This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 28 May 2013, At: 21:55Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

BiodiversityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbid20

Continental governance and environmentalmanagement mechanisms under the Antarctic TreatySystem: sufficient for the biodiversity challenges ofthis century?Peter Convey a , Kevin A. Hughes a & Tina Tin ba British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UKb Antarctic Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), Olivet, FrancePublished online: 10 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Peter Convey , Kevin A. Hughes & Tina Tin (2012): Continental governance and environmentalmanagement mechanisms under the Antarctic Treaty System: sufficient for the biodiversity challenges of this century?,Biodiversity, 13:3-4, 234-248

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2012.703551

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

B I O D I V E R S I T YVol. 13, Nos. 3–4, September–December 2012, 234–248

Continental governance and environmental management mechanisms under the Antarctic

Treaty System: sufficient for the biodiversity challenges of this century?

Peter Conveya*, Kevin A. Hughesa and Tina Tinb

aBritish Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK; bAntarctic Southern OceanCoalition (ASOC), Olivet, France

(Received 2 May 2012; final version received 13 June 2012)

Antarctic terrestrial biodiversity is challenged by rapid climatic changes and expansion of the human footprint.As well as the potential for environmental damage at the local level, these challenges are likely to act synergisticallyto increase the risk of introduction and establishment of non-native species and diseases and reduce the resilience ofnative ecosystems. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (‘the Protocol’) entered intoforce in 1998 and is the main governance mechanism that regulates environmental management in Antarctica.We examine how well the Protocol and associated management tools are currently equipped to protect Antarcticterrestrial biodiversity in a warmer and busier Antarctic, considering likely future challenges, current levels ofcompliance with the Protocol and implementation of its requirements, and participation in environmental mattersby Antarctic Treaty Parties. We argue that a strategic-level response will be needed to boost the ability of theAntarctic Treaty System to deal with the large-scale, pervasive challenges of climate change and increased humanactivity. A strategic planning approach that can (1) account for trends over long periods, (2) take into considerationcumulative effects, (3) be guided by a set of consciously chosen priorities, and (4) take an integrated approachtowards management of human activities and the conservation of the Antarctic environment, will permit theanticipation of upcoming challenges and risks and adoption of proactive and holistic management strategies.

Keywords: activity footprint; human impact; protected area; strategic environmental assessment; terrestrialbiodiversity; tourism

Introduction

Antarctica is the only continent not to have a long-

term history of human contact and inhabitation. The

continent was first landed upon only two centuries ago.

Most parts have been visited for the first time over the

last 50 to 100 years, while there are still some areas –

albeit diminishing in numbers and extent – which have

never been visited at all (Hughes et al. 2011). The first

half of the twentieth century saw the ‘heroic age’ of

exploration of the Antarctic continent. The

International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–58

provided a major impetus for scientific research,

heralding year-round human presence and permanent

infrastructure on the continent (Headland 2009). This

activity has continued to grow and was further

enhanced through the International Polar Year of

2007–08. In the twenty-first century, science and its

associated logistics continue to be the human activity

that brings about the majority of infrastructure and

long-term human presence. Since the latter part of the

twentieth century, commercial tourism has been bring-

ing the largest number of people to the region annually

(Jabour 2009; Lynch et al. 2010).

The terrestrial environment of Antarctica is extre-mely limited, with only 0.34% of the continentcurrently free of snow or ice as exposed nunataks,montane cliffs, slopes and scree and seasonally snow-and ice-free areas. The continent is divided into twobiogeographical zones, the continental and maritimeAntarctic (Convey 2007), although recent and rapidadvances in biogeographical knowledge indicate thatconsiderably more regionalisation is required to prop-erly describe Antarctic terrestrial biogeography(Chown and Convey 2007; Pugh and Convey 2008;Convey et al. 2008; Terauds et al. 2012). Visiblydeveloped and ‘island-like’ (Bergstrom and Chown1999) ecosystems are largely but not completely limitedto coastal areas, particularly along the AntarcticPeninsula and associated archipelagos (maritimezone), and the ‘oases’ of the East Antarctic coastline(continental zone). The McMurdo Dry Valleys ofsouthern Victoria Land are the only major exception,occupying �40,000 km2 (see Figure 1 for the locationof regions within Antarctica mentioned throughoutthe text).

The terrestrial biodiversity of the Antarctic conti-nent is low, with low species richness, and many higher

*Corresponding author. Email: pcon@bas.ac.uk

ISSN 1488–8386 print/ISSN 2160–0651 online

� 2012 Tropical Conservancy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2012.703551

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

taxonomic groups missing completely. Many ecosys-tem functions or services are represented poorly (lowredundancy) or not at all (Hogg et al. 2006; Convey2007). The terrestrial fauna comprises invertebrates,predominantly microarthropods, with only two‘higher’ insect species present. Plant communities arelargely cryptogamic (mosses, liverworts, lichens), withonly two higher plants present that are restricted to theAntarctic Peninsula. Large, and globally significant,populations of seabirds and marine mammals breed onthe fringes of the continent.

There is considerable spatial and temporal overlapbetween humans and wildlife in terrestrial Antarctica.The large majority of research, logistic operations andtourism takes place during the Antarctic summer incoastal regions, partly due to ease of access. This is also

where marine mammals and seabirds come to breedand/or moult, and where terrestrial vegetation takeshold – themselves becoming foci of scientific ortourism activities. Hence, while the absolute numbersof visitors who land on the Antarctic continent aresmall, the potential human impact is magnified by thecoincident concentration of human and biologicalactivities, leading to concerns that most of the impactis occurring in the areas that can sustain it the least(Jabour 2009; Cowan et al. 2011). This concentration isemphasised by the fact that 55% of tourist landings inthe northern Antarctic Peninsula area take place atonly eight locations, most of which have receivednearly 10,000 tourists per season in recent years, andtwo (Port Lockroy and Half Moon Island) up to16,000 (Lynch et al. 2010). Similarly, in terms of

Figure 1. Overview map of Antarctica, indicating regions and locations mentioned throughout the text.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

numbers of personnel and/or numbers and density ofresearch stations, national scientific operations areconcentrated around the South Shetland Islands/northern Antarctic Peninsula, and Ross Island (parti-cularly McMurdo Station) in Victoria Land, with thelatter area accounting for approximately half of alloperator personnel in Antarctica.

Advances in technology and increased mobility ofthe global human population have led to increases inthe volume and diversity of human activities in theAntarctic over recent decades (Tin, Hemmings, andRoura 2008; Tin et al. 2009). Antarctica’s isolation isdiminishing as the world’s interest in the regioncontinues to increase. Antarctica continues to beimportant geopolitically, as national interests andinfluence on the world political stage interminglewith growing economic interests (Hemmings,Rothwell, and Scott 2012). Increasing numbers oftourists visit Antarctica as it becomes a destination onthe circuit of ‘last chance tourism’, as a natural andwild place that must be seen before it disappearsforever (Lemelin, Dawson, and Stewart 2011). Theanswers that Antarctica can contribute to urgentglobal environmental questions, such as climatechange and sea-level rise, also make it a focus forscience and the attention of the world’s media.

Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems are thought to bevulnerable to a range of human-induced environmentalimpacts and changes, both directly as a result ofhuman actions within the region, and indirectlythrough global processes such as climate change andstratospheric ozone depletion. The actual and potentialeffects of these have been the subject of a range ofthorough recent studies and reviews (e.g. Walther et al.2002; Bargagli 2005; Frenot et al. 2005; Bergstrom,Convey, and Huiskes 2006; Turner et al. 2009; Conveyet al. 2009; Kerry and Riddle 2009; Tin et al. 2009;Hughes and Convey 2010, 2012; Convey 2011; Cowanet al. 2011; Nielsen et al. 2011; Chown et al. 2012) andwill not be rehearsed here.

In this paper, we summarise the challenges thatincreasing human activity and the expected effects ofclimate change pose to the future conservation andmanagement of the terrestrial environment inAntarctica, and explore some possible responses tothese challenges in the context of the existingcontinental governance regime and potentialdevelopment of its systems.

A busier and warmer Antarctic

Based on historical data (Headland 2009) and currentoperational data from the Council of Managers ofNational Antarctic Programs (COMNAP 2012) and

the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (ATS 2012a), approx-imately 240 research stations, refuges and camps havebeen constructed to date within the Antarctic Treatyarea. Approximately 190 of these facilities are activelyin use, providing simultaneous accommodation for ca.5400 people in the summer and 1100 people in thewinter (COMNAP 2012; ATS 2012a). Most stationsare located on or near the coast, and half on thenorthern Antarctic Peninsula and associated archipel-agos (Figure 2). On average, one to two new stationshave been built each year in the last two decades(Figure 3a; COMNAP, 2012). Stations can developinto logistic hubs for the deployment of field parties tomore remote locations (Hughes et al. 2011). Travel toAntarctica has traditionally been by sea. Air transpor-tation now significantly reduces travel time and facil-itates travel to and within the region. One-day returntrips to research stations on the Antarctic Peninsulaare possible from South America, while day trip andovernight tourist visits are also now offered fromPunta Arenas, Chile (Bastmeijer, Lamers, and Harcha2008). Since 2000, new inter- and intra-continentallinks have been developed from South Africa andAustralia, facilitating travel to and within DronningMaud Land and Wilkes Land.

In the Antarctic Treaty area, the chances of severepollution are generally regarded as low. However,measures controlling pollution cannot entirelyeliminate the risk, and locally significant incidentshave occurred both in the context of land-basedinfrastructure and operations, and of marine accidents(Aislabie et al. 2004; Aronson et al. 2011). Apart fromthe disease risks associated with the disposal ofuntreated sewage, pollution generated at or nearresearch stations can accumulate in terrestrial ecosys-tems as well as negatively impacting wildlife (Bargagli2005; Kerry and Riddle 2009; Kennicutt et al. 2010).Despite all precautions being recommended, humanpresence inevitably will bring instances of majoraccidents, exemplified by the long record of catastro-phic fires on research stations – most recently on theBrazilian Commandante Ferraz Station (SouthShetland Islands) in January 2012 – or of vesselssinking with attendant risk of oil pollution; the risk ofsuch events can only increase with increased humanpresence.

The majority of Antarctic tourism is ship-basedwith more than 90% of tourists visiting Antarctica oncruise vessels (Bertram and Stonehouse 2007), mostlybetween November and March. Although a smallpercentage of total Antarctic tourism, land-basedtourism development remains an area of concern,primarily with respect to potential environmentalimpact and search and rescue issues (Bastmeijer,Lamers, and Harcha 2008; ASOC 2010).

236 P. CONVEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

In the last 10 years, tourist numbers have nearlyquintupled (Figure 3b) and, for every 10 payingpassengers, there are a further six members of staffand crew (IAATO 2009b). Jabour (2009) estimatedthat, for the 2007–08 season, the tourism industryrepresented a presence of more than 750,000 person-days in the Antarctic Treaty area, or an equivalent ofmore than 32,000 person-days ashore. By comparison,the national Antarctic programmes represented apresence of more than 700,000 person-days in theAntarctic Treaty area, and an equivalent of more than675,000 person-days ashore during the same season(Jabour 2009). Most tourists visit the northernAntarctic Peninsula and Scotia arc archipelagos, nor-mally landing at a small number of well-knownlocations in rapid succession. Landings are highlyconcentrated at specific sites (Lynch et al. 2010).Global recession appears to have temporarily damp-ened tourist numbers (IAATO 2009c, 2010).Concurrently, the recent decision of the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO) to ban the use and

carriage of heavy fuel oil on vessels operating inAntarctic waters, which came into effect in 2011(IMO), has resulted in fewer large cruise-only (500þpassengers) and mid-size (201–500 passengers) vesselsoperating in Antarctica. Stakeholders see growth asgenerally inevitable, and increase in the rate of growthand continued diversification of tourism activities to bemost plausible (Haase et al. 2007; IAATO 2009c, 2010;Lamers, Amelung, and Stel 2010).

Since the 1950s, significant warming has occurredacross the Antarctic Peninsula and to a lesser extentWest Antarctica, with little change across the rest ofthe continent (Convey et al. 2009; Turner et al. 2009).The increased availability of liquid water and highertemperatures are thought to be the factors with thegreatest biological importance (Convey 2011), alreadyleading to local expansion in the distribution of plantsin the Peninsula region. Looking forward into thetwenty-first century, climate models project that sig-nificant surface warming will start to occur over thebulk of the Antarctic continent, together with increases

Figure 2. Partial picture of the current human footprint on the Antarctic continent, including locations of stations (in use anddisused), refuges, science apparatus, historic sites and land-based tourism facilities. Data markers are not to scale. Data sources:Headland (2009), COMNAP (2012), ATS (2012a) and subsequent links to websites of National Antarctic Programs, ATS(2012b), IAATO (2012), University of Wisconsin-Madison (2012), Adventure Network International, SCAR Antarctic DigitalDatabase.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

in precipitation. The resultant consequences for bio-logical dynamics will be complex. However, highamongst future scenarios is the likelihood of invasionby more competitive non-native species, as warmertemperatures and increased human visitation combineto make it easier for non-native species to colonise(Frenot et al. 2005; Chown et al. 2012; Hughes andConvey 2012).

Regulatory framework for conservation and

management in Antarctica

The primary international legislation concerningAntarctica is the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed

in 1959, came into force in 1961, and applies to thearea south of 60oS latitude. The Treaty currently has28 Consultative Parties which participate in decisionmaking, and 22 Non-Consultative Parties. It placespre-existing national territorial claims in the region inabeyance, and prohibits military activity, nuclearexplosions and the disposal of radioactive wastematerial, whilst promoting international cooperationin scientific investigation in Antarctica andrecommending measures for the ‘preservation andconservation of living resources in Antarctica’ [ArticleIX, para 1 (f)]. Parties meet annually at the AntarcticTreaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) to discuss theimplementation of the agreements that are in force andto consider additional regulatory measures. While the

Shipborne passengers in Antarctica, 1957-2011

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000(b)

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

Year

Num

ber

of s

hipb

orne

pas

seng

ers

(a)

Figure 3. (a) Cumulative number of stations, camps and refuges constructed in the Antarctic Treaty Area (includes active anddisused infrastructure; based on historical data (Headland, 2009) and operational data (COMNAP, 2012; ATS, 2012a)).Cumulative peak simultaneous capacity of stations, camps and refuges that are currently active (data: COMNAP 2012, ATS2012a). Numbers shown in figure probably represent lower-bound estimates as capacity data are not available for all facilitiesand each location with multiple facilities is only counted once. (b) Number of ship-borne passengers participating in commercialtourism operations in Antarctica between 1957 and 2011. Data sources: 1957–58 to 1991–92, Enzenbacher (1992, 1993); 1992–93to 2010–11, IAATO (2011).

238 P. CONVEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

Antarctic Treaty provides the framework, the

Consultative Parties implement its agreements via

national laws (Kriwoken and Rootes 2000). Due to

this, differences of interpretation can arise from

different methods of enforcement and compliance in

the various nations.Since 1959, the Antarctic Treaty has expanded into

the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) which includes

other legal instruments designed specifically for the

protection and management of Antarctic biota. These

include the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of

Antarctic Flora and Fauna (1964). However, this has

largely been subsumed into the Protocol on

Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

(hereafter ‘the Protocol’), which is now the instrument

most concerned with conservation of terrestrial biota

and ecosystems within the Antarctic Treaty area. This

was signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1998. In

effect, the Protocol assigns to the entire Antarctic

Treaty area a degree of special conservation. By

acceding to the Protocol, Parties agree to designate

Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and

science [Article 2 -Objective and designation]. The

environmental principles derived from this include

‘The protection of the Antarctic environment and

dependent and associated ecosystems and the intrinsic

value of Antarctica, including its wilderness and aes-

thetic values and its value as an area for the conduct of

scientific research, in particular research essential to

understanding the global environment, shall be funda-

mental considerations in the planning and conduct of all

activities in the Antarctic Treaty area’ [Article 3(1)].The Protocol established the Committee for

Environmental Protection (CEP) as an expert body

that meets annually to provide advice and formulate

recommendations to the ATCM. Three of the six

annexes of the Protocol (Annex I: Environmental

Impact Assessment; Annex II: Conservation of

Antarctic Fauna and Flora; and Annex V: Area

Protection and Management) contain measures

directly relevant for environmental protection and the

conservation of Antarctica’s biota.Annex I states that all activities within the Treaty

Area should be subject to an environmental impact

assessment (EIA) unless the impact is less than minor

or transitory. EIAs are essential for all planned

activities, including those that may impact native

biota. Activities resulting in greater than minor or

transitory impacts are further subject to a comprehen-

sive environmental evaluation (CEE), which also

require the ongoing monitoring of key environmental

indicators. The nation proposing the activity decides

upon the likely level of environmental impact and

consequently the level of EIA required.

Under Annex II, harmful interference with nativeflora and fauna is prohibited, except in accordancewith a permit, which may be granted by nationalauthorities to provide specimens for scientific researchpurposes/educational institutions and for the construc-tion and operation of scientific support facilities.Article 4 contains measures relevant to the introduc-tion of non-native species, diseases and parasites. Theintentional introduction of non-native plants andanimals to land, ice shelves or into water within theAntarctic Treaty area is prohibited unless for a definedscientific purpose and in accordance with a permit.However, there is little explicit reference to theunintentional introduction of non-native species,other than stating that any non-native species intro-duced without a permit ‘shall be removed or disposed ofwhenever feasible, unless the removal or disposal wouldresult in a greater adverse environmental impact.. . . Inaddition, all reasonable steps shall be taken to controlthe consequence of that introduction to avoid harm tonative flora and fauna’ [Article 4(5)]. Parties are alsorequired to take precautions to prevent accidentalintroductions of microorganisms, ensure that poultryimported for food is free of disease and is disposed ofin a manner that eliminates risk to native flora andfauna, and avoid the importation of non-sterile soil tothe maximum extent possible. Article 3(3c) urges thatParties shall take steps to minimise the risk of non-native introductions and shall limit activities to ensurethat ‘the diversity of species, as well as the habitatsessential to their existence, and the balance of theecological systems existing within the Antarctic Treatyareas be maintained’. However, human-mediated bio-logical transfer from one Antarctic region to anothermay present a greater risk to the preservation of theregion’s isolated and unique ecosystems in their naturalstates than the introduction of species from outsideAntarctica (Convey et al. 2000; Chown and Convey2007; Convey 2008; Hughes and Convey 2010; Teraudset al. 2012), and this issue is not addressed directly bythe Protocol.

Currently, under Annex V, there are 71 AntarcticSpecially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and sevenAntarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs) desig-nated. An area of Antarctica may be designated anASPA to protect outstanding environmental, scientific,historic, aesthetic or wilderness values, any combina-tion of those values, or ongoing or planned scientificresearch. ASMAs may be designated in an area wheremultiple activities are being conducted or may beconducted in the future, to assist in planning andcoordination, avoid possible conflicts, improve coop-eration between Parties or minimise environmentalimpacts. Many ASPAs have been designated to protecteither areas of exceptional importance for science or to

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

preserve unique natural ecological systems such as birdor seal colonies or biologically-rich terrestrial commu-nities. However, the process of designation has to dateemployed neither objective nor systematic approachesto identifying a representative suite of locations, withthe result that the existing ASPA network provides avery skewed representation both in spatial terms andrelative to more complex biogeographic or ‘environ-mental domains’ analyses (Morgan et al. 2007; Hughesand Convey 2010; Terauds et al. 2012).

A number of other international environmentalagreements of global or regional scope are relevant tothe Antarctic Treaty area (Bastmeijer 2003). Of mostrelevance to terrestrial diversity is the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD). However, while AntarcticTreaty Parties have agreed to the importance ofensuring proper coordination with such global envi-ronmental agreements (ATCM 1994), the Treaty itselfprecludes the application of the CBD, as land withinthe Antarctic Treaty area is not considered as sover-eign territory. In reality, the degree of coordinationwith other international agreements varies, and isparticularly sensitive to sovereignty issues and theprerogatives of the ATS (Guyomard 2010).

Finally, a range of non-binding guidelines andcodes of conduct has been developed to aid withmanagement of different human activities and/orspecific locations. The CEP has developed variousguidelines for Antarctic Treaty Parties to reducehuman impacts, although many of the guidelines onthe practical implementation of Treaty-derived legisla-tion have been developed by individual nations andapplied only to their own operations. As a result,standards of environmental practice are not consistentacross the national operations within the Treaty area.The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research(SCAR) has developed codes of conduct, for instance,for land-based scientific field research and the entryinto and exploration of sub-glacial lakes. Codes ofconduct have also been developed as part of themanagement plans of ASMAs such as the McMurdoDry Valleys and Deception Island, and COMNAP/SCAR have provided a Checklist for Supply ChainManagers.

The regulation and management of tourism activ-ities rely heavily on the development of generalindustry and site-specific guidelines by theInternational Association of Antarctica TourOperators (IAATO), partly in consultation with theAntarctic Treaty Parties. General industry guidelinesinclude visitor codes of conduct (IAATO 2007a),restrictions to no more than 100 passengers ashore atany one time (IAATO 2009a), minimum approachdistances for wildlife and quarantine guidelines toreduce the risks of introduction of disease and

non-native species (IAATO 2007b). Site-specific guide-

lines are now in place at 32 of the most visited locations

on the Antarctic continent, to manage impacts to

wildlife and historic sites and artefacts (ATCM 2010).

They have been adopted under ATCM resolutions byconsensus, although these are not legally binding on

the Parties.

Compliance and engagement

All of these factors make the collective and effectivegovernance of Antarctica a challenge, both now and in

the future. The investment of time and expertise needed

to manage Antarctica is not divided equally between

all Parties. Using the number of papers submitted to

the CEP as a proxy for engagement in the environ-mental management of Antarctica, it is clear that a

small number of nations undertake the bulk of the

work by leading the discussions (the United Kingdom,

New Zealand, Australia and the United States). Thesenations are amongst the original signatory nations of

the Antarctic Treaty, and have substantial territorial

claims in abeyance and/or large current operations and

operational footprints. Some other Parties may have

good environmental practices, while being less engagedin the CEP processes, but in general many Parties

contribute little of substance, at best following the lead

of the more active Parties. Both individual Parties and

the CEP are aided by information contained in advicefrom the expert observer bodies of SCAR (as the

interdisciplinary scientific body that provides indepen-

dent scientific advice to the ATCM) and the Antarctic

and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC; representative

of environmental non-governmental organisations atthe ATS) (Figure 4). Many Treaty Parties, both

amongst the original signatory nations and more

recent accedents, have yet to engage with the develop-

ment of environmental management policy and initia-tives through the CEP.

This lack of engagement is unhelpful, as the

implementation of the policies and guidelines of the

CEP may not be given priority by Parties who were not

actively involved in their development. Add to this, theoutputs of the CEP (and all the ATCM’s Measures,

Decisions and Resolutions) must be agreed by consen-

sus. If Parties are not actively engaged, they may not

see the benefits, or agree to, the implementation ofhigh environmental standards within the Treaty area.

Currently, the CEP can be slow to make progress on

issues and, when decisions are finally made, their

effectiveness may be limited and environmental stan-

dards may be minimal, as meaningful advancement onissues is often stifled by the necessity to take into

240 P. CONVEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

consideration the requirements and perspectives of allConsultative Parties.

To a large degree, the implementation and policingof environmental work undertaken by CEP, and givenlegal status through agreement by the ATCM, is theresponsibility of individual Parties. In effect, eachparty is (i) responsible for the activities of its ownnationals and National Antarctic Programme, and (ii)ensuring that the minimum standards of the Protocolare adhered to. While many Parties go to great effortsto ensure compliance with the Protocol, and may evenimplement higher environmental standards than nor-mally required in their own country, some Parties areless stringent (e.g. Connor 2008). While some breachesof the Protocol are due to the actions of individuals, inother cases significant environmental damage has beencaused by inadequate management on stations andpoor education of personnel on environmental issues.This has resulted in illegal waste disposal practices,uncontrolled oil spills, disturbance of wildlife, intro-duction of non-native species (including, for example,as pets or potted plants), destruction of vegetation andunpermitted entry to ASPAs (Braun et al. 2012).Under the mechanisms of the ATS, internationalinspection teams may visit stations to report on their

environmental and operational practices (Giuliani1996), but often these visits last only a few hours andmay be choreographed by the station management toshow the station in its best light which, along with areluctance of Parties to criticise each other (Hughes2010), puts their value in question.

The level of Party engagement in the work of theCEP is influenced by international politics andresourcing at a national level. However, Antarcticenvironmental protection is not served well by theskewed and constrained distribution of the CEPworkload. It will be an on-going challenge for thoseParties who currently drive Antarctic environmentalpolicy to engage and encourage other less activeParties, so that all may contribute and feel part ofthe protection of Antarctica’s environmental, scientific,historical, wilderness and aesthetic values.

Development of environmental management

strategies

The ATS provides the framework for the conservationand management of native flora, fauna and ecosystemsin Antarctica. Many successful measures have been put

Figure 4. Total number of Working Papers and Information Papers submitted to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting(ATCM) Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) between 1998 and 2010. Papers submitted by the 28 Antarctic TreatyConsultative Parties, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), the Council of Managers of National AntarcticPrograms (COMNAP), the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the Antarcticand Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) are shown(data sourced from: http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ats_meetings.aspx?lang=e).

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

in place to reduce the impacts of local human activities.Human activity in the Antarctic is presently followinga course of sustained growth and diversification, whichis likely to bring new and amplify pre-existing chal-lenges to the environmental management of the region.

The continual improvement and implementation ofexisting environmental management tools are para-mount. The entry into force of the EnvironmentalProtocol and its requirement for EIAs has beencredited for having reduced the impacts of proposednew construction activities on Antarctic ecosystems.However, concerns have also been highlighted over theimplementation of the EIA provisions as well as theirlimitations. Not one EIA appears to have led tosubstantial modification of the activity as first elabo-rated by the proponent, let alone a decision not toproceed with the activity (Hemmings and Kriwoken2010). Despite a structure that demands internationalscrutiny and consensus amongst all ConsultativeParties, the final decisions on whether and howactivities subjected to EIA should proceed are takenentirely at the national level – and with nationalinterests in mind (Bastmeijer and Roura 2007). Adiscussion of this and other systemic limitations of theATS and geopolitics lies beyond the scope of this paperbut they are pointed out here due to their pervasivenessand the profound effects they can have on any effortsdirected towards the conservation of Antarcticecosystems.

The EIA requirement is the primary gatekeeperthat decides whether an activity should be allowed toproceed in Antarctica, and if so in what form. At thenational level, the permitting process required for alloperator activities in Antarctica also provides control.The effective use of the EIA process is central to theminimisation of impacts of all human activities. TheEIA system therefore needs to evolve to keep up withthe rapid changes that are taking place in the twenty-first century. The current EIA process was developedprimarily with reference to national programme activ-ities, often land-based and at a fixed point, and is noteasily adapted to commercial tourism operationsmoving large numbers of people over the sea, withbrief and concentrated visits on land (Hemmings andRoura 2003). Technological advances in the types ofactivities that can be supported by most operators alsochallenge the current EIA system (e.g. Hemmings andKriwoken 2010). Regardless of the type of environ-mental assessment that is used, systems need to beplace in order that the effectiveness of the environ-mental assessment can be evaluated. At present, theimpacts predicted in Antarctic EIAs and the effective-ness of any proposed mitigation measures are rarelyverified, running the risk of making the EIAprocess appear to be a purely administrative exercise

(Tin et al. 2009). Furthermore, despite the fact that

environmental monitoring is a legal obligation under

the ATS, there remains a critical lack of investment in

and coordination of monitoring activities in Antarctica

(Hughes 2010; Wall et al. 2011). Scientifically-based

monitoring can provide important information to

inform environmental management decisions and

allow the effectiveness of policies to be assessed (see

Figure 5). However, it is under-employed in Antarctic

environmental management.In order for environmental management tools to

function optimally, detailed spatial and temporal

information on the physical and biological environ-

ments and human activities in the region is a basic

element. Some progress in making such information

available has been made with the environmental

domains analysis (EDA) conducted by New Zealand

under the auspices of the CEP. The EDA identified

different physical terrestrial environments within the

Antarctic continent using criteria such as air temper-

ature, solar influx, geology and topography (Morgan

et al. 2007). More recently, Terauds et al. (2012) have

attempted to map known terrestrial biodiversity on to

the EDA, generating both a useful and new overview

and highlighting many continuing gaps in knowledge.

The extent of tourism activities are accurately docu-

mented and made publicly available by IAATO

(www.iaato.org). In contrast, current and historic

information on national programme activities and

their footprints is generally inaccessible, despite such

information exchange being an obligation under the

Antarctic Treaty.The presence of humans in Antarctica is inevitably

accompanied by environmental impacts (Bargagli

2005; Jabour 2009). How human activities are to be

managed cannot be decided in a reactive manner as

and when challenges arise, rather needing to be

grounded in a considered way in a possible and

desirable future, or vision, of Antarctica. Such a

strategic planning approach should (1) integrate

trends over long periods of time, (2) account for

cumulative effects from past, present and future

activities, (3) be guided by a set of consciously

chosen priorities, and (4) take an integrated approach.

This will allow for the anticipation of upcoming

challenges and risks and provide the opportunity for

proactive management. As applied to the Antarctic,

major elements of such a vision would include:

. defining the overall footprint of human activ-

ities, including factors such as the numbers

and locations of stations and infrastructure

and access to hitherto rarely visited regions

(United Kingdom, Australia, and France

242 P. CONVEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

2006a, 2006b; Jabour 2009; Australia 2010;

New Zealand 2010; United Kingdom 2010);. the extent to which biological redistribution in

Antarctica can and should be minimised, and

how much time and resource the Antarctic

community is willing to dedicate to reducing

the rate at which unique biological assem-

blages are compromised and eventually lost

(Hughes and Convey 2010);. the volume, geographic and seasonal limits

and diversity of tourism activities (United

Kingdom 2009) and the desirability of

large-scale tourism activities on Antarctic

soil (Chile 2009);. weighing the value of Antarctica for science

and education against the inevitable environ-

mental impacts of human presence in the

region (Bargagli 2005).

In 2006, the CEP went through an exercise of

strategic planning and identifying future environmen-

tal challenges in Antarctica, resulting in a five-year

work plan that is updated annually and is used to aid

identification of priorities (United Kingdom,

Australia, and France 2006a; ATCM 2009).However, a longer-term strategic vision (over thenext 15 years) was not completed during this exercise.A multi-year strategic work plan appeared on theagenda of the ATCM for the first time in 2010,although this did not involve discussion of strategicvisions of Antarctica. In 2008, the ATCM began aprocess of developing an ‘aspirational and non-mandatory’ strategic vision of Antarctic tourism(ATCM 2008), addressing general principles for theoverall development of tourism in Antarctica and,more specifically, the volume and form of tourism overthe next decade (United Kingdom 2008), although notextending to considering the geographic spread oftourism or total number of tourists visiting theAntarctic (United Kingdom 2009). In general,medium to long-term considerations as well as regionaland continent-wide discussions are still missing fromCEP and ATCM deliberations.

Worldwide, many countries are adopting strategicenvironmental assessment (SEA) as a process foraddressing the environmental effects of policies, plansand programmes (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler 2005).SEA has been proposed as a potential tool for meeting

Figure 5. The environmental domains analysis (Morgan et al. 2007) divided Antarctica into regions based on physicalparameters (blue box), while recent work by Terauds et al. (2012), has taken this work and added information on biogeography(green box). For those responsible for management and governance in Antarctica (red circle), a key element that is missing isdetailed and ongoing spatial information on the distribution of past and present human activities (yellow box). Such informationwould help inform a strategic environmental assessment for the continent as a whole.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

the objectives of the Protocol, assessing the impacts ofAntarctic tourism and cumulative impacts of humanactivities generally (Kriwoken and Rootes 2000;Hemmings and Roura 2003; Roura and Hemmings2011) and of sub-glacial lake research (SALE GOS2001). SEA and project-level EIA are based on thesame principles and have similar ultimate objectivesand functions but differ in scale and timing. SEAcomes before and above project-level EIA. The pur-pose of SEA is to determine what activities may takeplace in the context of a strategic plan, leaving EIA toresolve how activities should take place in order tominimise environmental impact (ASOC 2002). SEAaffects the decision-making process at a stage wheremore alternatives are available for consideration. Itallows for better consideration of larger areas andlonger time periods and can deal with a wider range ofcumulative and synergistic impacts of multiple projectsthan can be handled on a project-by-project basis(Therivel and Ross 2007; Therivel 2010). However,although ‘consideration of the application of SEA inthe Antarctic’ has appeared annually on the CEP’sfive-year work plan since 2007, no SEA has yet beenconducted.

The system of Antarctic Specially Protected Areasprovides the primary mechanism of spatial areaprotection at present under the ATS, in part perform-ing the function of the various types of ‘national parks’or ‘reserves’ commonly designated in areas undernational sovereignty. Currently, the total area ofASPAs is about 3031 km2, covering 0.011%(1499 km2) of the non-marine portion of theAntarctic Treaty area, which equates to less than 4%of the ice-free ground available. ASPA distribution isnot representative of all the environmental valuesprotected under the Protocol (New Zealand 2005,2009). With current levels of biodiversity knowledgebeing imperfect, comprehensive surveys of large areasof Antarctica are still needed to move this processforward (Terauds et al. 2012). However, while insuf-ficient data may lead to imperfect conservation deci-sions, if too much time is spent collecting data beforemaking decisions we may also stand to miss opportu-nities for biodiversity protection (Grantham et al.2009; United Kingdom 2010).

The ‘precautionary principle’ calls for a manage-ment approach that ensures that uncertainties aboutthe impacts of an activity are weighed in the decision-making process. Complete certainty regarding anenvironmental harm should not be a prerequisite fortaking action to avert it (Cooney and Dickson 2005).ASOC (2001) has argued that the Protocol is precau-tionary in spirit and intent. Scott (2001) contended thatthe application of the precautionary principle has been‘extreme’ on the issue of mining in Antarctica while

Antarctic tourism has been covered by only a veryweak application. Many studies on the interactionsbetween humans and Antarctic and sub-Antarcticwildlife already advocate the application of the pre-cautionary principle with regard to the managementand the regulation of visitor numbers and proximity tocolonies (e.g. Holmes, Giese, and Kriwoken 2008;Trathan et al. 2008; Wheeler, de Villiers, and Majiedt2008). With this background, we consider that theapplication of the precautionary principle is appropri-ate and necessary.

Conclusions

The Antarctic remains a region that is still relativelypristine, with few direct human impacts compared tothe rest of the world. This is partly due to itsremoteness and isolation but also to the foresight ofthe ATS. As a result, we have inherited a region thatholds a great deal of interest for scientific enquiries forlocal, regional, as well as global phenomena. It is anatural reserve, a sanctuary; to some people, it is thelast great wilderness and a source of inspiration; it isone of the last terra incognita in a world where wildplaces, natural biological diversity and the mystery ofthe unknown are rapidly diminishing.

In the twenty-first century, globalisation, advancesin technology and increased mobility of the globalpopulation are likely to amplify existing trends ofintensification and diversification of human activitiesin Antarctica. The signatory nations of the ATS havecommitted to managing this region along the principleof a natural reserve, and the wording of the AntarcticTreaty itself sets a high bar requiring those working inand visiting the region to protect and preserve theAntarctic environment for the benefit of humankind.The question remains as to whether the administrativeand political regimes in the region have the ability andthe will to keep up with the rapid changes that aretaking place regionally and globally. The ATS makesdecisions through diplomatic consensus. This has theadvantage of a higher likelihood of compliance andimplementation once decisions are made, counteractedby a decision-making system that may lack fluidity andresponsiveness and be eclipsed by national interests.How the administrative and political regimes govern-ing the region evolve will have a significant bearing onthe environmental conservation of the southern polarregion into the first half of the twenty-first century andbeyond.

Such evolution must be guided by a strategic vision,allowing for the anticipation of upcoming challengesand risks and ensuring that management decisions areguided by clear knowledge of past and future trends

244 P. CONVEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

and a set of consciously chosen priorities. More thanfive decades have passed since the signing of theAntarctic Treaty, and more than two centuries havegone by since humans first arrived in the region.Foresight and strategic vision are now even morenecessary in order to be able to pass on to futuregenerations a southern polar region that is asexceptional as the one that we inherited.

Acknowledgements

We thank the volume Editors for the opportunity tocontribute to this special issue, and an anonymous refereefor constructive and helpful comments. Figure 1 was createdby Magdalena Biszczuk (BAS) and Figure 2 by RupertSummerson. PC and KH contribute to the BAS ‘PolarScience for Planet Earth’ programme, respectively throughthe Ecosystems programme and the Environmental Office.This paper also contributes to the SCAR ‘Evolution andBiodiversity in Antarctica’ research programme.

Key information sources

Adventure Network International. http://www.adventure-

network.comAislabie, J.M., M.R. Balks, J.M. Foght, and

E.J. Waterhouse. 2004. Hydrocarbon spills on

Antarctic soils: effects and management. Environmental

Science and Technology 38: 1265–74.Aronson, R.B., S. Thatje, J.B. McClintock, and

K.A. Hughes. 2011. Anthropogenic impacts on marine

ecosystems in Antarctica. Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences 1223: 82–107.ASOC (Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition). 2001.

Strategic needs and decision-making in Antarctica. Paper

presented at XXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative

Meeting, July 9–20, in St. Petersburg, Russia, IP 54.

ASOC. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment in

Antarctica: a ‘stepping stone’ to Madrid Protocol objec-

tives. Paper presented at XXV Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting, September 10–20, in Warsaw,

Poland, IP 25.ASOC. 2010. Tourism and land-based facilities in Antarctica:

analysis of a questionnaire distributed to Antarctic

Treaty parties at XXXII ATCM. Paper presented at

XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, May 3–

14, in Punta del Este, Uruguay, IP 79.

ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 1994. Final

report of the XVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative

Meeting, April 11–22, in Kyoto, Japan.

ATCM. 2008. Final report of XXXI Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting, June 2–13, in Kiev, Ukraine.ATCM. 2009. Final report of XXXII Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting, April 6–17, in Baltimore, MD.ATCM. 2010. Final report of the XXXIII Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting, May 3–14, in Punta del Este,

Uruguay.

ATS (Antarctic Treaty Secretariat). 2012a. Informationexchange. Permanent information. http://www.ats.aq/

devAS/ie_permanent.aspx?lang=eATS. 2012b. Antarctic protected areas database. http://

www.ats.aq/devPH/apa/ep_protected.aspx?lang=e

Australia. 2010. Topic summary: footprint. Paper presentedat XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting,May 3–14, Punta del Este, Uruguay, IP 48.

Bargagli, R. 2005. Antarctic ecosystems. Environmentalcontamination, climate change, and human impact.Ecological Studies 175. Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany:

Springer-Verlag.Bastmeijer, C.J. 2003. The Antarctic Environmental Protocol

and its domestic legal implementation. The Hague, the

Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.Bastmeijer, C.J., M. Lamers, and J. Harcha. 2008.

Permanent land-based facilities for tourism in

Antarctica: the need for regulation. Reciel 17: 84–99.Bastmeijer, C.J., and R. Roura. 2007. Environmental impact

assessment in Antarctica. In Theory and practice of

transboundary environmental impact assessment, eds.C.J. Bastmeijer and T. Koivurova, 175–220 Leiden: TheNetherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Bergstrom, D.M., and S.L. Chown. 1999. Life at the front:

history, ecology and change on southern ocean islands.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 472–6.

Bergstrom, D.M., P. Convey, and A.H.L. Huiskes, eds. 2006.

Trends in Antarctic terrestrial and limnetic ecosystems:Antarctica as a global indicator. Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer+.

Bertram, E., and B. Stonehouse. 2007. Tourism managementfor Antarctica. In Prospects for polar tourism, eds.J. Snyder and B. Stonehouse, 285–309 Oxon, UK, and

Cambridge, MA: CABI.Braun, C., O. Mustafa, A. Nordt, S. Pfeiffer, and

H.-U. Peter. 2012. Environmental monitoring and

management proposals for the Fildes Region, KingGeorge Island, Antarctica. Polar Research 31: 18206,doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.18206.

Chile. 2009. The effect of marathons held on the Antarcticcontinent. Paper presented at XXXII Antarctic TreatyConsultative Meeting, April 6–17, in Baltimore, MD,

WP 54.Chown, S.L., and P. Convey.. 2007. Spatial and temporal

variability across life’s hierarchies in the terrestrial

Antarctic. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society B: Biological Sciences 362: 2307–31.Chown, S.L., A.H.L. Huiskes, N.J.M. Gremmen, J.E. Lee,

A. Terauds, K. Crosbie, Y. Frenot, et al. 2012.Continent-wide risk assessment for the establishment ofnonindigenous species in Antarctica. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 109: 4938–43.

COMNAP (Council of Managers of National Antarctic

Programs). 2012. Main Antarctic facilities operated bynational Antarctic programs in the Antarctic TreatyArea (south of 60� latitude south). https://www.comnap.

aq/Information/SitePages/Home.aspxConnor, M.A. 2008. Wastewater treatment in Antarctica.

Polar Record 44: 165–71.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

Cooney, R., and B. Dickson. 2005. Biodiversity and the

precautionary principle: risk and uncertainty in conserva-

tion and sustainable use. London: Earthscan.

Convey, P. 2007. Antarctic ecosystems. In Encyclopedia of

biodiversity, 2nd (online) ed., ed. S.A. Levin, ,

doi:10.1016/B0-12-226865-2/00014-6. San Diego, USA:

Elsevier.Convey, P. 2008. Non-native species in Antarctic terrestrial

and freshwater environments: presence, sources, impacts

and predictions. In Non-native species in the Antarctic

proceedings, ed. M. Rogan-Finnemore, 97–130

Christchurch: New Zealand: Gateway Antarctica.Convey, P. 2011. Antarctic terrestrial biodiversity in a

changing world. Polar Biology 11: 1629–41.Convey, P., R.A. Bindschadler, G. di Prisco, E. Fahrbach,

J. Gutt, D.A. Hodgson, P. Mayewski,

C.P. Summerhayes, and J. Turner.. 2009. Antarctic

climate change and the environment. Antarctic Science

21: 541–63.Convey, P., J. Gibson, C.-D. Hillenbrand, D.A. Hodgson,

P.J.A. Pugh, J.L. Smellie, and M.I. Stevens. 2008.

Antarctic terrestrial life – challenging the history of the

frozen continent? Biological Reviews 83: 103–17.

Convey, P., R.I.L. Smith, H.J. Peat, and P.J.A. Pugh. 2000.

The terrestrial biota of Charcot Island, eastern

Bellingshausen Sea, Antarctica: an example of extreme

isolation. Antarctic Science 12: 406–13.Cowan, D.A., S.L. Chown, P. Convey, M. Tuffin,

K. Hughes, S. Pointing, and W. Vincent. 2011. Non-

indigenous microorganisms in the Antarctic: assessing

the risks. Trends in Microbiology 19: 540–8.Dalal-Clayton, B., and B. Sadler, eds. 2005. Strategic

environmental assessment. A sourcebook and reference

guide to international experience. London: Earthscan.Enzenbacher, D.J. 1992. Tourists in Antarctica: numbers and

trends. Polar Record 28, no. 164: 17–22.Enzenbacher, D.J. 1993. Tourists in Antarctica: numbers and

trends. Tourism Management 14: 143–6.Frenot, Y., S.L. Chown, J. Whinam, P. Selkirk, P. Convey,

M. Skotnicki, and D. Bergstrom. 2005. Biological

invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implica-

tions. Biological Reviews 80: 45–72.

Giuliani, P. 1996. Inspections under the Antarctic Treaty.

In International Law for Antarctica, eds. F. Francioni

and T. Scovazzi, 459–74 The Hague, The Netherlands:

Kluwer Law International.Grantham, H.S., K.A. Wilson, A. Moilanen, T. Rebelo, and

H.P. Possingham. 2009. Delaying conservation actions

for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?

Ecology Letters 12: 293–301.Guyomard, A.-I. 2010. La protection de l’environnement en

Antarctique – Droit international et droit compare. These

de Doctorat Droit des Espaces, Centre de Droit

Maritime et Oceanique CDMO, Faculte de Droit et des

Sciences Politiques, Nantes, France.Haase, D., B. Storey, A. McIntosh, A. Carr, and N. Gilbert.

2007. Stakeholder perspectives on regulatory aspects of

Antarctic tourism. Tourism in Marine Environments 4:

167–83.

Headland, R.K. 2009. A chronology of Antarctic exploration:

a synopsis of events and activities from the earliest times

until the International Polar Years, 2007–09. London:

Quaritch.Hemmings, A.D., and L.K. Kriwoken. 2010. High level

Antarctic EIA under the Madrid Protocol: state practice

and the effectiveness of the comprehensive environmental

evaluation process. International Environmental

Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 10: 187–208.Hemmings, A.D., and R. Roura. 2003. A square peg in a

round hole: fitting impact assessment under the Antarctic

Environmental Protocol to Antarctic tourism. Impact

Assessment and Project Appraisal 21: 13–24.Hemmings, A.D., Rothwell, D.R., and Scott, K.N., eds.

2012. Antarctic security in the twentyfirst century. Legal

and policy perspectives. London: Routledge.

Hogg, I.D., S.C. Cary, P. Convey, K. Newsham,

T. O’Donnell, B.J. Adams, J. Aislabie, F.F. Frati,

M.I. Stevens, and D.H. Wall. 2006. Biotic interactions

in Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems: are they a factor? Soil

Biology and Biochemistry 38: 3035–40.

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2008. Linking

variation in penguin responses to pedestrian activity for

best practise management on sub-Antarctic Macquarie

Island. Polarforschung 77: 7–15.Hughes, K.A. 2010. How committed are we to monitoring

human impact in Antarctica? Environmental Research

Letters 5: 041001.Hughes, K.A., and P. Convey. 2010. The protection of

Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems from inter- and intra-

continental transfer of non-indigenous species by human

activities: a review of current systems and practices.

Global Environmental Change 20: 96–112.Hughes, K.A., and P. Convey. 2012. Determining the native/

non-native status of newly discovered terrestrial and

freshwater species in Antarctica – current knowledge,

methodology and management action. Journal of

Environmental Management 93: 52–66.Hughes, K.A., P. Fretwell, J. Rae, K. Holmes, and

A. Fleming. 2011. Untouched Antarctica: mapping a

finite and diminishing environmental resource. Antarctic

Science 23: 537–48.IAATO (International Association of Antarctic Tour

Operators) 2007a. Boot, clothing and equipment deconta-

mination guidelines for small boat operations. Colorado,

USA: International Association of Antarctic Tour

Operators.IAATO 2007b. Marine wildlife watching guidelines (whales

and dolphins, seals and seabirds). Colorado, USA:

International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators.

IAATO. 2009a. Report of the International Association of

Antarctica Tour Operators 2008–2009. Paper presented

at XXXII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, April

6–17, in Baltimore, MD, IP 33 rev.1.IAATO. 2009b. 2008–2009 Summary of seaborne, airborne,

and land-based Antarctic tourism. http://image.zenn.net/

REPLACE/CLIENT/1000037/1000116/application/pdf/

tourism_summary_byexpedition1.pdf. (accessed 31

August 2010).

246 P. CONVEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

IAATO. 2009c. IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism:2008–09 Antarctic season and preliminary estimates for

2009–10 Antarctic season. IP 86 rev 1, Paper presented atXXXII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, April6–17, in Baltimore, MD, IP 33 rev.1.

IAATO. 2010. IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism:2009–10 season and preliminary estimates for 2010–11and beyond. Paper presented at XXXIII Antarctic

Treaty Consultative Meeting, May 3–14, in Punta delEste, Uruguay, IP 113.

IAATO. 2011. IAATO overview of Antarctic tourism.

2010–11 Antarctic season and preliminary estimates for2011–12 Antarctic season. Paper presented at XXXIVAntarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, June 20– July 1,

in Buenos Aires, IP 106.IAATO. 2012. Tourism statistics. http://iaato.org/tourism-

statistics;jsessionid=9517B89DB019BF5BAA9163EEA1

B0264F.IMO (International Maritime Organization). http://www.

imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/44-MARPOL-

amends.aspxJabour, J. 2009. National Antarctic programs and their

impact on the environment. In Health of Antarctic

wildlife: a challenge for science and policy, eds.K.R. Kerry and M.J. Riddle, 211–29 Berlin/Heidelberg,Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Kennicutt II, M.C., A. Klein, P. Montagna, S. Sweet,T. Wade, T. Palmer, J. Sericano, and G. Denoux. 2010.Temporal and spatial patterns of anthropogenic distur-

bance at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. EnvironmentalResearch Letters 5: 034010.

Kerry, K.R., and M. Riddle, eds. 2009. Health of Antarctic

wildlife: a challenge for science and policy. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Kriwoken, L.K., and D. Rootes. 2000. Tourism on ice:

environmental impact assessment of Antarctic tourism.Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18: 138–50.

Lamers, M., B. Amelung, and J.H. Stel. 2010. Business as

(un)usual: integrated scenario analysis for tourism inAntarctica. In Tourism and change in polar regions:climate, environment and experiences, eds. M. Hall and

J. Saarinen, London: Routledge.Lemelin, H., J. Dawson, and E. Stewart, eds. 2011. Last

chance tourism: adapting tourism opportunities in a

changing world. London: Routledge.Lynch, H.J., K. Crosbie, W.F. Fagan, and R. Naveen. 2010.

Spatial patterns of tour ship traffic in the Antarctic

Peninsula Region. Antarctic Science 22: 123–30.Morgan, F., G. Barker, C. Briggs, R. Price, and H. Keys.

2007. Environmental domains of Antarctica. Version 2.0.Final report. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research

New Zealand Ltd.New Zealand. 2005. A review of the Antarctic Protected

Area System. Paper presented at XXVIII Antarctic

Treaty Consultative Meeting, June 6–17, in Stockholm,Sweden, WP 11.

New Zealand. 2009. Updated analysis of representation of

Annex V categories and environmental domains in thesystem of Antarctic Specially Protected and ManagedAreas. Paper presented at XXXII Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting, April 6–17, in Baltimore,

MD, WP 3.New Zealand. 2010. The concept of human footprint in the

Antarctic. Paper presented at XXXIII Antarctic Treaty

Consultative Meeting, May 3–14, in Punta del Este,

Uruguay, IP 49.Nielsen, U.N., D.H. Wall, B.J. Adams, and R.A. Virginia.

2011. Antarctic nematode communities: observed and

predicted responses to climate change. Polar Biology,

doi:10.1007/s00300-011-1021-2.

Pugh, P.J.A., and P. Convey. 2008. Surviving out in the cold:

Antarctic endemic invertebrates and their refugia.

Journal of Biogeography 35: 2176–86.Roura, R.M., and A.D. Hemmings. 2011. Realising strategic

environmental assessment in Antarctica. Journal of

Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13:

483–514.SALE GOS. 2001. Report of the Subglacial Antarctic Lake

Exploration Group of Specialists. Presented at Meeting I,

November 29–30, in Bologna, Italy. http://SALE GOS-

scar.montana.edu/docsSCAR Antarctic Digital Database. http://www.add.scar.

org:8080/add/ (accessed May 2012).Scott, S.V. 2001. How cautious is precautious? Antarctic

tourism and the precautionary principle. The

International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50: 963–71.Terauds, A., S.L. Chown, F. Morgan, H.J. Peat, D. Watt,

H. Keys, P. Convey, and D.M. Bergstrom. 2012.

Conservation biogeography of the Antarctic. Diversity

and Distributions 18: 726–41.Therivel, R. 2010. Strategic environmental assessment in

action. London: Earthscan.Therivel, R., and W.A. Ross. 2007. Cumulative effects

assessment: does scale matter? Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 27: 365–85.Tin, T., Z. Fleming, K.A. Hughes, D. Ainley, P. Convey,

C. Moreno, S. Pfeiffer, J. Scott, and I. Snape. 2009.

Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic

environment: a review. Antarctic Science 21: 3–33.Tin, T., A.D. Hemmings, and R. Roura. 2008. Pressures on

the wilderness values of the Antarctic continent.

International Journal of Wilderness 14: 7–12.Trathan, P.N., J. Forcada, R. Atkinson, R.H. Downie, and

J.R. Shears. 2008. Population assessments of gentoo

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) breeding at an important

Antarctic tourist site, Goudier Island, Port Lockroy,

Palmer Archipelago, Antarctica. Biological Conservation

141: 3019–28.Turner, J., R. Bindschadler, P. Convey, G. di Prisco,

E. Fahrbach, J. Gutt, D. Hodgson, P. Mayewski, and

C. Summerhayes, eds. 2009. Antarctic climate change

and the environment. Cambridge, UK: Scientific

Committee on Antarctic Research.United Kingdom. 2008. Developing a strategic vision of

Antarctic tourism for the next decade. Paper presented at

XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, June

2–13, in Kiev, Ukraine, WP 51.United Kingdom. 2009. Strategic vision of Antarctic

Tourism for the next decade. Paper presented at

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013

XXXII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, April6–17, in Baltimore, MD, WP 10.

United Kingdom. 2010. Assessing cumulative environmentalimpacts: identifying the distribution and concentration ofnational operator activities in Antarctica. Paper pre-sented at XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative

Meeting, May 3–14, in Punta del Este, Uruguay, WP 23.United Kingdom, Australia, and France. 2006a. Antarctica’s

future environmental challenges. A summary report of

the CEP workshop, Edinburgh, UK, 9–10 June 2006.Paper presented at XXIX Antarctic Treaty ConsultativeMeeting, June 12–23, in Edinburgh, UK, WP 42.

United Kingdom, Australia, and France. 2006b. Antarctica’sfuture environmental challenges. Report of the CEPworkshop, Edinburgh, UK, 9–10 June 2006. Paperpresented at XXIX Antarctic Treaty Consultative

Meeting, June 12–23, in Edinburgh, UK, IP 113.

University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2012). Antarctic meteor-ological research center and automatic weather stations

project. http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/Wall, D.H., W. Berry Lyons, P. Convey, C. Howard-

Williams, A. Quesada, and W.F. Vincent. 2011.Long-term ecosystem networks to record

change: an international imperative. Antarctic Science23: 209.

Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, C. Parmesan,

M. Menzel, T.J.C. Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin,O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002.Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature

416: 389–95.Wheeler, M., M.S. de Villiers, and P.A. Majiedt. 2008. The

effect of frequency and nature of pedestrian approacheson the behaviour of wandering albatrosses at sub-

Antarctic Marion Island. Polar Biology 33: 197–205.

248 P. CONVEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

21:

55 2

8 M

ay 2

013