IP 134 ENG Agenda Item: CEP 9e Presented by: ASOC Original: English Submitted: 31/5/2019 Systematic expansion of the Antarctic protected areas network 1 IP 134 Systematic expansion of the Antarctic protected areas network Information paper submitted by ASOC1 Summary This document examines some key issues concerning protected areas in Antarctica and suggests practical ways forward with a focus on Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). There is a general understanding that the list of Antarctic protected areas needs expanding according to a “systematic environmental-geographic framework” as required in the Protocol’s Annex V, Art. 3(2). Conceptual progress has been made through the consideration of Environmental Domains and Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). Databases of relevant information are available and the methodology for systematic conservation planning is well established. Currently there are no legal, scientific or practical arguments to delay the expansion of the protected area network in Antarctica. ASOC recommends that ATCPs commit to a timeline of key activities for expanding the system and increasing protection levels for all ACBRs and beyond. Introduction Human presence in Antarctica is increasing, driven by a range of regional and global processes. The human footprint takes a sizeable component of ice-free areas in Antarctica.2 Notwithstanding that activities related to science and associated logistics, as well as commercial activities, will continue for the foreseeable future (or precisely for that reason), Antarctic Treaty Parties need to limit the impact of human presence on the environment and other intrinsic values of Antarctica recognised by the Protocol. Further tangible steps are reQuired to achieve this goal, and these include various forms of area protection. Globally the significance of protected areas has been recognised through the Sustainable Development Goals, and protected areas in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean will be a contribution to these goals. Preservation and conservation are among the criteria of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and are reflected in later instruments adopted by Antarctic Treaty Parties. These include a plethora of area protection and management categories adopted over the years, more recently with the adoption of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Annex V of the Protocol provides guidelines for the establishment of specially protected and management areas.3 This document examines some key issues concerning protected areas in Antarctica and suggests practical ways forward with a focus on Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). While not discussed here, it should be noted that other types of area protection and management in Antarctica are also relevant to the functioning of the ASPA network given issues of adjacency and ecosystem continuity. These include Antarctic Specially Managed Areas also adopted by the ATCM and marine protected areas adopted by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). Analysis The analysis below is broadly structured around the main terms of reference of the “SCAR-CEP Joint SCAR/CEP Workshop on Further Developing the Antarctic Protected Area System” conducted before ATCM XLII, namely: 1. Review of the current status of the Antarctic protected area system. 2. Identification of information and resources relevant to designating ASPAs within a systematic environmental-geographic framework and 3. Identification of actions that could be taken to support the further development of the Antarctic protected area system. 1 Lead authors Ricardo Roura and Claire Christian, with contributions from Eli Webster and Rodolfo Werner. 2 Brooks et al 2019. 3 For an overview see for instance McIvor et al 2019. 3 IP 134 Reviewing the current status of the Antarctic protected area system Earlier spatial protection instruments in Antarctica aimed to protect planned or ongoing research and/or particular ecosystem features. In both instances, these protected areas were often located in close vicinity of existing research facilities.4 Practical and geopolitical reasons may have played a role in their location too.5 Subsequently, the protected area regime received some impetus with the adoption of the Protocol and its Annex V.6 Paradoxically, the adoption of ASPAs has slowed down since then. There are at present 72 ASPAs, over 70% of which were first adopted before the Protocol.7 However, the ATCM/CEP have been engaged in protected area discussions in the past 20+ years, including the clarification of some conceptual issues and active management of the network. About 50% of the Measures adopted by the ATCM in recent years have concerned the Protected Area network, and have largely focused on the periodic review of existing ASPAs and other Annex V instruments. More recently, three ASPAs have been de-designated and others have been earmarked for possible delisting in the future, following regular reviews. In parallel two new ASPA proposals are under development. CEP I in 1998 noted that there were “…gaps in the system with some protected area categories as set out in Article 3(2) of Annex V being very poorly represented or not represented at all”.8 Recent analysis reinforces that the network is not yet fully adeQuate and needs further expansion.9 The network of protected areas has gaps with respect to ASPA distribution and attributes as well as limited coverage outside ice-free areas, including ice shelves, the subglacial environment and the marine environment.10 This is contrary to reQuirements to identify and list a number of area categories according to a “systematic-environmental geographic framework” referred to in Annex V, Article 3(2). This framework itself was further conceptualized through the 2000s with work on Antarctic Domains and Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs).11 Tables 1 and 2 illustrate aspects of the current protected area system.12 There is strong scientific evidence underscoring the need to enhance the current network of protected areas in accordance with reQuirements of the Protocol and its Annex V. In order to do this, the identification of particular areas within environmental domains or ACBRs for designation as ASPAs could follow well established processes of systematic conservation planning (hereafter SCP).13 This process should also consider local and global processes affecting Antarctica, as well as an expanding human footprint and the need for scientific reference areas and natural refugia. In addition, Table 3 illustrates the listing of ASPA categories A-I of Annex V Art. 3 of the Protocol with ACBR categories. Information and resources relevant to designating ASPAs within a systematic- environmental - geographic framework Environmental Domains and ACBRs provide a framework for designating a representative series of ASPAs within a systematic environmental-geographic framework as referred to in Article 4(2) of Annex V of the 4 McIvor et al 2019. 5 Hughes and Grant 2016. 6 The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was signed in Madrid on October 4, 1991 and entered into force in 1998. Annex V on Area Protection and Management was adopted separately by the 16th ATCM in 1991 and entered into force in 2002. 7 ASOC 2017. 8 CEP I 1998 report, para 48. 9 Shaw 2014, Coetzee et al 2019. 10 See Roura, Steenhuisen and Bastmeijer (2018) for a discussion on the application of Annex V to the marine environment. 11 McIvor et al 2019. See also Morgan et al 2007, New Zealand 2008. 12 Based on Roura, Steenhuisen and Bastmeijer 2018 including supporting documentation. 13 ASOC 2016. For instance, Margules and Pressey (2000) identify the following SCP steps: measure and map biodiversity, identify conservation goals for the planning region; review existing reserves; select additional reserves; implement conservation actions on the ground; and management and monitoring of reserves. 4 IP 134 Protocol. The Antarctic Treaty Parties have agreed that these spatial frameworks can guide the designation of additional ASPAs, and the CEP has recognised the need for a more systematic approach to the development of the protected area system.14 Thus, the principal remaining task is to actually develop proposals and designate areas based on data availability and other factors. As noted above methodologies for strategic conservation planning are well established.15 In addition, a number of databases are available to begin the work of identifying areas that merit protection.16,17 While Environmental Domains and ACBRs focus essentially on the terrestrial environment, connectivity to the marine environment should also be a factor in the consideration of ASPAs. Local and regional pressures, and vulnerability (or resilience) to climate change impacts should also be considered. Actions to support the further development of the Antarctic protected area system ASOC suggests that the ATCM should initiate a five- to ten-year SCP process to identify and designate new ASPAs. In practice, this reQuires agreeing on a SCP process that aims to: • Identify and eliminate gaps in protection from the nine categories of areas identified in Annex V, Article 3(2). • Combine evidence-based decision making with the precautionary approach, since the data available to feed into the ASPA designation process will vary locally, regionally and at a continental level. • Consider the current state of the environment as well as current and foreseeable future pressures. Both