Abstract
This chapter attempts to outline the main challenges that National Antarctic Programs (NAP) likely will have to face in the future, as a consequence of changing circumstances stemming both from inside and outside of the Antarctic continent. Such circumstances will likely be the ultimate result of currently observed ongoing trends. Issues challenging the NAPs’ environmental management framework in the resulting future scenarios will be analysed, in conjunction with tools aimed to check and control the NAPs’ environmental performance. The main objective of this exercise is to provide Antarctic managers—and other involved decision-makers—with a basis for understanding the future, and thereby enable them to act with these likely future situations in mind.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Currently 35 nations have ratified the Protocol: 29 consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty (those entitled to participate in decision making in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings) and six non-consultative parties (they are invited to attend the Consultative Meetings but do not participate in the decision making). All nations that have ratified the Protocol are full members of the Committee for Environmental Protection.
- 2.
Some examples include the SCAR/COMNAP Checklists for Supply Chain Managers (SCAR/COMNAP 2011), the SCAR’s code of conduct for the exploration and research of subglacial aquatic environments (SCAR 2011), the SCAR’s environmental code of conduct for terrestrial scientific field research in Antarctica (SCAR 2009a), the COMNAP Fuel Manual (COMNAP 2008b) and the COMNAP Practical Guidelines for Developing and Designing Environmental Monitoring Programmes in Antarctica (COMNAP 2005).
- 3.
An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a set of processes and practices that enable an organisation to reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating efficiency.
- 4.
For example, the Faraday/Vernadsky Station has experienced warming of +0.53°C per decade for the period 1951–2006, while the 100-year record from Orcadas Station on Laurie Island, South Orkney Islands, shows a warming of +0.20 °C per decade.
- 5.
ISO 14001 is an internationally accepted standard that expresses how to establish an effective EMS. ISO 14001 is part of a family of a number of international ISO 14000 standards designed to assist organisations in reducing their negative impact on the environment.
- 6.
It is fair to mention some caveats associated to ISO 14001 certification. First, as ISO 14001 does not specify levels of environmental performance, the benefits achieved are dependant on the goals the organisation has set up for the process. If they are not very challenging or ambitious, then the ISO 14001 framework may be of little benefit. Secondly, ISO 14001 certification may be costly, may take considerable manpower and may result in more bureaucracy.
- 7.
Key to such reduction would be automating as many jobs as possible, using multi-skilled technical staff that can cover more than one field, and building infrastructure that can be easily mothballed when numbers are low.
- 8.
Belgium’s Princess Elisabeth Station, China’s Kunlun Station, (both opened in 2009), South Korea’s Jang Bogo Research Station and India’s Barathi Station (both scheduled to be operational by 2012) are very recent examples of this trend.
- 9.
DROMLAN is an air network which facilitates communication and the transportation of scientists and equipment between Cape Town and Drønning Maud Land, and between the scientific stations and field locations within Drønning Maud Land. It is supported by a consortium of the national programmes that have stations or operations in or around Drønning Maud Land.
- 10.
The SCAR’s Code of Conduct for Antarctic Expeditions and Station Activities was the first serious attempt to incorporate recommendations on how to deal with specific operational activities in Antarctica, mainly those associated with waste management (SCAR 1975).
- 11.
Since the Madrid Protocol entered into force (1998) the development of more than 10 different clean-up programmes of historic wastes have been informed through the CEP.
- 12.
However, depending on size and structure of the NAP, it may vary whether the Environmental Officer needs to be a separate position or whether a competent person within the structure could be given additional responsibilities within the framework of environmental management.
- 13.
At the Workshop of Practical Biological Indicators of Human Impacts in Antarctica (NSF-SCAR-COMNAP 2005) it was recommended that every fourth year a monitoring workshop should be held during the SCAR/COMNAP joint meetings.
- 14.
However, according to Protocol’s Annex I, including information on the establishment of monitoring programmes is a requirement only for CEEs (activities causing more than a minor or transitory impacts). According to the Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica (Resolution 4, 2005), including information on monitoring programmes is ‘often useful’ for IEEs (activities causing minor or transitory impacts).
- 15.
Thirteen year-round stations (which accounts for one third of all stations in Antarctica) have been inspected only once since the Protocol’s adoption, while another three of them have never been inspected at all.
- 16.
Since the Treaty entered into force, 45 inspections have been carried out, by 19 Consultative Parties. Nineteen inspections (involving 15 Parties) have taken place, since the Madrid Protocol was ratified (1991). On average, each inspection covered around 6.5 stations. The average number of inspections carried through per year, both before and after the Protocol, is just around 1 inspection per year. Data on inspections can be found on the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat website: www.ats.aq/e/ats_governance_listinspections.htm (accessed: 12.03.12).
References
ASOC. (2006). Station sharing in Antarctica. Information paper 94 presented at XXIX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Edinburgh, UK.
ATS. (1991). The protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty. Buenos Aires: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Retrieved from: http://www.ats.aq/e/ep.htm.
ATS. (2005). Final report of the twenty-eighth antarctic treaty consultative meeting. Part II measures, decisions and resolutions. Stockholm. Buenos Aires: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Retrieved from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM28/fr/ATCM28_fr002_e.pdf.
ATS. (2011). Final report of the thirty-fourth consultative meeting. Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Retrieved from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM34/fr/ATCM34_fr001_e.pdf.
Australia. (2007). Mawson station wind farm—four years of operational experience. Information paper 48 presented at XXX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, New Delhi, India.
Australia. (2008). Australia’s Antarctic Air Service 2007/08. Information paper 53 presented at XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Australia. (2011). Australian Antarctic treaty and environmental protocol inspections: January 2010 and January 2011. Working paper 51 presented at XXXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Brazil. (2011). Sistema de Gestão Ambiental na Estação Antártica Comandante Ferraz. Information paper 14 presented at the twenty-second RAPAL (Reunión de Administradores de Programas Antárticos Latinoamericanos), Lima, Peru.
COMNAP. (2005). Practical guidelines for developing and designing environmental monitoring programs in Antarctica. Hobart: Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. Retrieved from: https://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/comnap_guidelines_practicalmonitoring_2005.pdf.
COMNAP. (2006). Waste management in Antarctica. Proceeding of the 2006 workshop held by the COMNAP Antarctic environmental officers network (AEON) on 10–11 July 2006. Hobart: Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. Retrieved from: https://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/COMNAP_waste_management_2006.pdf.
COMNAP. (2008a). COMNAP Constitution. Adopted in Plenary Friday 04 July 2008. Hobart: Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. Retrieved from: https://www.comnap.aq/Shared%20Documents/comnap-constitution-adopted-04-july-2008.pdf.
COMNAP. (2008b). COMNAP fuel manual (v.1, April, 2008). Hobart: Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. Retrieved from: https://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/fuel-manual-v1.pdf.
COMNAP. (2009). Final report of the twentieth meeting of the COMNAP. St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. Hobart: Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs.
COMNAP. (2010). Proceedings of the COMNAP symposium 2010. responding to change through new approaches. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Hobart: Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. Retrieved from: https://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/COMNAP%20Symposium%202010%20ProceedingsA5.pdf.
Frenot, Y., Chown, S. L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P. M., Convey, P., Skotnicki, M., et al. (2005). Biological invasions in the Antarctic: Extent, impacts and implications. Biological Reviews, 80, 45–72.
Hughes, K. A. (2010). How committed are we to monitoring human impact in Antarctica? Environmental Research Letters, 5(041001). Retrieved from: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/4/041001.
Hughes, K. A., & Convey, P. (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., Convey, P. & Huiskes, A. H. L. (2013). Global movement and homogenisation of biota: Challenges to the environmental management of Antarctica? In T. Tin, D. Liggett, P. T. Maher, & M. Lamers (Eds.), Antarctic futures: Human engagement with the Antarctic environment. Netherlands: Springer.
Klein, A. G., Sweet, S. T., Kennicutt II, M. C., Wade, T. L., Palmer, T. A. & Montagna, P. (2013). Long term monitoring of human impacts to the terrestrial environment at McMurdo station. In T. Tin, D. Liggett, P. T. Maher, & M. Lamers (Eds.), Antarctic futures: Human engagement with the Antarctic environment. Netherlands: Springer.
Norway. (2010). The 2009 Norwegian Antarctic inspection under Article VII of the Antarctic treaty. Working paper 57 presented at XXXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Punta del Este, Uruguay.
NSF-SCAR-COMNAP. (2005). Report of a workshop on practical biological indicators of human impacts in Antarctica. Volume 1 workshop deliberations and recommendations. Bryan/College Station, Texas, USA. Retrieved from: https://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/Practical_Biological_Indicators_of_human_Impacts_in_Antarctica_%28March2001%29_Vol.1.pdf.
Sánchez, R. A., & McIvor, E. (2007). The Antarctic committee for environmental protection: Past, present, and future. Polar Record, 43(226), 239–246.
SCAR. (1975). Code of conduct for antarctic expeditions and station activities. Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Retrieved from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt%5Catt071_e.pdf.
SCAR. (2009a). SCAR’s environmental code of conduct for terrestrial scientific field research in Antarctica. Information paper 4 presented at XXXII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Baltimore, USA.
SCAR. (2009b). Antarctic climate change and the environment. In J. Turner, R. Bindschadler, P. Convey, G. di Prisco, E. Fahrbach, J. Gutt, D. Hodgson, P. Mayewski, & C. Summerhayes (Eds.), Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Retrieved from: http://www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf.
SCAR. (2011). SCAR’s code of conduct for the exploration and research of subglacial aquatic environments. Information paper 33 presented at XXXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
SCAR/COMNAP. (2011). SCAR/COMNAP checklists for supply chain managers. Working paper 12 presented at XXXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
SCAR/COMNAP (1996). Monitoring of environmental impacts from science and operations in Antarctica. Report of the SCAR/COMNAP workshops on environmental monitoring in Antarctica, held in Oslo, Norway 17–20 October, 1995, and at college station, Texas, 25–29 March, 1996. Cambridge: Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
Tejedo, P., Pertierra, L. R., & Benayas, J. (2013). Trampling the Antarctic: Consequences of human traffic on Antarctic soils. In T. Tin, D. Liggett, P. T. Maher, & M. Lamers (Eds.), Antarctic futures: Human engagement with the Antarctic environment. Netherlands: Springer.
Tin, T., Sovacool, B. K., Blake, D., Magill, P., El Naggar, S., Lindstrom, S., et al. (2009). Energy efficiency and renewable energy under extreme conditions: Case studies from Antarctica. Renewable Energy, 35(8), 1715–1723.
Tin, T., Lamers, M., Liggett, D., Maher, P. T. & Hughes, K. A. (2013). Setting the Scene: Human activities, environmental impacts and governance arrangements in Antarctica. In T. Tin, D. Liggett, P. T. Maher, & M. Lamers (Eds.) Antarctic futures: Human engagement with the Antarctic environment. Netherlands: Springer.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank David Walton, Tito Acero, Yves Frenot and Patricia Ortúzar for their valuable comments on this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sánchez, R.A., Njaastad, B. (2014). Future Challenges in Environmental Management of National Antarctic Programs. In: Tin, T., Liggett, D., Maher, P., Lamers, M. (eds) Antarctic Futures. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6582-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6582-5_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6581-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6582-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)