990. Mineral Resources Potential of Antarctica. Antarctic Research Series, No. 51. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.