Twenty years of protection of wilderness values in Antarctica

ABSTRACT

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol) came into force in 1998 and mandates protection for the wilderness values of Antarctica. Based on the limited data that are publicly available, we made lower bound estimates of the long-term and transient human footprints on terrestrial Antarctica for the period 2016–2018. We found that there has been an 11% increase in the number of research stations and a cumulative three-fold increase in the number of tourist landing sites since 1998. Both long-term and transient human footprints extend across the continent’s interior. The pace of implementation of the Madrid Protocol’s requirement to protect wilderness values lags far behind that of the expansion of the human footprint. Research on definitions and methods of identifying wilderness has progressed, however, and offers effective tools to aid with Protocol implementation.

A review of documents from the website of the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty from the last 20 years indicates that Treaty Parties have considered the protection of wilderness values in environmental impact assessments, designation of protected areas, and discussions at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and meetings of the Committee for Environmental Protection. While there has been progress in providing guidance on wilderness values in non-binding guidelines, Treaty Parties’ engagement in the protection of wilderness values remains low.

KEYWORDS:

• Madrid Protocol
• Committee for Environmental Protection
• human footprint
• mapping
• infrastructure
• transient activity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty: Opened for signature 4 October 1991, 30 ILM 1455 (entered into force 14 January 1998).

² Article 2, Madrid Protocol.

³ Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, opened for signature 2 June 1988, 27 ILM 868.

⁴ Holdgate, “Conservation”; Summerson, “Protection.”

⁵ Article 11, Madrid Protocol.

⁶ Deary and Tin, “Engagement in wilderness protection.”

⁷ Tin and Summerson, “Growing footprint”; Pertierra et al., “High resolution.”

⁸ Coetzee et al., “Expanding protected area.”

⁹ Shaw et al., “Antarctica’s protected areas”; Hughes and Grant, “Spatial distribution.”

¹⁰ Tin, “Looking into the future”; Hughes and Grant, “Spatial distribution.”

¹¹ Liggett et al., “Going south.”

¹² See e.g. Hemmings et al., “Wilderness”; Summerson and Lieser, “Opinion.”

¹³ Nash, Wilderness; Kormos, International Wilderness.

¹⁴ Oelschlaeger. The Idea of Wilderness.

¹⁵ See e.g. Hall, Wilderness Babel; Kormos, International Wilderness; Watson and Sproull, Science and stewardship; Martin and Parthy Sarathy, Wilderness and Humanity.

¹⁶ Guha. Radical American environmentalism.

¹⁷ Wilderness Act: Public Law 88–577 (16 U.S. C. 1131–1136). 88th Congress, Second Session 3 September 1964.

¹⁸ Dudley, Guidelines.

¹⁹ Kormos, International.

²⁰ Codling, “Wilderness aesthetic”; Summerson, “Wilderness aesthetic.”

²¹ See e.g. Kormos, International; Dawson and Hendee, Wilderness Management; Neufeld et al., “Valuing Antarcticav; Tin et al., “Perceptions Case Studies.v

²² UK, “Wilderness aesthetic.”

²³ New Zealand, “Towards additional protection.”

²⁴ New Zealand, “Understanding concepts.”

²⁵ CEP, “Report CEP XVII”, para. 101–110; Resolution 1 (2016), “Revised Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica.”

²⁶ Brooks et al., “Footprint.”

²⁷ Summerson and Bishop, “Impact human activities.”

²⁸ New Zealand, “Concept”; New Zealand and Netherlands, “Further information”; ASOC, “Data Sources.”

²⁹ Summerson, The Protection of Wilderness and Aesthetic Values in Antarctica.

³⁰ Brooks, “Developing.”

³¹ Klein et al., “Historical”; “Spatial.”

³² Bollard-Breen et al., “Application.”

³³ Pertierra et al., “Environmental.”

³⁴ Hughes et al., “Untouched.”

³⁵ Sanderson et al., “Human footprint”; Pertierra et al., “High Resolution.”

³⁶ See e.g. Watson et al., “Catastrophic”; Sanderson et al. “Human footprint.”

³⁷ Lesslie and Maslen, National Wilderness Inventory.

³⁸ Machado, “Index.”

³⁹ See e.g. Carver, “Mapping.”

⁴⁰ Watson et al., “Catastrophic”; Carver and Tin, “Blank.”

⁴¹ Summerson and Riddle, “Assessing”; Summerson and Bishop, “Impact human activities.”

⁴² Martin “History.”

⁴³ The Antarctic Treaty, 1 December 1959, 12 U.S.T. 794,402 U.N.T.S. 71.

⁴⁴ In 2009 Belgium established Princess Elisabeth Station in Dronning Maud Land.

⁴⁵ COMNAP, Antarctic Facilities; Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, Parties. Belarus is the only non-Consultative Party that has a station. The Netherlands is the only Consultative Party without a station. Each one of 12 Consultative Parties has one station. Russia and Argentina both have 12 stations.

⁴⁶ Hughes et al., “Untouched Antarctica”; British Antarctic Survey, Tractor Train; NSF, Development Implementation.

⁴⁷ IAATO.

⁴⁸ Liggett and Stewart, “Sailing.”

⁴⁹ Calculations based on data reported in: IAATO, “2016v; “2015”; “2014”; “2013”; “2012”; “2011”; “2010”; “2009”; “2008”; “2007”; “2006”; “2005”; “2004”; “2003”; “Twelve”; “Overview.” Calculations only included locations which could be identified on the SCAR Composite Gazetteer and New Zealand, “Environmental” Attachment 1o, and do not take into account possible effects from modifications in reporting practices. Each tourist can make landings at several sites.

⁵⁰ The camp at Union Glacier, for example, is more or less permanent and comprises a marked runway, a large number of tents and a number of 20’ containers to store equipment over winter.

⁵¹ Available on the website of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat.

⁵² COMNAP, Antarctic facilities; Headland, Chronology. Infrastructure recorded by Headland and which National Antarctic Programs have not indicated its removal or disappearance is assumed to still exist.

⁵³ See the Appendix for more information on data sources for all the figures.

⁵⁴ Headland, A Chronology of Antarctic Exploration.

⁵⁵ ASOC, “Human footprint IPY”; Tin and Summerson, “Growing footprint.”

⁵⁶ See e.g. Hughes et al, “Untouched”; Pertierra and Hughes, “Management” for discussions for the effectiveness of Parties’ information exchange.

⁵⁷ See e.g. Australia Antarctic Division makes each season’s shipping tracks publicly available on their website: https://secure3.aad.gov.au/public/schedules/.

⁵⁸ See e.g. websites of British Antarctic Survey https://www.bas.ac.uk/science/our-research/research-projects/; National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (India) http://www.ncaor.gov.in/news/view/425.

⁵⁹ See e.g. COMNAP’s Antarctic Flight Information Manual https://www.comnap.aq/miscpages/SitePages/AFIM.aspx.

⁶⁰ This section builds on the analysis presented in Deary and Tin, “Engagement in wilderness protection”, which focussed on discussion of wilderness values in CEP meetings and ATCMs between 1998 and 2014. It extends the previous analysis to include documents produced between 2015 and 2017.

⁶¹ See e.g. Yuschenko, “President of Ukraine”; Hawke, “The Hon Bob Hawke AC address to ATCM XXXIX.”

⁶² UK, “Wilderness Aesthetic”; New Zealand, “Towards Additional Protection.”

⁶³ See e.g. CEP, “Report CEP IV”, para. 34; “Report CEP V”, para. 142–144; CEP, “Report CEP VII”, para. 64.

⁶⁴ New Zealand, “Report”; “Review”; ATCM Resolution 3(2008) “Environmental Domains Analysis for the Antarctic continent as a dynamic model for a systematic environmental geographic framework”; Morgan et al., “Environmental Domains.”

⁶⁵ UK, Australia and France, “Antarctica’s Future.”

⁶⁶ CEP, “Report CEP XI”, Appendix 1.

⁶⁷ CEP, “Report CEP XVII”, Appendix 1; “Report CEP XIII”, para. 4, Appendix 1.

⁶⁸ CEP, “Report CEP XIII”, paras. 228–247; “Report CEP XIV”, paras. 173–180; “Report CEP XV”, paras. 150–159; “Report CEP XVI”, paras. 164–178; “Report CEP XVII”, paras. 173–178.

⁶⁹ CEP, “Report CEP XIII”, para. 4, Appendix 1.

⁷⁰ See e.g. CEP, “Report CEP VII”, paras. 57–64; Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, “Report Thirty-Sixth Meeting”, paras. 224–33.

⁷¹ See e.g. CEP, “Report CEP VII”, para. 42–53; “Report CEP XVI”, para. 80–95; “Report CEP XVIII”, para. 135.

⁷² Australia, “Protection”; New Zealand, “’Land-Based’ Tourism”; Germany, “Admissibility”; UK, “Developing”; Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, “Report Thirty-Second Meeting”, para. 181; “Report Thirty-Fourth Meetings, para. 311.

⁷³ ATCM Resolution 7 (2009) “General Principles of Antarctic Tourisms; Resolution 3(2011) “General Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctics; Resolution 11 (2012) “Checklist for Visitor’s in-field Activities.”

⁷⁴ Appendix I, Articles 2 and 3.

⁷⁵ ATCM Resolution 1 (1999) “Guidelines for EIA in Antarctica”; Resolution 4 (2005), “Updating of Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica” .

⁷⁶ This section expands on the analysis presented in Deary and Tin, “Engagement in wilderness protection” to include PNRA, “Final Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation: Gravel runway” that was accepted by the ATCM in 2017.

⁷⁷ Deary and Tin, “Engagement in wilderness protection.”

⁷⁸ PNRA, “Final Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation: Gravel runway.”

⁷⁹ CEP XVI Final Report, Appendix 1.

⁸⁰ Including New Zealand, “Environmental aspects”; ATCM Resolution 2 (2013), “Antarctic Clean-Up Manual.”

⁸¹ CEP, “Report CEP XVII,” Para. 101–110; ATCM Resolution 1 (2016), “Revised Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica.”

⁸² Appendix I, Article 3.

⁸³ Resolution 1 (2017).

⁸⁴ New Zealand and USA, “Dry Valleys”, Section 1; Argentina et al., “Deception island”, Section 2; USA, “ South Pole”, Section 1; Australia et al., “Larsemann Hills”, Section 2.3.

⁸⁵ New Zealand and USA, “Dry Valleys”, Section 2; Appendix E; Australia et al., “Larsemann Hills”, Section 6.1.

⁸⁶ Pertierra et al., “High Resolution.”