https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2447-4174
![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The long-term future of the Antarctic is intrinsically connected to climate change and global environmental change processes driven socially and geopolitically as much as they are biophysically.
The impacts and implications of these changes are increasing in global significance, including access to natural resources, biodiversity decline, and potential institutional reforms that will require much more integrated research and support to enable effective decision-making within the Antarctic Treaty System and, potentially, beyond. The 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere highlighted these issues and the importance of innovative tools and processes to increase capacity to develop appropriate policy including the need for scenario analysis. While research effort relating to Antarctica’s future is increasing, there is currently no coordinated approach to establish a workable set of scenarios in which future possibilities could be actively explored. In response, this paper develops an Antarctic scenarios framework integrated with global environmental change research via an organising structure analogous to the current practice of the IPCC. It draws on Antarctic studies, climate change science and futures studies to identify a concise yet comprehensive set of 17 elements over seven categories that aim to cover all relevant social, economic and environmental factors without any weighting as to overall importance. In particular, it emphasises that biophysical research on its own is not sufficient to engage with the complex policy world which is influenced by geopolitics and, as a result, proposes a more inclusive, reflexive process. The paper then builds on the latest research on scenarios for socio-environmental analysis, modelling and decision-making to examine how this could be implemented through the integration of various components within, potentially, the Antarctic Treaty System.
Acknowledgments
Support and insights by Kees Bastmeijer, Neil Gilbert, Alan Hemmings and Daniela Liggett were very helpful in developing the paper and are most gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers’ constructive feedback not least for their guidance to important contributions in the literature.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 IPCC, “Special Report: Ch. 3, Polar Regions,” 206.
2 Ibid. 208.
3 Examples include Abdel-Motaal, “Antarctica”; Amelung and Lamers, “Scenario development”; ASAC, “Australia’s Antarctic Programme”; Chaturvedi, “India and Antarctica”; Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Antarctic Strategy”; Ferrada, “Five Factors”; Frame, “New Zealand”; Hemmings, “Emerging challenges,” “Utopian Framings,” “Southern Horizons”; Kennicutt et al., “Six priorities,” “A Roadmap”, “Delivering”; Liggett, et al., “Four future scenarios”; Liu and Brooks, “The Future”; O’Reilly, “Antarctic Climate Futures”; Press, “20 Year”; Rintoul et al., “Choosing the Future”; Scott, “The next fifty years,” “Looking back”; and Tetley, “Antarctica.”
4 As described in multiple different ways by, inter alia, Elsawah et al., “Scenario Processes”; Frame, “New Zealand”; Inayatullah, “Epistemological pluralism”; Kenis and Mathjis, “Climate Change”; Miller, “Futures Literacy”; Nelson, “Extending foresight”; Nilsson et al., “Towards extended pathways”; and Sardar, “The Namesake.”
5 van Notten, “An updated scenario typology”; and Frame, “A typology.”
6 For example Alkemade et al., “Framework”; Gallopin, “Global water futures”; IPBES, “Summary”; IPCC, “Climate Change 2014,” “Global warming,” “Special Report”; OECD, “Environmental Outlook,” “Agricultural Outlook,” “Energy Outlook”; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “Global Biodiversity Outlook”; UNEP, “Environmental Outlook”; and Wester et al., “Hindu Kush.”
7 IPCC, “Global Warming.”
8 Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
9 O’Reilly, “Antarctic Climate Futures,” “The Technocratic Antarctic.”
10 O’Reilly, “The Technocratic Antarctic,” 7.
11 Oppenheimer et al., “Discerning Experts”; and Vardy et al., “Intergovernmental Panel.”
12 Haraway, “Chthulucene”; Latour, “Facing Gaia,” “Down to Earth”; and Morton, “Hyperobjects,” “Dark Ecology.”
13 IPCC, “Special Report: Ch. 3, Polar Regions, 207.”
14 Nakicenovic et al., “Special Report.”
15 Absar and Preston, “Extending the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”; Ebi et al., “A new toolkit”; Nilsson et al., “Towards improved participatory scenario methodologies”; Wilbanks and Ebi, “SSPIs”; Palazzo et al., “Linking regional stakeholder scenarios”; and Frame et al., “Adapting global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.”
16 O’Neill et al., “A new scenario framework,” “The roads ahead.”
17 Kriegler et al., “A new scenario framework.”
18 Moss et al., “Next Generation”; Ebi et al., “New Toolkit”; and Trutnevyte et al., “Reinvigorating.”
19 O’Neill et al., “New Scenario Framework.”
20 For example, Schweizer and O’Neill, “Improving environmental change research.”
21 For example, Absar and Preston, “Extending the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”; Frame et al., “Adapting global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”; and Nilsson et al., “Towards improved participatory scenario methodologies.”
22 For example, Arnell and Lloyd-Hughes, “Global scale impacts”; Hasegawa et al., “Scenarios”; and O’Neill et al., “A new scenario framework,” “The roads ahead.”
23 Alfieri et al., “Ensemble flood risk assessment”; Carey, “CCAFS Regional Scenarios Programme”; and Palazzo et al., “Linking regional stakeholder scenarios.”
24 König et al., “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”; and Steininger et al., “Consistent economic cross-sectoral climate change impact scenario analysis.”
25 Absar and Preston, “Extending the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”; Frame et al., “Adapting global Shared Socioeconomic Pathways”; and Nilsson et al., “Towards improved participatory scenario methodologies.”
26 Oppenheimer et al., “Discerning Experts”; Vardy et al., “Intergovernmental Panel”; and O’Reilly, “The substance of climate.”
27 IPBES, “Summary for Policymakers.”
28 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “Global Biodiversity Outlook 4.”
29 Sutherland et al., “2018 Horizon Scan.”
30 For example Avango et al., “Assessing Arctic Futures”; Dodds, “Post-colonial Antarctica”; Nilsson et al., “Improved participatory scenario methodologies”; Stuhl, “Politics”; and Wormbs, “Competing Arctic Futures.”
32 Arctic Futures Symposium, 28 November 2018; Brussels, Belgium. http://www.arcticfutures.org
33 Arctic Futures 2050: Science to Inform Decisions; 4–6 September 2019; Washington, D.C.; https://www.searcharcticscience.org/arctic-2050/open-science-2019
34 Roy et al., “Exploring Futures.”
35 Wester et al., “Hindu Kush.”
36 Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
37 Frame, “Typology.”
38 IPCC, “Special Report: Ch. 3, Polar Regions,” 208.
39 Rintoul et al., “Choosing.”
40 Ibid. 237.
41 Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
42 For example, Chaturvedi, “Future of Antarctica”; Dodds et al., “Handbook”; Hemmings, “Hollowing,” “Antarctic Treaty System”; Leane and McGee, “Anthropocene Antarctica”; and Nuttall et al., “Handbook.”
43 Hemmings, “Southern Horizons.”
44 Gilbert and Hemmings, “Antarctic Mythbusting.”
45 Frame, “Typology.”
46 Cash et al., “Knowledge systems.”
47 O’Neill et al., “New Scenario Framework.”
48 Ibid. 395.
50 Llanos, “Populating Antarctica,” “Housewives.”
51 Abdel-Motaal, “Antarctica.”
52 For example, Trojanow, “Lamentations of Zeno”; Murray, “Melt” and as discussed by Leane, “Utopian Literary Visions,” “The Antarctic.”
53 COMNAP, “Antarctic Station Catalogue.”
54 Data 18/10/18 from https://www.comnap.aq/Members/SitePages/Home.aspx
59 González-Alonso et al., “Occurrenc; and Hernández et al., “Occurrence.”
60 Isobe et al., “Microplastics”; and Waller et al., “Microplastics.”
61 Chaturvedi, “Future of Antarctica.”
62 Hemmings, “Commercial Harvest”; Liu and Brooks, “Future”; McCann, “Wild Sea”; Sandersfeld et al., “Elevated temperature”; and Seebacher et al, “Thermal specialisation paradigm.”
63 Chaturvedi, “Future of Antarctica.”
64 Hill, “Moving”; and Marsden, “Contested transitions.”
65 Cordonnery, Hemmings and Kriwoken, “Nexus and Imbroglio.”
66 Liggett et al., “From frozen continent”; Bender et al., “Patterns of tourism”; Liggett and Stewart, “Sailing,” “Changing Face”; Liggett et al., “Four future scenarios”; Schillat et al., “Tourism in Antarctica”; Stewart and Liggett, “Polar Tourism”; and Student, Amelung and Lamers, “Towards a Tipping Point?”
67 ATCM, “Information Paper 11, 2019.”
70 ATCM, “Information Paper 11, 2019.”
73 Verbitsky, “Ecosystem Services.”
74 Chaturvedi, “Future of Antarctica.”
75 Nicol et al., “Fishery for Antarctic Krill.”
76 Cunningham-Hales, “Bioprospecting”; Chaturvedi, “Future of Antarctica”; Hemmings, “Emerging challenges”; Jabour, “Biological prospecting”; Joyner, “Bioprospecting”; and Rogan-Finnemore, “Bioprospecting.”
77 Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
78 Ibid.
79 Turney et al., “Antarctic Climate Change.”
80 IPCC, “Global warming,” ‘Special Report”; and Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
81 Castendyk et al., “Sentinel for Climate Change.”
82 For example, Joughin, Smith and Medley,”Marine ice-sheet”; and Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
83 For example, Meredith et al., “Polar Regions”; Menezes, Macdonald and Schatzman, “Accelerated freshening”; Purkey and Johnson, “Antarctic bottom water warming”; and Turner et al., “Antarctic climate change.”
84 For example Meredith et al., “Polar Regions”; Sandersfeld et al., “Elevated temperature”; and Seebacher et al., “Falsification.”
85 For example, Chown, “Antarctic Treaty System”; Chown et al., “Challenges,” “Antarctica”; Convey, “Antarctic”; Hogg & Wall, “Global Change”; and Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
86 Such as Emperor penguins (Jenouvrier et al., “Influence”; Jenouvrier et al., “Projected continent-wide declines”) or Adelie penguins (Fraser et al., “Nonmarine source”).
87 Meltofte, “Biodiversity”; and Meredith et al., “Polar Regions.”
88 Chown et al., “Challenges”; Hughes et al., “Biological Invasions”; and Duffy et al. “Barriers.”
89 Russell and Blackburn, “Invasive Species Denialism.”
90 Abdel-Motaal, “Antarctica”; Chaturvedi, “Future of Antarctica.”
91 Gilbert and Hemmings, “Antarctic Mythbusting.”
92 Hemmings, “Antarctic Treaty System,” 290.
93 Elvis, “Asteroids.”
94 Dodds, Hemmings and Roberts, “Handbook.”
95 Eliasson, “Global Water Shortages”; and Poff et al., “River flows and water wars.”
96 The Atlantic, “Ice-berg towing schemes.”
97 For example Chaturvedi, “The future of Antarctica”; Hemmings, “Hollowing of Antarctic Governance”; Scott, “Managing sovereignty,” “Looking back”; Summerhayes, “Polar science strategies”; and Tin et al., “Impacts,” “Antarctic Futures.”
98 Tin et al., “Antarctic Futures.”
99 Hemmings, “Emerging challenges.”
100 Scott, “Looking back.”
101 Xavier et al., “Portuguese Antarctic Research.”
102 Dodds et al., “Handbook”; and Liu, “European Union.”
103 Brady, “China”; and Liu, “The rise of China,” “Rising China.”
104 Kennicutt et al., “Six priorities,” “Roadmap.”
105 O’Reilly, “Substance of climate,” 8.
106 Moore et al., “Geoengineer,” 303
107 Wolovick and Moore, “Stopping the Flood.”
108 For example Goldblatt & Watson, “Runaway Greenhouse”; Shepherd, “Geoengineering”; and Virgoe, “International governance.”
109 Shepherd, “Geoengineering.”
110 Kennicutt et al., “Six priorities,” “Roadmap.”
111 Hemmings, “Emerging challenges.”
112 Saltelli and Funtowicz, “Science’s crisis.”
113 Vardy et al., “IPCC.”
114 Hemmings, “Considerable Values.”
115 Dodds, “Post-colonial Antarctica”; and Dodds and Collis, “Post-colonial Antarctica.”
116 Through the work of, for example, Cardone and Fontana, “Latin-American contributions”; Chaturvedi, “Future of Antarctica”; Ferrada, “Five Factors”, “Latin America”; Howkins and Lorenzo, “Latin America”; Liu, “The rise of China”; “Rising China”; Llanos, “Populating Antarctica”; “Housewives”; and Sanchez, “South America’s Antarctic Fleet.”
117 Summerson and Tin, “Twenty Years”; Tin et al., “Impacts,”; and “Antarctic Futures.”
118 Nikoleris et al., “Narrating climate futures.”
119 Leane, “Utopian Literary Visions”; and “The Antarctic.”
120 For example Trojanow, “Lamentations of Zeno”; and Murray, “Melt.”
121 Wainschenker and Leane, “Antarctica in South American Fiction.”
122 Rintoul et al., “Choosing.”
123 Oppenheimer et al., “Discerning Experts”; Vardy et al., “Intergovernmental Panel’; and O’Reilly, “The substance of climate.”
124 IPCC, “Polar Regions, 208.”
125 ATCM, “Secretariat Paper 2, Appendix 1, 2017,” and “Secretariat Paper 2, Appendix 1, 2017,” Information Paper 69, 2017”.
126 The World Bank and many other multilateral and bilateral development agencies make extensive use of intervention logic when dealing with long-term investments relating to complex socio-environmental issues. It provides a results framework that enables stakeholders to discuss and establish strategic development objectives and then link interventions to intermediate outcomes and results that directly relate to those objectives. There are many examples of its application such as that described in https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/designing_results_framework.pdf
127 In line with the review by Elsawah et al., “Scenario Processes.”
128 Vardy et al., “IPCC.”
129 O’Reilly, “Substance of Climate, 8.”
130 Oppenheimer et al., “Discerning Experts.”
131 As reviewed by Elsawah et al., “Scenario Processes.”