NSTC Finds Current U.S. Antarctic Program Justified

In report language last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern “about the ability for NSF to continue to fund a U.S. permanent presence [in Antarctica] given severe budget constraints.” It directed the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), the cabinet-level coordinating body for federal science policies, to “examine the validity” of current U.S. Antarctic policy (see FYI #131, 1995.) Specifically, the NSTC was asked to review “the need for a year-round presence, the need for three [research] stations,” the roles of NSF and other participating agencies, “the value of the science performed in Antarctica and other U.S. interests.... [T]he review should address the affordability of continued U.S. presence...in light of the severe budget environment and examine options for reducing annual logistical and operational budget needs. At a minimum, budget saving options should include greater international cooperation, less than a year-round human presence, and closing of one or more of the stations.”

The U.S. has maintained an active presence in the Antarctic for more than thirty years. The freedom of the U.S. and other countries to perform research there, as well as a decision-making mechanism for potential conflicts, was codified in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. Currently, the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) is managed by the NSF as a single integrated program under a 1982 Presidential directive to maintain year-round occupation of a South Pole station and two coastal stations. The program deploys about 2,500 personnel to the area each year to perform research for a number of federal agencies, including NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOE, and the USGS. The annual cost is about $196 million a year, including research, infrastructure, logistics and operational support, three research stations and two research vessels. In the near future, budget pressures will be exacerbated by the need to rebuild or replace the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station at a cost that might range from $100-200 million.

In a 67-page report released in April, the NSTC summarizes the history of the U.S. program and finds that “at the current level of investment, the USAP is cost effective in advancing American scientific and geopolitical objectives and, from a science perspective, supports the continuation of three stations with year-round presence.” The report adds, “The NSTC reaffirmation of U.S. policy, including the need for a continuing U.S. presence at the South Pole, implies that by the time the Amundsen-Scott Station...reaches the end of its useful life, it will need to have been rebuilt or replaced.” Therefore, the NSTC advises NSF to reevaluate its proposed design: “The plans will benefit greatly from further cost-benefit analyses.” In order to squeeze out sufficient funds for the station, the NSTC advocates consideration of such cost-cutting options as alternative management approaches, advanced communications technologies, automated data gathering techniques, and international cost-sharing.

However, beyond these general suggestions, the NSTC avoids making any tough choices on reducing the program’s scope. Instead, it “recommends that an external panel be convened...to explore options for sustaining the high level of USAP science activity under realistic constrained funding levels.” The panel “should be free to examine a full range of infrastructure, management, and scientific options.... A 5- to 7-year freeze in total USAP funding (including South Pole Station construction) is one of the options to be analyzed by this panel.”

In conclusion, the report says that “the influential presence of the U.S. in Antarctica helps maintain the existing state of international peace and stability on the continent.... The NSTC concludes that present U.S. policy and practice with respect to the USAP are well-justified.” The full text of the report is currently available on NSF’s Home Page (http://www.nsf.gov/ ) under “News of Interest.”