scholarly journals Antarctic environmental planning and management: conclusions from Casey, Australian Antarctic Territory

Polar Record ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 27 (160) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorne K. Kriwoken
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Environmental Planning ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Environmental Legislation ◽  
Planning And Management ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Environment ◽  
Environmental Planning And Management

AbstractThe Antarctic environment has undergone significant local environmental damage and degradation, with nations rebuilding, expanding, or developing stations and bases. The Australian Antarctic Division's ten-year (1985–95) A$76.704 million programme of rebuilding and expanding stations in Australian Antarctic Territory is representative of a continent-wide increase in station numbers and impact, increasing station size, human numbers, lengths of roads, buildings, waste material production, and energy requirements. Environmental planning and impact assessment have not been incorporated in official decision-making; human activities at Australian Antarctic Territory stations had serious impacts on the limited ice-free land and local flora and fauna. Casey, are-developed station, is examined with reference to environmental planning and management under Antarctic Treaty obligations and recent Australian environmental legislation. Recommendations include the setting up of an Australian Antarctic Resources Committee responsible inter alia for environmental planning and management, including regional and station management plans and cumulative and environmental impact assessment for all Antarctic operations.

Conflicting science requirements impact on rare moss conservation measures

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis R. Pertierra ◽  
Francisco Lara ◽  
Javier Benayas ◽  
Ronald I. Lewis-Smith ◽  
Kevin A. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Deception Island ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Geothermal Activity ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
The Status ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Specially Protected Areas ◽  
Antarctic Environment

AbstractThe Antarctic Treaty recognizes the outstanding scientific values of the Antarctic environment through the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) that have rigorous management plans specific to each site. Deception Island has the largest concentration of rare bryophyte species and communities in Antarctica, while also offering substantial opportunities for research in a range of scientific disciplines due to its volcanic nature. As a result, conflicts between research interests and conservation goals may arise. On the summit ridge of Caliente Hill severe trampling damage to the moss assemblages growing in association with localized geothermal activity was observed. The range of species affected included the entire known population of Schistidium deceptionense, an endemic moss known only from this site, as well as other very rare Antarctic mosses (Ditrichum ditrichoideum, Bryum orbiculatifolium, Bucklandiella subcrispipila, Pohlia wahlenbergii and Dicranella hookeri). A photomapping study was undertaken to characterize further the status of the site and monitor changes within it. Increased awareness, co-ordination of activities and a spatial zoning within the site could help mitigate damage from permitted activities. Nevertheless, prioritization of longer term conservation goals over short-term research interests may ultimately be necessary where local human impact cannot be managed by other means.

scholarly journals How do we know that the Antarctic environment is fine?

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
D.W.H. Walton
Keyword(s):  
Ross Sea ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
United Nations Environment Programme ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
State Of The Environment ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Nations Environment ◽  
Environment Programme ◽  
Antarctic Environment

One might imagine that the only continent in the world devoted to peace and science would be certain to play a leadership role in global questions that needed a scientific answer. Indeed, to a dispassionate observer, the present situation with respect to reporting on the state of the Antarctic environment must seem bizarre. All the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are members of the United Nations Environment Programme, and all are apparently committed to providing State of the Environment Reports for their respective regions. Why then have some of these very nations been so reluctant to accept that Antarctica is a key part of this world and, to provide the holistic view required, needs to be included in the reporting? The list of excuses for delay is lengthy: no money; no secretariat to organize through; likely to be too expensive; no clear reason to undertake it; not needed at present; who would be the audience; how would we maintain political oversight; etc. but none of them ever appeared insoluble. This has been clearly demonstrated by the recent publication by New Zealand of a State of the Environment Report for the Ross Sea Region.

Improving the use of biological data in Antarctic management

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 425-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen A. Lynch ◽  
Catherine M. Foley ◽  
Lesley H. Thorne ◽  
Heather J. Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Biological Data ◽  
Independent Validation ◽  
Data Practices ◽  
Management Processes ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Specially Protected Areas

AbstractThe Antarctic Treaty System requires that the effects of potential human disturbance be evaluated, such as through the development and evaluation of Initial and Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations (IEEs and CEEs), and through the implementation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). The effectiveness of these management processes hinges on the quality and transparency of the data presented, particularly because independent validation is often difficult or impossible due to the financial and logistical challenges of working in the Antarctic. In a review of these documents and their treatment of wildlife survey data, we find that the basic elements of best data practices are often not followed; biological data are often uncited or out-of-date and rarely include estimates of uncertainty that would allow any subsequent changes in the distribution or abundance of wildlife to be rigorously assessed. We propose a set of data management and use standards for Antarctic biological data to improve the transparency and quality of these evaluations and to facilitate improved assessment of both immediate and long-term impacts of human activities in the Antarctic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document