DOCSLIB.ORG

Expanding Antarctica's Protected Areas System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Expanding Antarctica's Protected Areas System IP 112 Agenda Item: CEP 9e Presented by: ASOC Original: English Submitted: 05/05/2015 Expanding Antarctica’s Protected Areas System 1 IP 112 Expanding Antarctica’s Protected Areas System Information Paper submitted by ASOC1 Abstract Article 3, Annex V of the Environment Protocol states that Parties shall create protected areas within a systematic framework. To date over 70 Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) have been designated by the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), but a recent analysis finds that these areas are not fulfilling the terms of the Protocol (Shaw et al. 2014). This paper discusses that analysis and recommends that ATCPs can remedy this situation by increasing the size and number of ASPAs, with a focus on achieving representation of all known Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs) and designating inviolate areas, wilderness areas, and areas of interest to science. This will increase and enhance the terrestrial protection of Antarctica in line with the Protocol and with other international recommendations. “Inadequate, Unrepresentative and at Risk” Article 3, Annex V of the Environment Protocol states,“Any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area to protect outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness values, any combination of those values, or ongoing or planned scientific research…Parties shall seek to identify, within a systematic environmental-geographical framework, and to include in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas: (a) areas kept inviolate from human interference so that future comparisons may be possible with localities that have been affected by human activities; (b) representative examples of major terrestrial, including glacial and aquatic, ecosystems and marine ecosystems; (c) areas with important or unusual assemblages of species, including major colonies of breeding native birds or mammals; (d) the type locality or only known habitat of any species; (e) areas of particular interest to ongoing or planned scientific research; (f) examples of outstanding geological, glaciological or geomorphological features; (g) areas of outstanding aesthetic and wilderness value; (h) sites or monuments of recognised historic value; and (i)such other areas as may be appropriate to protect the values set out in paragraph 1 above.” The Antarctic protected area system has been reviewed in the scientific literature and in ATCM documents from a broad range of perspectives and approaches, including the balance between conservation and science needs (Hughes et al. 2013), spatial analysis (Australia 2012), the protection of geological values (UK/UK et al 2014), and coastal and marine values (Netherlands 2014). Few articles have undertaken an analysis of the effectiveness of the protected areas system as a whole. However, an article published in the journal PLoS Biology last year concludes that “Antarctica’s protected areas are inadequate, unrepresentative and at risk” (Shaw et al. 2014). This conclusion is based on a thorough examination of the characteristics of the current ASPAs. The article’s overall picture of the ASPA system is thus: Antarctica is one of the planet’s least protected regions, with only 1.5% of its ice-free area formally designated as specially protected areas. Five of the distinct ice-free ecoregions have no specially designated areas for the protection of biodiversity. Every one of the 55 designated areas that protect Antarctica’s biodiversity lies closer to sites of high human activity than expected by chance, and seven lie in high-risk areas for biological invasions. By any measure, including Aichi Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity, Antarctic biodiversity is poorly protected by reserves, and those reserves are threatened (Shaw et al. 2014). 1 Lead author: Claire Christian with contributions from R. M. Roura and Mark Epstein. 3 IP 112 In addition to the clear expectation in the Protocol that ATCPs will establish a system of ASPAs with a number of characteristics important for science and conservation, other global bodies such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have determined terrestrial protection targets based on scientific advice. One of these targets, in the CBD’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, advocates that 17% of terrestrial areas should be protected. While the Protocol does not suggest such specific percentage goals, it does list nine characteristics that areas in the system of protected areas should have. Most ASPAs designated to date have come under the category “areas with important or unusual assemblages of species, including major colonies of breeding native birds or mammals” (Appendix 1). Fewer than five have been designated as inviolate areas or wilderness areas, and as noted above, out of fifteen known Antarctic terrestrial ecoregions/Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs), only ten are represented in the ASPA system. Even those ten are not likely to be adequate for conservation given their small size. Expanding the protected areas system In a time when the Antarctic environment is changing due to climate change and is increasingly exposed to new threats such as invasive species, the strengthening of the protected areas system is critical. Additionally, expanding and improving the protected areas system can overlap with other important aspects of governance, such as the management of scientific and tourism activities. To date, these activities have often been examined on a case-by-case basis. Globally, spatial prioritization of important and/or vulnerable areas is being recognized internationally as a useful tool in conservation planning and the designation of protected areas. Protected area designation in Antarctica should consider this and other contemporary conservation planning tools in the development of an integrated, continent-wide protected area network in terrestrial Antarctica. Shaw et al. (2014) identify a number of specific deficiencies within the current protected areas system. These problems can be addressed as part of an integrated, region-wide planning process that enacts the obligations set out in the Protocol. In ASOC’s view, key outcomes from this process should include: • Creation of protected areas in the five ACBRs not currently represented. These should be at least 17% of each ACBR in line with Aichi Target 11. • Designation of additional protected areas of interest to science, inviolate areas, and areas with wilderness values. These may overlap with each other or with the ACBRs, but it is important to ensure that the representation of these values within the protected areas system increases. • Designation of protected areas representative of marine ecosystems. • Analysis and (where necessary) expansion of existing ASPAs in ACBRs so that at minimum 10% of each area is protected. Assuming that these areas are chosen on the basis of a robust planning process, they would dramatically strengthen Antarctica’s protected areas network. Though this approach may require more initial work, it is likely to save time and effort in the long run. For example, managing human activities such as scientific research and tourism could be simplified if large protected areas in each ACBR were established2. This would not obviate the need for an EIA process, but would reduce uncertainty about possible environmental impacts and assist ATCPs and tourist operators in identifying appropriate areas for activities. Conclusion 2 For further discussion on tourism and protected areas, see ASOC IP 109, Antarctic tourism and protected areas. 4 IP 112 Recent research on Antarctica’s protected areas system identifies a number of deficiencies that could be rectified by a continent-wide planning process based on available science. ASOC recommends that the ATCM/CEP • Critically review the scope of ASPA coverage in Antarctica; and • Initiate an integrated, region-wide planning process that enacts the obligations set out in Article 3, Annex V of the Environment Protocol. References Australia. 2012. Analyses of the Antarctic protected areas system using spatial information. ATCM XXXV, IP 26. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. Accessed online 25 April 2015 from <https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-11/> . Hughes KA, L.R. Pertierra, and D.W.H. Walton (2013): Area protection in Antarctica: How can conservation and scientific research goals be managed compatibly? Environmental Science & Policy Volume 31, August 2013, Pages 120–132. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.03.012 Netherlands. 2014. The role of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in protecting the marine environment through marine spatial protection. ATCM XXXVII, IP 49. Shaw, Justine D., Aleks Terauds, Martin J. Riddle, Hugh P. Possingham, and Steven L. Chown. 2014. “Antarctica’s Protected Areas Are Inadequate, Unrepresentative, and at Risk.” PLoS Biology 12 (6): 1–5. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001888. United Kingdom, Argentina, Australia and Spain. 2014. The Antarctic Protected Area system: protection of outstanding geological features. ATCM XXXVII, WP 35. 5 IP 112 Appendix 1: Table S1 from Shaw et al. 2014 (used with permission).3 Designation of ASPAs and their invasion risk. Designations from Antarctic Protected Areas Database, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, http://www.ats.aq/devPH/apa/ep_protected_detail.aspx?type=2&id=69&lang=e. Classification Reason for designation Antarctic Ice-free, Specially biodiversity Protected Areas designated ASPAs at high risk of invasion A Inviolate areas 2 B Representative of major ecosystems 10 Important or unusual assemblage of C 37 6 species D Type locality of known species 0 E Area of interest to science 10 1 Outstanding geological, glaciological F 5 geomorphological feature Outstanding aesthetic or wilderness G 1 value H Sites or monuments of historic value 6 Outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness values, I 2 any combination of those values or on- going planned scientific research Total 73 7 3 After publication of this table, one ASPA has been de-designated. 7 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Antarctic Treaty Handbook
    Annex Proposed Renumbering of Antarctic Protected Areas Existing SPA’s Existing Site Proposed Year Annex V No. New Site Management Plan No. Adopted ‘Taylor Rookery 1 101 1992 Rookery Islands 2 102 1992 Ardery Island and Odbert Island 3 103 1992 Sabrina Island 4 104 Beaufort Island 5 105 Cape Crozier [redesignated as SSSI no.4] - - Cape Hallet 7 106 Dion Islands 8 107 Green Island 9 108 Byers Peninsula [redesignated as SSSI no. 6] - - Cape Shireff [redesignated as SSSI no. 32] - - Fildes Peninsula [redesignated as SSSI no.5] - - Moe Island 13 109 1995 Lynch Island 14 110 Southern Powell Island 15 111 1995 Coppermine Peninsula 16 112 Litchfield Island 17 113 North Coronation Island 18 114 Lagotellerie Island 19 115 New College Valley 20 116 1992 Avian Island (was SSSI no. 30) 21 117 ‘Cryptogram Ridge’ 22 118 Forlidas and Davis Valley Ponds 23 119 Pointe-Geologic Archipelago 24 120 1995 Cape Royds 1 121 Arrival Heights 2 122 Barwick Valley 3 123 Cape Crozier (was SPA no. 6) 4 124 Fildes Peninsula (was SPA no. 12) 5 125 Byers Peninsula (was SPA no. 10) 6 126 Haswell Island 7 127 Western Shore of Admiralty Bay 8 128 Rothera Point 9 129 Caughley Beach 10 116 1995 ‘Tramway Ridge’ 11 130 Canada Glacier 12 131 Potter Peninsula 13 132 Existing SPA’s Existing Site Proposed Year Annex V No. New Site Management Plan No. Adopted Harmony Point 14 133 Cierva Point 15 134 North-east Bailey Peninsula 16 135 Clark Peninsula 17 136 North-west White Island 18 137 Linnaeus Terrace 19 138 Biscoe Point 20 139 Parts of Deception Island 21 140 ‘Yukidori Valley’ 22 141 Svarthmaren 23 142 Summit of Mount Melbourne 24 118 ‘Marine Plain’ 25 143 Chile Bay 26 144 Port Foster 27 145 South Bay 28 146 Ablation Point 29 147 Avian Island [redesignated as SPA no.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Geoconservation: a Review of Current Systems and Practices
    Environmental Conservation (2016) 43 (2): 97–108 C Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/S0376892915000387 Antarctic geoconservation: a review of current systems and practices KEVIN A. HUGHES1 ∗, JERÓNIMO LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ2 ,JANEE.FRANCIS1 , J. ALISTAIR CRAME1 , LUIS CARCAVILLA3 , KAZUYUKI SHIRAISHI4,5, TOMOKAZU HOKADA4,5 AND AKIRA YAMAGUCHI4,5 1British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK, 2Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Geología y Geoquímica, 28049 Madrid, Spain, 3Geological Survey of Spain, Rios Rosas, 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain, 4National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR), 10–3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa-shi, Tokyo 190–8518, Japan, and 5SOKENDAI (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies), 10–3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa-shi, Tokyo 190–8518, Japan Date submitted: 15 May 2015; Date accepted: 29 October 2015; First published online 9 February 2016 SUMMARY the continent, and the pursuit of geological knowledge has had a strong influence on its historical values (Fig. 1 and 2). For The prohibition of commercial mineral resource example, Captain Scott’s doomed South Pole party of 1912 extraction through the Antarctic Treaty System has collected 16 kg of rocks including fossil leaves of Glossopteris removed one significant source of potential damage to indica, which provided evidence that Antarctica was once part Antarctica’s geological and geomorphological values. of the larger supercontinent of Gondwana.
    [Show full text]
  • ASOC Report on ATCM XXIX
    ASOC Report on XXIX ATCM – Edinburgh 2006 The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition ASOC Secretariat 1630 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel +1 202 234-2480 Fax +1 202 387-4823 Email : [email protected] www.asoc.org August 10, 2006 ASOC REPORT ON THE XXIX ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Edinburgh, United Kingdom 12-23 June 2006 1 ASOC Report on XXIX ATCM – Edinburgh 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND 1. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) give effect to obligations under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. 2. ATCMs are hosted by Consultative Parties (essentially voting members – currently 28) in English-language alphabetical order. All Consultative Parties attended the Edinburgh meeting. There are also 17 Non-Consultative Parties – non-voting members, although the majority do not regularly attend ATCMs (7 attended in Edinburgh). The ATCM lasts two weeks, and conducts its business through a number of Working Groups – presently four: Legal and Institutional Affairs, Tourism and Non-Governmental Activities, Operational Matters and the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP). 3. The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) has participating ‘Expert’ status at ATCMs. It is the only environmental non-governmental group with such access. IUCN and UNEP are also invited ‘Experts’. 4. The XXIX ATCM was held in Edinburgh from 12 – 23 June 2006. In addition, a pre-CEP Workshop on “Antarctica’s Future Environmental Challenges” was held on June 9-10.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctic Specially Protected Areas As Tools for Conservation: an Assessment of Purpose, Placement and Effect
    PCAS 17 (2014/2015) Critical Literature Review (ANTA602) Antarctic Specially Protected Areas as tools for conservation: An assessment of purpose, placement and effect Bridget McNeill Student ID: 91008903 Word count: 2945 Abstract Offering the highest level of protection under the current Antarctic Treaty System, Antarctic Specially Protected Areas are often considered a key tool in the conservation of terrestrial Antarctica (Shaw et al 2014). However as conservation science evolves, and approaches to conservation planning become more systematic, the capability of these areas to meet long-term Antarctic conservation objectives has been questioned. To address this, both the placement and management of existing Antarctic Specially Protected Areas is reviewed, in order to assess whether, as a system, Antarctic Specially Protected Areas 1) designate adequate area, representative Antarctic biodiversity, and 2) effectively separate it from threatening processes. Finding that in the short term, stricter compliance with management guidelines and monitoring is required by Treaty Parties, and in the long term, that meeting representativeness and comprehensiveness requirements is impeded by both a gap in available data and the placement of existing system, it is clear that both the management and designation processes of ASPA’s requires review if Antarctic conservation objectives are to be achieved. Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Protected Areas Guidelines
    ATCM Document GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR ANTARCTIC PROTECTED AREAS Published by the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) on behalf of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) Copyright © ATCM 2000 COMNAP Secretariat GPO Box 824 Hobart Tasmania 7001 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 (0)3 6233 5498 Fax: +61 (0)3 6233 5497 GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR PROTECTED AREAS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 3, ANNEX V OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTOCOL CONTENTS PART I: INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 The Antarctic Treaty System and Protected Areas 2 1.2 Aim of the Guidelines 2 1.3 Structure of the Guidelines 3 PART II: ASSESSING AREAS FOR PROTECTION 4 2.1 Assessing Values to be Protected (Article 3(1)) 4 2.2 Assessment of Potential Protection and Use Category (Article 3(2a-i)) 5 2.3 Quality Criteria 6 2.4 Environmental Risk Assessment 8 PART III: DEFINING AREAS FOR PROTECTION 10 3.1 Tools for Assisting in Selecting Protected Areas 10 3.2 Area Design 10 3.3 Feasibility Criteria 10 PART IV: PROPOSING AREAS FOR PROTECTION 13 4.1 Drafting Management Plans for Proposed ASPAs 13 4.2 Further Steps in the Designation Process 13 APPENDIX: Articles 3(1) and 3(2) of Annex V 14 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Antarctic Treaty System and Protected Areas A variety of instruments have been developed within the Antarctic Treaty system to help protect special places such as important wildlife breeding areas, fragile plant communities, cold desert ecosystems and historic places. These instruments have included the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora and numerous recommendations to Parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the Work of the CEP on Marine Protected Areas 1998-2019
    Summary of the work of the CEP on Marine Protected Areas 1998-2019 (Updated November 2019) 1 Summary of the work of the CEP on MPAs - 2019 Summary of the work of the CEP on Marine Protected Areas Updated November 2019 Introduction Article 2 of Annex V to the Protocol establishes that any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area. In particular, Article 3 expresses that: “Parties shall identify representative examples of major terrestrial, including glacial and aquatic, ecosystems and marine ecosystems to be designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.” Article 6. 2 of Annex V establishes that “ ... no marine area shall be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area without the prior approval of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.”Since its establishment in 1998, the CEP has devoted a significant part of its discussions to consider area protection and management in Antarctica, and two workshops on Protected Areas in Antarctica were organised prior to the first two CEP meetings. Although at the first CEP meetings there were some considerations and documents specifically addressing the need to designate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Antarctica, the most important discussions, including active cooperation on this matter with CCAMLR, started at CEP IX in 2006. During the last years, cooperation between the CEP and the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR (SC- CAMLR) has increased and in April 2009, prior to the CEP XII meeting, a joint workshop was organised aiming to identify areas of common interest and to develop a shared understanding of the conservation objectives and priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report of the Twenty-Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
    Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Edinburgh, United Kingdom 12 – 23 June 2006 Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty Buenos Aires 2006 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (29th : 2006 : Edinburgh) Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 12-23 June 2006. Buenos Aires : Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2006. 564 p. ISBN 987-23163-0-9 1. International law – Environmental issues. 2. Antarctic Treaty System. 3. Environmental law – Antarctica. 4. Environmental protection – Antarctica. DDC 341.762 5 ISBN-10: 987-23163-0-9 ISBN-13: 978-987-23163-0-3 CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations 9 I. FINAL REPORT 11 II. MEASURES, DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS 49 A. Measures 51 Measure 1 (2006): Antarctic Specially Protected Areas: Designations and Management Plans 53 Annex A: ASPA No. 116 - New College Valley, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island 57 Annex B: ASPA No. 127 - Haswell Island (Haswell Island and Adjacent Emperor Penguin Rookery on Fast Ice) 69 Annex C: ASPA No. 131 - Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, Taylor Valley, Victoria Land 83 Annex D: ASPA No. 134 - Cierva Point and offshore islands, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula 95 Annex E: ASPA No. 136 - Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land 105 Annex F: ASPA No. 165 - Edmonson Point, Wood Bay, Ross Sea 119 Annex G: ASPA No. 166 - Port-Martin, Terre Adélie 143 Annex H: ASPA No. 167 - Hawker Island, Vestfold Hills, Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica 153 Measure 2 (2006): Antarctic Specially Managed Area: Designation and Management Plan: Admiralty Bay, King George Island 167 Annex: Management Plan for ASMA No.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report of the Thirty-Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
    Final Report of the Thirty-eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Final Report of the Thirty-eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Sofi a, Bulgaria 1 - 10 June 2015 Volume I Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty Buenos Aires 2015 Published by: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty Secrétariat du Traité sur l’ Antarctique Секретариат Договора об Антарктике Secretaría del Tratado Antártico Maipú 757, Piso 4 C1006ACI Ciudad Autónoma Buenos Aires - Argentina Tel: +54 11 4320 4260 Fax: +54 11 4320 4253 This book is also available from: www.ats.aq (digital version) and for purchase online. ISSN 2346-9897 ISBN 978-987-1515-98-1 Contents VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations 9 PART I. FINAL REPORT 11 1. Final Report 13 2. CEP XVIII Report 111 3. Appendices 195 Outcomes of the Intersessional Contact Group on Informatiom Exchange Requirements 197 Preliminary Agenda for ATCM XXXIX, Working Groups and Allocation of Items 201 Host Country Communique 203 PART II. MEASURES, DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS 205 1. Measures 207 Measure 1 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 101 (Taylor Rookery, Mac.Robertson Land): Revised Management Plan 209 Measure 2 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 102 (Rookery Islands, Holme Bay, Mac.Robertson Land): Revised Management Plan 211 Measure 3 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 103 (Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land, East Antarctica): Revised Management Plan 213 Measure 4 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 104 (Sabrina Island, Balleny Islands): Revised Management Plan 215 Measure 5 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 105 (Beaufort Island, McMurdo Sound, Ross Sea): Revised Management Plan 217 Measure 6 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Logistical Capacity Is Sufficient to Deliver the Implementation and Management of a Representative Antarctic Protected Area System Kevin A
    POLAR RESEARCH 2018, VOL. 37, 1521686 https://doi.org/10.1080/17518369.2018.1521686 RESEARCH ARTICLE Current logistical capacity is sufficient to deliver the implementation and management of a representative Antarctic protected area system Kevin A. Hughes & Susie M. Grant British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Antarctica’s terrestrial ecosystems are vulnerable to impacts resulting from climate change Spatial protection; and local human activities. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) provides for the designation of Environmental Protocol; protected areas through the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. remote sensing; human Unsystematic use of agreed management tools, including Antarctic Specially Protected Areas impacts; terrestrial (ASPAs), has resulted in a protected area system lacking representation across the full range biodiversity of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems and Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). ABBREVIATIONS Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) methods provide established mechanisms to fulfil ACBR: Antarctic ATS protected area designation goals. However, how would a continent-wide ASPA system be Conservation Biogeographic delivered should appropriate sites be identified using SCP or other methods? Although the Region; ASPA: Antarctic rate of area protection has slowed recently, we show that newer Consultative Parties to the Specially Protected Area; Antarctic Treaty are increasingly active as ASPA proponents and may have scope for further BAS: British Antarctic Survey; engagement with protected area management activities. Furthermore, all 16 ACBRs were CBD: Convention on found to be within the operational footprint of at least two Parties, indicating that this current Biological Diversity; SCP: logistical footprint could support the implementation and management of a continent-wide Systematic Conservation ASPA system.
    [Show full text]
  • SCAR BULLETIN No 156, January 2005
    NO. 156 JANUARY 2004 THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ANTARCTIC RESEARCH SCAR BULLETIN No 156, January 2005 Twenty-seventh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Cape Town, South Africa, 24 May – 4 June 2004 Decisions, Resolutions and Measures The texts of the Decisions and Resolutions, and the text of Measure 1 (2004), together with a summary of the Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Managed area No. 2, McMurdo Dry Valleys, Southern Victoria Land, adopted at XXVII ATCM were reproduced in SCAR Bulletin No 155, October 2004. A summary of the Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Managed Area No. 3, Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, George V land, together with Measures 2–4, are reproduced here. The full versions of all the Decisions, Measures and Resolutions are on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website at http://www.ats.org.ar/ Measure 1 (2004) Antarctic Protected Area System: Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Managed Areas The Representatives, Parties active there; Recalling Article 4 of Annex V of the Protocol on Recommend to their Governments the following Measure Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, for approval in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 providing for the designation of Antarctic Specially of Annex V to the Protocol on Environmental Protection Managed Areas; to the Antarctic Treaty: Noting that the draft Management Plans appended to this That the Management Plans for: Measure have been endorsed by the Committee for • Antarctic Specially Managed Area No. 2, McMurdo Environmental Protection; Dry Valleys, Southern Victoria Land; and Recognising that these Areas support significant scientific, • Antarctic Specially Managed Area No.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapport110.Pdf (5.001Mb)
    >Torsk Polarinstitutts Bibliotek Antaretie Protected Areas Workshop Compiled by Birgit Njåstad Svarthamaren, Dronning Maud Land (NARE 1997/98). Photo: Torkild Tveraa Workshop Report Tromsø, Norway 23 May, 1998 Norsk Polarinstitutt RAPPORTSERlE Nr. 110 - Tromsø 1998 NORWEGIAN POLAR INSTITUTE Report No.11 O Antaretie Protected Areas Workshop Compiled by Birgit Njåstad Workshop Report Norsk Polarinstitutter Norges sentrale statsinstitusjon for kartlegging, miljøove,wking og forvaltningsrettet forskning i Arktis og Antarktis. Instituttet er faglig og strategisk rådgiver i miljøvernsaker i disse ommdene ogforvaltningsmyndighet i Norsk del av Antarktis. The Norwegian Polar Institute is Norway's main institution for research and topographic mapping in the Norwegian polar regions. The Institute also advises the Norwegian authorities on mattersconcerning polar environmental management Norsk Polarinstitutt Tromsø 1998 Address: Norwegian Polar Institute, Polar Environmental Centre, N-9005 Tromsø, Norway ©Norsk Polarinstitutt ISBN: 82-7666-162-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Report 2 Agenda 6 Holdgate, Sir Martin The Antaretie Protected Areas System 8 in the New Millenium Acero, Jose Maria Comparisonof Protected Areas in 20 Antarctica Valencia, Jose The environmental-geographic basis for 29 designating Antaretie Specially Protected Areas Prebble, Michael and The identification of possible new protected 40 Alan Hemmings areas Walton, David Thepresent procedures used by SCAR and 48 the ATCM to examine proposed management plans for Antaretie Specially Protected
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Item 1: Opening of the Meeting 65 Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda 66 Item 3: Draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations 67 CEP advice to the ATCM on the draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation prepared by China for the ‘Proposed construction and operation of a New Chinese Research Station, Victoria Land, Antarctica’ 70 CEP advice to the ATCM on draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation prepared by the United Kingdom for the ‘Proposed Rothera Wharf Reconstruction and Coastal Stabilisation’ 74 Item 4: Management Plans 76 CEP advice to the ATCM on revised management plans for ASPAs 77 CEP advice to the ATCM on the five-yearly review of management plans for ASPAs 81 Item 5: Site Guidelines 83 CEP advice to the ATCM on new and revised Site Guidelines 86 Item 6: Inspection Reports 88 Item 7: Reports from Subsidiary Bodies and Intersessional Contact Groups 90 CEP advice to the ATCM on Guidelines for the assessment and management of Heritage in Antarctica 93 CEP advice to the ATCM on Environmental guidelines for the operation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) in Antarctica 94 Item 8: Five-Year Work Plan 95 CEP advice to the ATCM on SCAR’s Environmental Code of Conduct for Terrestrial Scientific Field Research in Antarctica 96 CEP advice to the ATCM on supporting the work of the CEP 99 Item 9: Cooperation with Other Organisations 100 Item 10: General Matters 102 Item 11: Election of Officers 111 Item 12: Preparation for the Next Meeting 111 Item 13: Adoption of the Report 111 Item 14: Closing of the Meeting 111 Appendix 1.
    [Show full text]