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 .