The Human Footprint of the IPY 2007-2008 in Antarctica
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IP 86 Agenda Item: ATCM 10 CEP 5 Presented by: ASOC Original: English The Human Footprint of the IPY 2007-2008 in Antarctica Attachments: 1 IP 86 The Human Footprint of the IPY 2007-2008 in Antarctica Information Paper Submitted by ASOC to ATCM XXX (CEP Agenda Item 5; ATCM Agenda Item 10) Abstract The International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 is ambitious in scope and scale. At least 350 research activities with Antarctic or bipolar focus will take place during the IPY period of March 2007-March 2009. 82% (or 286) of them are planning to conduct fieldwork in Antarctica (Fig. 1a). 105 activities are planning to leave behind physical infrastructure, ranging from extensive arrays of instrumentation to new facilities. The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat’s database of environmental impact assessments lists only 7 completed assessments that are directly linked to science or logistics that are planned for the IPY. During the IPY, research and its corresponding logistical support activity will intensify around existing centers of research, such as the Antarctic Peninsula, Dronning Maud Land, Prydz Bay and the Weddell and Ross Seas. A number of large-scale research activities has also been planned in areas which have been hitherto seldom accessed, including the Gamburtsev Mountains in East Antarctica, the Amundsen Sea embayment and the West Antarctic ice sheet and subglacial lakes (Fig. 2). Many of them have been planned as the precursor of long-term research programs. In view of the ensemble of the research projects that have been endorsed, the IPY is likely to lead to: ! a direct increase in human activity in Antarctica; ! an increase in infrastructure in Antarctica; ! an increased pressure on Antarctica’s wilderness values; ! an increased level of interest in Antarctica, which can indirectly generate more activities other than scientific research, adding to the current trend of rapid growth and diversification of Antarctic tourism. The IPY provides a unique opportunity to promote international collaboration, sharing of logistics and increasing environmental awareness in scientific research and, more broadly, in all Antarctic operations. It is already offering a unique transparency about the ensemble of research activities and has made significant efforts in encouraging international collaboration, maximizing the effective use of logistics in conducting globally important research. However, independently of the environmental impacts of each individual project, the cumulative impacts arising from 350 research activities and their corresponding logistical support over a concentrated period of two Antarctic summer seasons is not negligible. Treaty parties need to ensure that all IPY projects in Antarctica take place in full compliance of the requirements of the Protocol of Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Scientists should be encouraged to undertake initiatives to green up individual projects. To this end, ASOC has initiated a project to evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts of the IPY and to increase the awareness of those working or visiting Antarctica. The present paper forms part of this project, which has received endorsement from the IPY Joint Committee. Symptomatic of the current trend of the expansion of the human footprint in Antarctica, the IPY demonstrates the clear need for long-term, large-scale, strategic-level planning of Antarctic activities. This is essential if the Antarctic environment, its wilderness values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research are to continue to be sufficiently protected. 3 IP 86 1. Introduction The IPY Joint Committee has endorsed 99 research projects with Antarctic or bipolar focus, expected to take place during the IPY period of March 2007 - March 2009. Each project entails one or more activity, which, at an earlier stage, has been submitted as an Expression of Interest (EoI). We examined the database of projects and Expressions of Interest on the IPY website (www.ipy.org). For each activity, we noted the absence or presence of a fieldwork component. If fieldwork is planned, we noted the locations of the planned activity, whether any physical infrastructure is planned to be left behind, and whether an environmental impact assessment has been completed. The locations of each activity are marked on a map in Google Earth, except where the locations of the planned activity are too broad or insufficiently precise (Fig. 2). The nature of each individual activity is not identified; an area where several activities are planned to take place shows up in a lighter color on the map. The map serves as an indication of the intensity and the spatial extent of IPY activities and should not be considered as a direct representation of the likely environmental impacts arising from the IPY. The results of our analysis are presented below. They only reflect activities that have been proposed under the projects endorsed by the IPY Joint Committee, and do not necessarily represent all the projects that will be funded and hence, which will take place during the IPY period. 2. Increase in Intensity of Activity The 99 projects with Antarctic or bipolar focus that have been endorsed by the IPY Joint Committee entail a total of 350 different activities. Out of the 350 activities, 82% have a fieldwork component (Fig. 1a). Of these activities, 105 (or 37%) plan to leave behind some kind of physical infrastructure. The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat’s database of environmental impact assessments lists only 7 completed assessments that are directly linked to science or logistics that are planned for the IPY1. Activity will intensify around existing centers of research (areas in light color in Fig. 2), including: ! the Antarctic Peninsula, especially, on King George Island and in South Georgia; ! Dronning Maud Land; ! the region around Prydz Bay and Amery Ice Shelf; ! existing research stations on the Polar Plateau, i.e., Concordia, Vostok, and South Pole; ! western Ross Sea and Victoria Land, within the vicinity of the research stations of Scott Base, McMurdo and Mario Zuchelli; ! the Southern Ocean, especially the Weddell Sea, coastal waters off Wilkes Land, Drake Passage and the Scotia Sea. 3. Increased Pressure on Antarctica’s Wilderness Values A number of large-scale research activities have also been planned in areas which have been hitherto difficult to access, thereby, expanding the human footprint in Antarctica. Many of these activities have been planned as the precursor of long-term research programs, sometimes necessitating permanent research stations. These include (Fig. 2): 1 Available from www.ats.aq. Initial Environmental Evaluations (IEEs) include: a) Germany, 2006. Establishment, maintenance and removal of a temporary fuel depot in the frame of the IPY-Project AGAP (Antarctica's Gamburtsev Province); b) Italy, 2005. Talos Dome Ice Core Project (TALDICE); c) USA, 2005. Recovery of a Deep Ice Core from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Ice Flow Divide (WAIS Divide); d) USA, 2005; Establishment of Three Temporary Field Camps for Logistical Support of a Large-Scale Airborne Geophysical Survey of the Amundsen Sea Embayment, Antarctica (AGASEA). Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations (CEEs) include: a) USA, 2005. Project IceCube; b) New Zealand, 2003; ANDRILL; c) France, Italy, 1994. Concordia project: construction and operation of a scientific base at Dome C, Antarctica. 4 IP 86 ! aerogeophysical and seismic studies in the Gamburtsev Mountains and Dome A in East Antarctica, with the plans of: - establishing landing sites and traverse routes in the region, - constructing a semi-permanent research station at Dome A, - retrieving a deep ice core at Dome A, - possibly constructing an astronomical observatory at Dome A. ! glaciological and geophysical studies in the Amundsen Sea embayment and West Antarctica ice sheet which will: - act as a catalyst for future work, build the logistic expertise and capacity required to support ongoing fieldwork. ! geophysical surveys and sampling of subglacial lakes in west Antarctica, which hopes to: - set the foundation for decades of investigation exploring the subglacial environment. 4. Increased Infrastructure The amount of logistics and infrastructure is also likely to increase in Antarctica as a result of the increase in intensity and spatial extent of activities during the IPY. New infrastructure that has been explicitly planned under IPY activities include: ! development of a multi-year maintained traverse route between Zhongshan station and Dome A; ! construction of a semi-permanent research station at Dome A; ! construction of radars, laboratories and other facilities at Mario Zuchelli, Concordia, Halley, South Pole, Esperanza and Syowa; ! construction of facilities at Concordia and South Pole necessitates large amounts of material to be transported on the multi-year maintained traverse routes of McMurdo – South Pole and Cape Prud’homme - Dome C. Concurrently, if not explicitly linked with the IPY, additional infrastructure will be developed in Antarctica during the same period. This includes: ! air link between Australia and Antarctica, and between stations; ! construction of a new Belgian station in Dronning Maud Land; ! construction of a new Indian station in East Antarctica; ! the increased use of tourist vessels carrying several hundreds to several thousands of passengers each. 5. Enhancing the Environmental Legacy of the IPY In recent years, human activity in Antarctica has increased significantly, as exemplified by the