Antarctic geoconservation: a review of current systems and practices

Abstract

SUMMARYThe prohibition of commercial mineral resource extraction through the Antarctic Treaty System has removed one significant source of potential damage to Antarctica's geological and geomorphological values. However, given the on-going increase in Antarctic tourism and scientific footprint, some high-quality geological features may be vulnerable to human impact, such as damage due to the construction of logistical facilities, unregulated collection of geological specimens or oversampling for scientific purposes. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty puts in place a framework for the protection of Antarctica's environmental, scientific, historic, wilderness and aesthetic values. However, the Antarctic Protected Area system is still immature and further implementation of existing management tools may be required to protect the diverse range of vulnerabilities, qualities and spatial scales represented in the geology and geomorphology of the continent. At sites where high-quality mineralogical or palaeontological specimens exist in limited quantities, considerations of how best to prevent oversampling and manage access to remaining material may be supported by assessment of cumulative impacts. Examination of the level of Antarctic specimen loans from a selection of national geological collections suggested that existing publically accessible geological collections could be better utilized, which could reduce environmental impact and oversampling at vulnerable Antarctic sites.

Systematic Conservation Planning for Antarctic Research Stations

“…the construction of a runway at Mario Zuchelli Station has destroyed a large portion of a long-term climate change soil monitoring site; Italy, 2016). Similarly, environmental modifications can result in irreversible losses in unique geomorphological and geological features of scientific value (Hughes et al, 2016;Klein et al, 2004;O'Neill, 2017). Although environmental and historic values in proximity to stations can gain enhanced conservation attention due to their accessibility, they conversely create recreational attractions resulting in ongoing visitation which can impact their archaeological significance and results in cumulative degradation (Bickersteth et al, 2008;Convey, 2020;O'Neill et al, 2013).…”

“…A reaction, partly stimulated by this, has been a recent effort by the scientific community encouraging an increase of the coverage of ASPAs, particularly within the terrestrial environment (Australia, 2019;Chown et al, 2017;Coetzee et al, 2017;Shaw et al, 2014;Terauds and Lee, 2016). This focus has been based on recognition the current coverage of ASPAs across Antarctica is not representative or robust in many contexts (geographical, biodiversity, ecosystems or wilderness) and far from comprehensively protects ecosystems and biodiversity (Wauchope et al, 2019), biogeographical regions (Terauds and Lee, 2016) or landscapes (Hughes et al, 2016). Despite awareness of inadequate representation within the network, the total land area covered by ASPAs (as one metric) has not substantially increased for ~40 years (Chown et al, 2017).…”

Antarctic: Climate Change, Fisheries, and Governance

“…Under a context of the UN sustainable development goals (SDG), particularly SDG 14 (Conserve and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development), the challenges facing the Antarctic region and its governance mechanisms, include minimizing human impact, developing improved links between the scientific community and policymakers (Chown and Brooks 2019;Chown et al 2012a;Hughes et al 2016bHughes et al , 2018, management of fisheries (Brooks et al 2016(Brooks et al , 2018, pollution (Bessa et al 2019;Queirós et al 2020;Waller et al 2017), vessel management (via the Polar Code) (McGee and Haward 2019), sustainable management and protection of ecosystems (e.g., increase the number and representativeness of Antarctic protected areas) (Brooks 2013;Everson 2017;Trathan et al 2015;Wauchope et al 2019), and future possible political stress . If current scenarios of global greenhouse gas emissions and planetary warming remain unchecked, it may lead to consequences such as increases in fisheries exploitation (with CCAMLR overwhelmed by the interest in making use of this resource), bioprospecting, tourism, discussions/actions on mineral resource exploitation, and even to the creation of permanent settlements (as distinct from research stations) .…”

Ecosystem Service Supply in the Antarctic Peninsula Region: Evaluating an Expert-Based Assessment Approach and a Novel Seascape Data Model

“…In addition, the provision of water, of material or products from biota, and mineral resource extraction were included in this category. The latter was taken into consideration despite current prohibition of commercial mineral resource extraction under the ATS in order to elicit possible non-commercial extraction (Hughes et al, 2016). The service "provision of material or products from biota" refers to industrial resource uses such as krill harvesting for the production of fishmeal or biochemical products, and to bioprospecting for genetic resources as part of marine research (Grant et al, 2013;Furbino et al, 2014;Alvarado-Cuevas et al, 2015).…”