ANTARCTIC PROTECTED AREAS - FUTURE OPTIONS A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy in Polar Studies. Scott Polar Research Institute , Cambridge University . Peter Lawson Keage 28 June 1985 Clare College -DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is between 10 OOO and 20 OOO words in length, excluding figures, tables, abstract, appendices, acknowledgements and references. It is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration. 28 June 1985 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My time at the Scott Polar Resea~ch Institute (SPRI) was made possible by an Australian Public Service Board Postgraduate Study Award. I sincerely thank Dr Bruce Davis, Dr Richard Jones, Dr Desmond Lugg, Mr Clarence Mccue, Dr Warren Nicholls and Mr Ian Nicholson, who supported my scholarship application. Financial support from the Australian Antarctic Division enabled me to attend the joint SCAR/IUCN Meeting on 'The Scientific Requirements for Antarctic Conservation', held in Bonn, 22-26 April, 1985. I am indebted to Mr James Bleasel, Dr Knowles Kerry and Dr Patrick Quilty for this opportunity. I am most grateful to Mr Nigel Bonner (BAS and SCAR) and Mr Jeremy Harrison (IUCN). Nigel commented on the thesis draft and was a willing and valuable sounding-board for ideas. Jeremy made available several books and articles. I hope this work is of interest to them. Also, despite a hectic diplomatic pace, Dr John Heap has given freely of his time. Miss Rosemary Graham has taken a constructive interest in the progress of the thesis and Dr Harry Keys has commented on an early draft of Appendix 3. I have been fortunate in having Dr Bernard Stonehouse as Supervisor. Also, Mr Robert Headland , whose enthusiasm abounds for things Antarctic, took much pleasure in reviewing the thesis draft. I am indebted to both Bernard and Robert for their sound advice and good nature - for this work and during my time at SPRI. I would like to record my thanks to fellow-student Malcolm Farrow and gratitude for the hospitality and support of SPRI and Clare College. Finally, to Dianne whose patience is endless . Chapter l. Chapter 2. 2.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. Origins. • ••••••• 2.1.1 Early Sealing Era . 2.1.2 After World War II. Page 1 7 7 10 2.2 Areas Protected under the Antarctic Treaty. 13 2.2.1 Terrestrial Environment. 14 2.2.2 Marine Environment. 18 2.3 Characteristics of Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Chapter 3. 19 3.1 Conservation Objectives and Protected Sites. 27 3.2.1 Ecosystem and Landscape Preservation. 29 3.2.2 Land-use Planning. 32 3.2.3 Implementation and Operation. 36 3.2 Logistic Constraints . 39 3.3 Political Constraints. 43 3.4 Conclusions. 46 Chapter 4. 4. Introduction. 4.1 Option 1 - Status-Quo. 4.2 Option 2 - Revise Selectively Existing Measures. 4.2.1 Site Identification and Selection. 4.2.2 Protection of Inshore Areas. 4.2.3 Site Management. 4.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment. 4.3 Option 3 - A World Park. 49 49 50 52 52 56 61 66 69 4.4 Option 4 - Antarctic (Biosphere) Reserves. 72 4.4.1 Ice Catchments and Selected Ice Flowlines. 78 (I) Chapter 5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Antarctic Conservation Strategy. 5.2 Antarctic Treaty Secretariat . 5.3 Expanded SCAR Secretariat. 5.4 Concluding Remarks. References. Appendix 1. Dates and Places for Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and General Assemblies of the 81 81 82 83 84 85 Scientific Connnittee on Antarctic Research. 95 Appendix 2. Historic Monuments under the Antarctic Treaty. • .••••••• Appendix 3. Specially Protected Areas and Sites of 96 Scientific Interest . 100 FIGURES I. The Antarctic Convergence, and the areas covered by the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention for the Conservation of An tarctic Marine Living Resources. 2. Locations of Historic Monuments. 3 . Locations of Se~l Reserves. 4. Locations of Specially Protected Areas. 5. Locations of Sites of Special Scientific Interest . . .•.• ••••• , • 6 . Major Antarctic ice catchments and selected flowlines. • ••••••••• , , TABLES 1. Nature conservation legislation before the Page 2 16 20 22 23 80 Antarctic Treaty. • • • • • • • • • • 8 2. The range and relative abundance of ecosystems found in Specially Protected Areas. • •• ••• 24 3. The range and relative abundance of ecosystems found in Sites of Special Scientific Interest . 25 4. Responsibilities for nature conservation which devolved on, or have been initiated by , the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. 38 5. Arctic and sub-Arctic Biosphere Reserves, 76 PLATES 1. "Dumont d'Urville" Station, Terre Ad~lie. 2. 3. King George Island field study site. Emperor penguin rookery, Taylor Glacier, Mac.Robertson Land. • ••••••••• APPENDICES 1. Dates and places of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings and General Assemblies of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. 42 45 57 95 2, Surrnnary of Sites of Historic Monuments. 96 3. Surmnary of Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. • ••••••• 99 (III) ABSTRACT The system of protected sites established for Antarctic terrestrial environments by the Antarctic Treaty is examined - protection of sites is one of the measures available to Contracting Parties to the Treaty for the preservation and conservation of the Antarctic Environment. Protected sites are categorised: site designations are described and weaknesses are identified in terms of site selection criteria, land-use planning concepts, site management, and logistic and political pressures. Emphasis is given to practical remedies for these deficiencies which can be implemented under the Antarctic Treaty. Four options for the future operation of protected sites are discussed. These are (a) to maintain the status quo, (b) to revise selectively existing Treaty provisions, (c) to declare a 'World Park', and (d) to introduce a new protected site classification based on the Biosphere Reserve concept. Such options are not mutually exclusive and emphasise the need for Treaty Parties to take a more positive approach to the setting aside of protected sites and to their management. It is concluded that improvements to the protected site system hinge on parallel development of (a) a conservation strategy linking conservation measures for the. Antarctic terrestrial environment with those for the marine environment, (b) the establishment of an active Antarctic Treaty Secretariat to oversee the implementation and operation of recommendations on nature conservation, and (c) expansion of the Scientific Cormnittee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Secretariat to enable it to be more actively involved in site selection, monitoring, and environmental impact assessment. (IV) ABSTRACT The system of protected sites established for Antarctic terrestrial environments by the Antarctic Treaty is examined protection of sites is one of the measures available to Contracting Parties to the Treaty for the preservation and conservation of the Antarctic Environment . Protected sites are categorised: site designations are described and weaknesses are identified in terms of site selection criteria, land-use planning concepts, site management , and logistic and political pressures. Emphasis is given to practical remedies for these deficiencies which can be implemented under the Antarctic Treaty. Four options for the future operation of protected sites are discussed . These are (a) to maintain the status quo, (b) to revise selectively existing Treaty provisions, (c) to declare a 'World Park ', and (d) to introduce a new protected site classification based on the Biosphere Reserve concept. Such options are not mutually exclusive and emphasise the need for Treaty Parties to take a more positive approach to the s e tting aside of protected sites and to their management. It is concluded that improvements to the protected site system hinge on parallel development of (a) a conservation strategy linking conservation measures for the · Antarctic terrestrial environment with those for the marine environment, (b) the establishment of an active Antarctic Treaty Secretariat to oversee the implementation and operation of recommendations on nature conservation, and (c) expansion of the Scientific Conunittee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Secretariat to enable it to be more actively involved in site selection, monitoring, and environmental impact assessment. (IV) ATCM(s) ATCP(s) BAS CCAMLR CMC GEMS ICSU IUCN MAB MSSSI PADU SCAR SCOPE SHI SPA SSSI UN UNEP UNESCO WMO ABBREVIATIONS Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting(s). Recorrunendations made by ATCMs (i.e. Recorrunendation 5 of the ATCM III) are denoted thus: ATCM III-5. Antarctic Treaty Contracting Party (Parties). British Antarctic Survey. Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN). Global Environmental Monitoring System (UNEP). International Council of Scientific Unions. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO). Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Protected Areas Data Unit (CMC). Scientific Corrunittee on Antarctic Research. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (ICSU). Site of Historic Interest. Specially protected Area. Site of Special Scientific Interest. United Nations Organisation. United Nations Environment Programme. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. World Meteorological Organisation. (V) CHAPnRl 1. Introduction ' It had many imperfections, but contained adequate provis ions for amendment in the light of experience .' Bria n Roberts (1977) , referring .to the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. Measures for the conservation of Antarctic resources are 6 2 organised differently for the terrestrial (14 x 10 km) and marine 6 2 (35 x 10 km) environments. Conservation and preservation measures for the terrestrial environment fall within the Antarctic Treaty, 0 which applies to land and ice shelves south of 60 S. The conservation of marine life, except whales, is provided for by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the northern boundary of which approximates the Antarctic Convergence. The Antarctic Treaty and CCAMLR overlap with provisions of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, which applies to the Antarctic Treaty area. Both the Seals Convention and CCAMLR were conceived within the Antarctic Treaty framework and, together with the Treaty , have provision for establishing protected sites. The areas covered by the Anta r ctic Treaty and CCAMLR are illustrated in Figure 1 . For br evi t y , t he scope of this study has had to be restric t ed to the examinat i on _of the t erre s tria l prot ec t ed s ite sy stem establi shed by the An tarct i c Treaty, although th e t er r e str ial env i r onment and the marine envi r onment a r e mutual l y dependent to a considerable extent . The primary obj ect i ve 1s to ident i fy weakness es 1n the protecte d site system and to propose remedies for them. The emphasis is on practicable improvements which could be implemente d under the Antarctic Treaty. The purpose and characteristics of each protected site designation are described in Chapter 2. The effectiveness of 1 0 f,() s ~ ~./ . ~ , /South Sandwich Is Bouvetfya . South Geor"' 180 . Macquarie I · Can1>b8B I \ ~ • Auckland I "':f) FIGURE 1. Areas covered by the Antarctic Treaty (shaded) and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (bold line). 2 the system is assessed in Chapter 3 . Improvement s to existing arrangements are covered in Chapters 4 and S. Appendices include (a) a list of dates and places of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) and General Assemblies of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), (b) a summary of Sites of Historic Interest (SHI), and (c) an outline of existing and proposed Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are several motivations for this study. First , ice-free land and inland lakes account for only about one percent of the continental land area of Antarctica, and support a minor proportion of the total biota of the Antarctic Treaty area. Terrestrial organisms, which are presently gradually colonising geographically dispersed rock outcrops and coasts, are sensitive to disturbance; remote ice-free land exposures may be regarded biogeographically as islands. Bonner (1984) summari ses present and future effects on the Antarctic environment arising from (a) commercial exploitation of living resources, (b) casual destruction, (c) habitat destruction and mineral exploitation, (d) the introduction of other organisms, and (e) pollution. Commercial exploitation of living resources is presently the major source of disturbance to the marine environment. The periods and duration of disturbances from former sealing and whaling, and from present krill harvesting and fishing has been episodic and geographically widespread. The abundance and circumpolar distribution of most species together with the high productivity of the Southern Ocean make the Antarctic marine environment comparatively resistant to impact. Disturbance to the terrestrial environment has been caused mainly by habitat destruction. This began with the start of shore operations by sealers and whalers who, from the late 1700s, introduced alien fauna and flora to many 3 sub-Ant arctic islands . From the early 1900s to t he late 1950s , human occupancy of the Antarctic terrestrial environment increased only s l ightly, but has since risen sharply. There are now 36 permanently s taffed stations in the Antarctic Treaty area , on islands , around the Antarctic coast and inland. A third of them are in the Antarctic Peninsula region. The wintering population of the continent expeditions is approximately 400 and they remain mostly near the stations, but in summer there is a great increase both in the population (which reaches over 3 OOO) and in the area affected by operations. These estimates do not include visits by tourists. Existing station facilities are being enlarged by six ATCPs (Australia, Chile, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Great Britain and New Zealand) . Over the past two years, five countries have established new stations (Brazil, India, Japan, People's Republic of China and Uruguay), while Italy, Norway and Greenpeace International are planning to establish stat i ons in Antarctica - the first two in new a r eas , the latter close to an existing station. Disturbance to the terrestr i a l environment is mostly confined to areas near stations on ice-free land and associated lakes systems, but diseases have been transmitted to seals and birds (Morgan and others, 19 78). The second mot i vation fo r s t udying t he t err estrial protected site s st ems fr om the paradox of the Antarctic Treaty alluded to by Brian Roberts (see above; his photograph has been looking over my shoulder for the past year). On the one hand, Contracting Parties may formulate measures to conserve natural and cultural resources prior to exploitation and, on the other, reserve for themselves the obligation of ensuring that they comply with Treaty provisions. Protected terrestrial sites are established by ATCPs to protect selected ecosystems, species, habitats and historic monuments from interference. Boundaries and guidelines for behaviour within them are 4 formula t ed and agr eed unanimously by ATCPs . The fi r s t regulations for establishing and maintaining protected sites in the Antarctic Treaty area were t he Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. They are now 21 years old and ATCPs have considerable experience in their application; several amendments and supplementary r ecommendations have been made to deal with 'imperfections'. Examination of the terrestrial protec ted site system is valuable from the viewpoint of assessing (a) the operational priorities of ATCPs, (b) the extent to which ATCPs have been able to strike a balance between operational requirements and adherence to measures formulated and unanimously agreed by Parties , and (c) whether protected sites created by international agreement are more secure than those established unilaterally. CCAMLR may make decisions in parallel with those of the Antarctic Treaty for establishing protected sites, but so far none have been declared. In reality, ATCPs account for the bulk of the membership to CCAMLR, which is linked to Antarctic Treaty pr i nciples. Thus there is another dime nsion to the consider a t ion of the terrest r ial protected site system - t o ensure that its ' imperfections' are not transmit t ed to the regulation of protected sites established in the marine environment. Finally, t here has been lit tle subsequent deve l opment of protec ted area des ignations and mea s ure s formulated by the Antarctic Treaty in the 1960s and 1970s . This i s despite the sy s t em of cooperation established by the Treaty system which allows conservation needs to be anticipated (Bonner, 1984), and which is sufficiently flexible to accommodate many amendments (Orrego Vicuna , 1983). Over the past five years, there has been growing international interest 1n Antarctica, especially in setting aside large areas for nature conservation. The International Whaling Comrnission has designated a whale sanctuary (IUCN Bulletin, 1979) in that part of the Indian Ocean 5 which overlaps the area covered by CCAMLR; several nations around the Indian Ocean are investigating the possiblity of regional cooperation for the exploration, exploitation and environmental protection of the Ocea n ; some international conservation organisations have called for Antarctica to be declared an international park, and for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to have World Heritage status. Regardless of existing and proposed protected site designations, the effectiveness of conservation measures is dependent on the degree of commitment to them shown by the many nations operating in the region. This points to the central role of Antarctic Treaty Parties in reviewing nature conservation measures and being aware of (a) advances in scientific knowledge, (b) disturbance to the Antarctic environment caused by increased numbers of stations and other activities, and (c) measures which have been successful outside the Treaty regions. The opportunity for ATCPs to review nature conservation measures (including protection of sites) is always available at Consultative Meetings but does not appear to have been pursued effectively. However, the obligation to do so is heightened by the advances in such measures developed outside the Treaty area, and by the first detailed compilation of Antarctic conservation areas by SCAR (Bonner and Smith, 1985), which has drawn attention to imperfections. 6 CHAPTER 2 A summary is given of Antarctic nature conservation measures and the interest shown by various conservation bodies up to June 1961, when the Antarctic Treaty came into operation. The protected area system established on Treaty recommendations and related conventions are described, with special reference to the classification of terrestrial sites. The characteristics of existing protected areas are defined on the basis of an inventory of protected areas (Appendix 3). 2.1 Origins Measures for the conservation of nature in some regions of Antarctica were in force nearly a century before the operation of the Antarctic Treaty but are poorly documented. It is important to take them into account as part of the background to nature conservation measures established under the Antarctic Treaty, as evidence of conservation methods which may have been tested in the region and of arrangemerits for the international coordination of nature conservation at the time the Antarctic Treaty was being negotiated. Legal controls for nature conservation in Antarctic regions before the Antarctic Treaty are summarised in Table 1. These can be divided into two per iods: the sealing er a from the late 1800s to the 1930s and the development of Antarctica after Wor ld War II. 2. 1.1 Early Sealing Era Ear ly natur e conservat i on measur es were almost exclusively concerned wi th t he sealing i ndus try, which wa s a major incentive fo r the early exploration of Antarctica and the only economic activity in the region until the late 1800s. By this time indiscriminate killing had brought fur seals close to extinction and El ephant seal populations to a level which made the industry unenconomic. Without 7 TABLE_!_. A summary of nature conservation legislation before the Antarctic Treaty . 1873 Sealing operations commenced at Macquarie Island under licence from the State Government of Tasmania. In 1919 sealing operations stopped by Government refusal to re-issue licences. 1878 British Seal Fisheries Protection Act established a 'closed season' for sealing in Briti sh-claimed territory. The Act was incorporated in the 1884 Fisheries Conservation Act. 1881 Falkland Islands Government Ordinance No.4 made regulations on the sealing industry in the Dependencies. 1891 Government of Tasmania regulations prohibited the killing of seals and penguins at Macquarie Island without permit . 1906 Falkland Islands Government Ordinance No.3 controlled whaling in territorial waters of the Dependencies. 1908 Falkland Islands and Dependencies Whale Fishery Ordinance. Set licencing fees for whaling operations, catch limits and areas of operation. Amended 1911, 1912, 1915, 1923, 1933 and 1934. 1909 Falkland Islands Government Ordinance No.7 gave protection to penguins. 1910 New Zealand Government declared Adams Island (Auckland Islands group) a nature reserve for the preservation of fauna and flora. 1912 Falkland Islands and Dependencies Seal Fishery (Consolidation) Ordinance established (in 1922) seal reserves on South Georgia. 1912 Falkland Islands and Dependencies Wild Animals and Birds (South Georgia) Ordinance. Protects wildlife listed in the Ordinance. 1913 Falkland Islands and Dependencies Wild Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance prevented disturbance to wildlife (excluding seals) except for scientific research or in emergency. Amended 1914, 1949 and 1935. 1921 Falkland Islands and Dependencies Seal Fishery Ordinance. Consolidated and .amended previous laws relating to seal exploitation. Provided for a.licence system for killing seals, and the appointment of seal fishery officers (inspectors). Volunteer Rocks , Elephant Jason, Bird , and Beaucheno Islands declared Seal Reserves. 1924 French Government Decrees regulated whaling and sealing in French Antarctic territory. Parts of Iles Kerguelen declared a Pare National for the protection of wildlife. 1926 Falkland Islands and Dependencies Ordinance No.6 established a Research and Development Fund to return revenues from whaling operations to research in connection with the whaling industry. 1928 Norwegian Provisional Order of Council prohibited the killing of Fur seals by Norwegian citizens. A Royal Decree of 1953 prohibited the killing of Fur and Elephant seals on Bouvet~ya and Peter I ~y . 1931 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed by 26 nations - in force 1932. 1933 Government of Tasmania proclaimed Macquarie Island a sanctuary for wildlife under the 1918 Animals and Birds Protection Act. 1934 New Zealand Government declared the whole Auckland Islands group a nature reserve. 1937 International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling - in force 1938. 1953 Law No. 13.908 passed by Argentina, prohibiting hunting of native animals in its Antarctic territory without a permit. 1955 Falklands Islands and Dependencies Wild Animals and Birds Protection Order provided protection for listed birds and mammals. 1956 Soviet Union declared the area round Haswell Island a protected site on 15 January, 10 days after 'Mirny' station (adjacent) was established. 1957 French Government suspended lobster fishing at Iles Saint Paul and Iles Amsterdam for a year ·to allow lobster populations to recover from over-exploitation. Compiled from: Falklands Islands Gazzette, Extracts 1891-1955, Scott Polar Research Institute, pp.464, Holdgate and Robert's(l°961), SCAR Bulletin (1961a), and Headland (in preparation). 8 exception protection measures fo r seals were unsuccessful: they lacked an adequate scientific basis, were virtually impossible to enforce, and were enacted 20 to 50 years after sealing operations had began on mos t islands - too late to compensate for pressures on seal populations. On Macquarie Island, penguins made good the shortfall 1n oil from Elephant seals, which had been near extermination (Cumpston, 1968). The licensing system implemented by the Tasmanian State Government in 1873 to regulate sealing operations at Macquarie Island (which cormnenced in 1810) appears to be the earliest piece of Antarctic nature conservation legislation. The first protected area in Antarctic regions was Adams Island (in the Auckland Islands group), which was declared a nature reserve in 1910 by the New Zealand Government. A partial recovery of Elephant seal populations on some sub- Antarctic islands made possible a second epoch of sealing operations starting in the early 1900s and r unning longest at South Georgia (1909 to 1964) (Headland , 1984). Despite limited understanding of seal biology before World War II, the industry was better organised for managed exploitation ; seal size, sex , and catch limits were set and inspectors were appointed to oversee operations . At South Georgia , a breeding population to support the industry was assured by the declaration in 1922 of seal r eserves (Laws, 1953). By 1934 protected area status of one kind or another had been declared on Bouvet~ya and Macquarie Islands, and parts of the Auckland Islands, South Georgia and Iles Kerguelen. During the second epoch of sealing on South Georgia, the industry was operated by a whaling company (Compania Argentina de Pesca) and sealing ended with the collapse of whaling. The number of seals that could be killed was seasonally adjusted depending on the size and composition of the Elephant seal stock in the four sealing divisions. A sustainable yield of 6 OOO seals was achieved (Headland, 1984). 2.1.2 After World War II As a result of military, strategic and sovereign interests, the period after World War II saw a great expans ion in the Antarctic operations of several nations and the ·start of operations for several others. It also r esulted in a change in attitude to nature conservation in the Antarctic. First, an important factor was the International Geophysical Year (IGY , 1957 to 1958), which established international scientific collaboration in the region and precipitated widespread and rapid expansion of human activity in the region. The IGY coordinating body, the Comit~ Special de l'Ann~e Geophysique, recommended the creation of the non-governmental Special (later - 1962 Scientific) Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to 'coordinate, initiate, and promote scientific activity in the Antarctic , with a view to framing and reviewing programmes of scientific importance' (SCAR, 1972, 1981). SCAR first met in February 1958. An immediate concern was the 'protection of representative areas of natural environments' and assessment of th e 'impact of man and introduced animals on the Antarctic environment' (SCAR Bulletin, 1959). A Permanent Working Group on Biology was established which immediately drew attention to 'careless aspects of modern operations at Antarctic scientific bases' and called on nations working there to take 'joint steps for the preservation of the Antarctic flora and fauna and its protection from needless persecution and destruction; and further, that the proper agency to co-ordinate such steps is the Special Committee on Antarctic Research' (SCAR Bulletin, 1960). The objects of Antarctic nature conservation were first stated internationally at the Fourth Meeting of SCAR (1960), at which a report . on the Conservation of Nature in Antarctica, prepared by the 10 Working Group on Biology, was provisionally accepted subject to approval by National Committees (SCAR Bulletin, 1961b) . Among the 'General Principles' of nature conservation were: • Antarc tic fauna and flora are of outstanding scientific importance and scientific study requires them to be retained, as far as possible, in a natural state; species of Antarctic fauna have world-wide appeal and there 1s great scenic beauty which merits preservation as a world heritage; effective conservation measures require ecological studies of all forms of Antarctic life - all unnecessary pollution and contamination should be prohibited; and international cooperation 1s essential. The recommendations given in the report formed the basis for the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora which were formally adopted by Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties 1n 1964. Secondly , the scientific cooperation established by the IGY extended the range of organisations that could be actively involved in conservation of the region; this was a reveille for international conservation bodies and a t ime of changing intellectual attitude towards nature conservation, concern for individual species giving way to the importance of habitat preservation (Murphy, 1941, 1962, 1964; Evans, 1953). International conservation organisations had not figured before the 1930s in Antarctic conservation measures. The International Committee for Bird Protection (later Council for Bird Preservation, ICBP), formed in 1922 was the first to express interest in Antarctic regions. In 1928 the ICBP recommended internationally coordinated action for the protection of migratory birds - a suggestion made originally in 1905 by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Note 1). However, its programmes for migratory birds were centred in Europe despite an expressed interest 1n extending them to 11 Antarctica and other regions (Boardman, 1981). In 1945 the United Nations Organisation (UN) was formed and, through its Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), nurtured a growing interest in Antarctic nature conservation. In 1947, UNESCO's first Director General proposed the establishment of a UN conservation organisation to represent conservation interests on a global scale. Negotiations between UNESCO and the International Union for the Protection of Nature (IUPN), a Swiss branch of UNESCO led to the formation in 1949 of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). In 1960, The XIIth International Conference of the ICBP (in collaboration with the IUCN) recommended that an International Antarctic Treaty should include provisions designed to maintain Antarctic fauna and flora, and urged 'the setting aside of adequate inviolate reserves for the preservation of this fauna and of its natural environment'. To sum up, nature conservation measures in Antarctic regions pre- date the Antarctic Treaty by nearly a century. Early measures were closely related to sealing activities but, starting in 1910, several sub-Antarctic islands had been declared wildlife reserves. The first area to be designated for the protection of nature in the region subsequently covered by the Antarctic Treaty appears to be that round Haswell Island, which was so declared on 15 January 1956 - 10 days after the establishment of 'Mirny' Station. The island is located in territory claimed by Australia. Despite scientific investigations of Antarctic fauna and flora by several expeditions from the 1775 onwards, the introduction of legal controls beyond those relating to sealing (or whaling) was, at the very least, slow. The legislation was enacted for the protection of individual species; this pre-dated the ecological approach to conservation. In some cases, basic 12 conserva t i on law even a s l a te a s t he 1960s did not directly inc l ude plant life (Imshaug, 1972). Holdgate and Roberts (1961) concluded that it was international policy not to apply elaborate 'mainland' conservation legislation in a rigorous fo r m to Antarct i c ter r i t ories . In practical terms this simplified legislation for the region seems reasonable fro the period before the IGY ( i .e. up to 1958) when human population levels were low and expedition activities on a much smaller scale than present-day. Treaty negotiations took place when international nature conservation organisations were poorly organised. Although they had undergone substantial changes following World War II, few could claim to have sufficient resources to be effective in the Antarctic; none had the support of the majority of nations involved in the Treaty negotiations. While there was international interest in establishing standard measures and reserved areas for the protect i on of nature in Antarct i ca, t he advent of SCAR and its wi l lingnes s t o provide vital s c ient ific adv i ce to nations subs c r i bing to an Antarc t ic Treaty gave l i tt le opportunity fo r ou t siders to become involved . 2.2 Areas Protec ted under the Ant arctic Treaty Biologically , and i n t erms of nature conservation , i t is convenient t o regard the Antarctic and its wildlife as belonging to either the terres tr i al or the marine environment. The terrestrial environment supports moss and lichen, and the simple biota of inland water bodies . Soils are mostly abiotic but there are soil fauna of invertebrates including worms and arthropods (Holdgate, 1977). In contrast, the marine environment is more complex and highly productive. While the diversity of marine mammals, fishes, crustaceans is restricted compared to lower latitudes, there is great species abundance (Knox, 1983). There is some overlap between environments as sea birds, Elephant and fur seals breed and moult on the land. Nature conservation measures, including those for protected areas, have been adopted as separate recommendations and conventions rather than as integral parts of the Antarctic Treaty, although 'the preservation and conservation of the living resources in Antarctica' is one of the principles and objectives of the Treaty (Article IX.£). However, Treaty recommendations and conventions are legally binding but not effective, nor do they provide explicit criteria or protection standards for ratifying legislation enacted by Contracting Parties. Technically, recommendations only apply to Consultative Parties, although acceding Parties have not objected to provisions relating to nature conservation. In order not to prejudice future considerations of mineral exploitation, there 1s no reference to 'non-living' resources, although their management is essential to habitat preservation and conservation. 2.2.1 Terrestrial Environment The concept of protected areas in the terrestrial environment was established in the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora (ATCM III-8) which apply to all land and ice-shelves 0 south of 60 S latitude. The initiative for the Measures can be traced to SCAR (SCAR Bulletin, 1961a, 1961b; Carrick, 1960), although its provisions largely reflect those drafted and circulated at ATCM II by the UK delegation (Auburn, 1981). The Measures give the Treaty area the status of a 'Special Conservation Area' and were welcomed by conservation groups (Roberts, 1976). Laws (1972) points out that they were among the first internationally agreed systems for monitoring human impact on fauna. Under the Measures, the killing, wounding, capturing or molesting of any native mammal (excluding whales) or bird is prohibited except by permit (Article VI). Disturbance (to the minimum extent necessary) 14 for the establishment, supply and operation of stations is permitted (Article VII), including the killing of seals for dog food, and the killing or disturbance of wildlife is allowed in emergency (Article V). State rights to . the high seas are preserved; at the time the Measures were introduced, this retognised fishing and harvesting of marine fauna, although ATCM Ree 111-1 recommended 'voluntary' regulations for 'pelagic' sealing or taking of fauna on the pack-ice in the Treaty area. All species of fur seal, and the Ross seal, are declared Specially Protected Species (Article VI), the importation of animals and plants is prohibited except by permit (Article VII) and there are quarantine restrictions on importation into the Treaty area to prevent the accidental introduction of parasites and diseases (Article IX). During the life of the Measures, provision has been made for the establishment of Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) (Article VIII), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (ATCM Vll-3) and Sites of Historic Interest (SHI)(ATCM VII-9). SHI are the most numerous protected site classification with 44 sites (Figure 2). In addition, Sites of Special Tourist Interest (ATCM VIII-9) and Marine Protected Sites (SCAR Bulletin, 1975) have been proposed. In this discussion, the emphasis is on SPAs and SSSI. SPAs are intended to be 'are~s. of outstanding scientific interest' whose ~unique natural ecological system' is considered worthy of special protection. Their definition was subsequently (ATCM VII-2) refined to include: • representative examples of the major Antarctic land and freshwater ecological systems; • areas of unique complexes of species; • areas which are the type locality or only known habitat of any plant or invertebrate species; 15 "'oo -5 -6 -10 90° 15.16.17.18.19_20 .21 / 14 . 22_2~ 180° SCALE 0 1000 I tKM FIGURE 2. Locations of historic monuments under the Antarctic Treaty. Site descriptions are given in Appendix 1. • areas which contain specially interesting breeding colonies of birds or mammals; • areas which should be kept inviolate so that in the future they may be used for purposes of comparison with localities that have been disturbed by man. Non-biological sites are therefo~e excluded. ATCM VII-2 also requires that the number of sites should be kept to the minimum required and for sites to be as small an area as possible to serve the purpose(s) for which they have been designated. Access to SPAs is restricted to scientific investigators authorised by permit issued for 'compelling scientific purpose which can not be served elsewhere' and which 1n itself will not 'jeopardise the natural ecological system existing 1n that area'. The generally recognised interpretation of 'compelling scientific purpose' was given in the House of Lords by the Bishop of Norwich (Bush, 1982, p.198). The driving of vehicles 1n SPAs is forbidden. SSSis are intended to be areas 'of exceptional scientific interest' which 'require long-term protection from harmful interference'. The purpose of SSS! is to safeguard research opportunities and to prevent human interference to sites. SSSI are designated for a fixed period which may be extended following review by SCAR. A management plan is required which includes a description of the site, an outline of research and of restraints which may be needed. A permi~ for access is not mandatory as in the case of SPAs. The sequence of events from the identification of sites worthy of special protection to their formal acceptance at ATCMs is not described in the Agreed Measures nor detailed in Treaty or SCAR documents; only the attributes of particular protected ar.ea classifications are given in Agreed Measures provisions. Two procedures for designating areas are possible. First , in line with ATCM III-10 (SPAs) and ATCM VII-3 (SSS!) , 17 SCAR is invited to make 'sugges tions' to ATCMs for the designation of sites worthy of protection. In practical terms expedition personnel propose , to their national scientific connnittee of SCAR, sites of scientific and/or ecological importance. Submissions are reviewed by National connnittees; this often involves close liaison with organisations involved in Antarctic operations before the submissions are forwarded to SCAR through the Sub-Connnittee on Biology and Conservation. The Sub-Commitee's role here is that of a 'collecting house' . Finally, SCAR has responsibility for proposing to ATCMs areas for special protection. Because the SCAR Executive meetings are biennial and in alternate years to ATCMs, there is a minimum delay of two years before submissions to National Committees are formalised. A second means of proposing sites for special protection is by Article XIV of the Agreed Measures, which allows amendments to the Annexes of the Measures by unanimous agreement of Consultative Parties through diplomatic channels. The designation of protected sites has been spasmodic. Of the 19 SPAs which have been declared, 16 were designated 1n 1966, and 3 had their SPA status terminated in 1975. Of the 8 SSSI, 7 were designated in 1975. 2.2.2 Marine Environment Marine wildlife is covered by the Convention for the Conservation of Seals (ATCM 111-11) and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which was signed in May 1980. 0 The Seals Convention applies to seals south of 60 S latitude; seals on land are not covered, although they are protected under the Agreed Measures. The Convention regulates the killing of seals to ensure the survival of seal species and that the marine ecosystem is not impaired. Ross, Southern Elephant and fur seals are protected, as 18 are Weddell seals up to one year old, or older during their breeding season; sealing zones and seasons for killing seals are defined. The Conven tion makes no provision for scientific research, although SCAR is 'invited' to assess relevant data and report to Contracting Parties (Article 5). It is forbidden to kill seals in three Seal Reserves 2 which have a combined area of 190 OOO km (Figure 3) . CCAMLR applies to all living marine organisms, excluding whales south of an 'agreed' line which approximates the Antarctic Convergence (Figure 1). The Convention applies to waters adjacent to islands over which sovereignty is recognised by Contracting Parties. Its application to waters adjacent to land where sovereignty is contested (which includes Antarctica) has been resolved. 'Conservation' is defined as including rational use (Article II). Contracting Parties undertake to regulate fishing activities in a way which maintains the inter-relationships between members of the marine ecosystem - the so- called 'ecosystem approach '. Previous fishing agreements have usually considered species in isolation, ignoring the effects of harvesting on other species. Administrative responsibility for CCAMLR rests with a Commission whose func tions are defined in Article IX. On the advice of the Scientific Committee established under the Convention (Articles XIV and XV) the Commission has power to designate sanctuaries for the protection of marine life. At its Third Meeting (1984), the Commission closed to fishing the seas within 12 nautical miles of South Georgia because fish stocks had been depleted. 2.3 Characteristics of SPAs and SSSI Existing protected sites are small in number and size. In April 1985 there were 14 SPAs (plus four proposed), and eight SSSI (14 19 A , Scale 0 10 L.__.J Km Helm Pmt I Moubray Bay -+-------------60 20'S ----i- SOUTH ORKNEY ISLANDS 46 25'W --+- -----------60 56'S -----i- 0 20 Scale ~--Km 44 05'W ROSS SEA 0 300 South Pole Scale ___ Km FIGURE 3. Locations of the three seal reserves established under the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. proposed including three marine SSSI). These are listed 1n Appendix 3, whiih also gives the date of designation or proposal, the reason for designation and the human activity associated with each site. Appendix 3 also gives the matrix cells for each site based on the matrices developed by SCAR (SCAR Bulletin, 1977) to classify terrestrial, freshwater and inshore marine ecosystems. The locations of SPAs and SSSI are given 1n Figures 4 and 5. Of the 14 SPAs, nine are islands or island groups and two are 2 peninsulas or islands. SPAs total 38.4 km in area. Of the eight SSS!, one is an island and six are portions of islands; only two sites 2 are on continental Antarctica. SSS! have a total area of 365.4 km. The combined area of SPAs and SSS! is less than one percent of the Antarctic continental area. The distribution patterns of SPAs and SSS! are similar; they are located close to permanently occupied stations; most sites are located within 10 km of stations. The number of protected sites (including proposed Marine SSS!) in which terrestrial , marine and inland water ecosystems are represented is given below: SPAs SSS! Terrestrial ecosystem 13 7 Inland water ecosystems 4 7 Marine ecosystems 4 4 The set of three matrices developed by SCAR (to classify the range of ecosystems for terrestrial, inland waters and inshore marine environments) may also, by recording the frequency with which each matrix cell occurs, be used to assess the range and relative abundance of ecosystem types (Tables 2 and 3). Terrestrial ecosystems with SPA status are entirely coastal sites below 100 m elevation above sea level. Bird breeding sites are best 21 90° 7_20- SCALE 0 1000 1-----•KM FIGURE 4. Locations of existing and proposed Specially Protected Areas established under the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. Site descriptions are given in Appendix 3. 22 .. 5.8.17-18 ,/.. o-: .. 7 . . 2JJ· 1911 \ 01 12 90° . c,Oo 1.2.4.13.14.16 3.15.23 · 180° 90° -7 SCALE 0 1000 -•----IKM FIGURE 5. Locations of existing and proposed Sites of Special Scientific Interest established under the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. Site descriptions are given in Appendix 3 . 23 The range and relative abundance of ecosystems found in Specially Protected Areas. lee-free rock• and 110i1a (inc ludina hra• anow bed• Co••t• l Inland ( )lOka fra. ahol'e ) adjecent to H• and •bo•• ice ahel r .... 11., iountain up to 101m froa ,hore ( 1000 )1000 (1000 )1000 <1000 >1000 Perw.ne nt ice ice cap/slacier c outal / and/or <1000 )1 000. alt • alt • ah • a l t <1 000 JOO - 1000 )JOOO. al< va,cular plant • A ,ianifi.unt{ l oc al l y doa,nant • 1ryoph7tu al1/doa C Lie ban• • ia/ doa Macroe:ha l loid D , 11ac ,ia/ doa Nic r oblota .ta/doa f Snov ala•• aia/doa G Sterile Na r i ne fa unal 1 anrichaen t 111.AIID VATH 1 ICO 5Y5n11S surila 14 Beterotropha oaly PrHh S<3 a/1 • " Pri ... ry Producers L II • p Q Phytoplankton a la/doa Alaal felt .ia/doa Br7oph7tea 1i1/ doa Herbb,ore1 Carni•ore• IWl !CO Ill! SY5nll I Peraanent lee Seaaoul ice T AbHnce of lee Fresh v.ater V influence EftCloHd water y .... Geotherul V influence hlaaic hthyal nerhic )500. rx >< X 4 10 11 I.AUS STU.UIS Pcrunent !pbeaeral Medi-.- B7peraal i.na lee a-t:d lock or S-3-30 1/ I S>JO 1/ I wholly pu·tl1 ac,raine da ... d OHr .... r ( .. 1. (rock ••• inf no aea ice rock • " • " pooh) valh ) luenced infl. I I I I 2 I I I 4 10 • II • 12 l!IITHIC LITrOIIAL lhelf aone lub-littoul lock/ Pebble land, lee (c 500-200.) (c 200-0.) boulder a1,1d and/ hard aoft hard •oft or bottoa bottDII bottoa bottoa 1hell 3 2 5 5 3 I>< >< >< I I I I I >< >< 4 10 ,n I F TABLE 2. The range and relative abundance of ecosystems found in Specially Protected Areas. lee-fr•• rock• and iaoih (includina lar1• •nov bed• Coutal above ice 1helf adjacent to Ha and up to IOlm lroa shore ( 1000 )1000 lnt.nd ( )lOka froa ahou ) · ·ve lh1 Munt.in <1000 )1000 (1000 )1000 ice cap/alacier coaatal/and/or (1000 )1000. .1, • ah • alt • alt <1000 100 - 1000 >1000. alt Vascular planu A 1i1nificant/ locally dc-.inent I lryophyt,11 1i1/doa 10 C Lichen• • ia/ doa II Kacrotha l loid D ala•• 1i1/doa I Nicroblota ela/doa I] C. Sterile Karine faun.al B enr ichaent 14 111.Alll) VATH l ICO SYSTEIIS J l L N • p Q Sterile Betel'otropba only Pri .. ry Pro411een Phytoplankton aia/doa Alaal felt 1i1/doa lryophytea 1i1/doa Herbivore• Carnhore• IN! SYSTEII I Per-..nent lee Seaaoul lee T AbHnee of lee freah vaur 0 infh,ence Enc:loHd v•ter y .... C.other-..l V influence frHh S<3 a/1 • b hhaic lath1al nerhic >500. >< >< >< 4 • 10 II I.AUS STll.UCS Persanent Ephemeral Medium lyper1alin1 Ice 4-d lock or S-J-JO 1/1 S>JO 1/l vbolly partly aoraina da ... d o,ror .... ( .. 1, (rock sea inf no au ice rock • b • b pooh) valh) l uenced infl .. 1 I I 1 2 I I 1 4 • 10 • II • 12 l!IITIIIC LITTOIAL lhelf aone lub-li ttora 1 lock/ Pebble l•nd. lee (c 500-ZOO.) (c 200-0.) boulder aud and/ hard aoft hard aoft or bottoa bottoa bottom bouoa •hell J 2 5 5 3 I>< >< X 1 1 I I I >< >< 4 • 10 24 ,. I C D I r C: • TABLE l• The range and relative abundance of ecosystems found in Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSS!). Proposed marine SSS! are included . lce-hH rock.a and 1oih (includina Iara• 1now bed• Coau.a l ad j a cent to Ha and up to IODI fro. shore above ice aha l f < 1000 )1000 lnhnd ( )lOka froa 1hore ) •alley aountai.n <1000 )1000 <1000 )1000 Per-..nant ice i ce ca p/ alac ier cNatal/and/or <1000 )1000. olt • alt m alt ••h (1000 100 - 1000 )1000. olt Veacular pl.anu 1i1nificant/ local lr daainant lryophytu •11/d .. Lichena 1i1/ ~oa Kacrothalloid al&•• 1i1/doa Nacrobiou ala•• 1i1/ doa Snow al&•• •ia/doa Sterile Narine fauul 14 enrichacnt lllUIID WA T!I ICOSJST!IIS Praah S< >< IX 4 • 10 11 Lu:!S ITUAIIS Paraanant lph•anl Nediai Hypcreal in.a lee duaed lock or 1-3-JO a/1 S>JO 1/ l wholly partly aoiaine daaaed over over c .. 1, (rock. ua inf no ••• ice rock • b • b pooh) valh) luencad infl • I I 2 2 2 l l 2 I I I I 4 ' • t • 10 • 11 • 12 lllfflllC LlTl'OIAL Shelf a one lub- littoul lock/ Pebble Send . lee (c 500-200.) (c 200-0.) bovldar aud and/ bard ooft bard 10ft or bottoa bott• bottoa Nttoa •hell 3 4 4 • 4 l>< >< >< I I I I I X X I l I ' • 10 25 represented, followed closely by microbiota , lichens and bryophyte plant communities. Few inland aquatic ecosystems are represented and their range is narrow; hypersaline lakes are not included. The range of insho r e marine ecosystems is limited to sites influenced by seasonal i ce and freshwater. Ecosystems with SSSI status have much in common physiographically with SPAs. Terrestrial ecosystem sites have coastal locations and there is a relative abundance of bird and seal breeding areas. Inland water ecosystems are limited to fresh and medium-saline water bodies but the trophic levels for both ecosystem types are incompletely represented. The inshore marine ecosystems are predominantly littoral sites influenced by seasonal ice. 26 CHAPTER3 The ability of the Antarctic Treaty terrestrial protected area system to achieve conservation objectives is examined. Analysis involves consideration of the completeness of Antarctic Treaty provisions, site planning, management procedures and conflicting land- uses attributable to the legal regime established by the Treaty. Analysis points to (a) manifestations of the Antarctic Treaty which may influence future conservation measures under the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resoures (CCAMLR), and (b) improvements to the system of terrestrial protected sites (Chapter 4) . 3.1 Conservation Objectives and Protected Sites Life-forms peculiar to Antarctica, climatic extremes and the political regime established by the Antarctic Treaty make the achievement of effective nature conservation measures difficult. Also, there are neither comparable mixes of ecosystems nor equivalent continental land masses regulated by international agreement that may be used to place Antarctic conservation measures in perspective. Perhaps the closest analogy is Svalbard: Norway has sovereignty over the archipelago and territorial seas under the 1920 Spitzbergen Treaty. Comparisons with land-use planning in the Arctic, although possible, are limited. A protected sites system is one measure available for the conservation and preservation of the Antarctic marine and terrestrial environments (including their scientific attributes). Conservation objectives are not stated in the Antarctic Treaty or in Agreed Measures but are implied and summarised by Carrick (1964) and Holdgate (1970a): (a) protection of the scenic beauty and wildlife, (b) protection of undisturbed habitats and the stabilisation of habitats which have been disturbed by man, and (c) wise management of the biological resources of the Southern Ocean. Thus, in the terrestrial environment, conservation is intended to minimise disturbance to habitats and ecosystems by man, whereas in the Seals Convention and CCAMLR, conservation is the wise management of living resources. The first two objects are relevant to the Agreed Measures, which cover terrestrial, freshwater and island habitat types. Antarctic Treaty recommendations establish three principle protected area designations for the terrestrial environment for conservation purposes. First, Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) provide the highest level of protection. SPA status may be granted or revoked by unanimous agreement of ATCPs. Entry to SPAs is allowed only for compelling scientific studies which cannot be conducted elsewhere and which do not endanger the ecosystem under protection. Secondly, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are an important tool for nature conservation . Their primary object is to prevent human interference which may adversely affect research opportunities. Geological, biological and biologically inactive sites may be declared SSSis, whereas SPA status is restricted to biological sites. While SSSI status is applied to sites for fixed periods, there is no requirement that research be undertaken within them, although research is conducted at most sites. Thirdly, Sites of Historic Interest (SHI) are intended to p-reserve the historic monuments and protect them from damage. There are (in 1985) 44 SHis, including the wintering quarters of early expeditions, plaques, cairns, a disused over-snow vehicle and other monuments. Technically, a fourth protected site designation was created by ATCM XI-3, which gave the status of a tomb to the site of the 1979 aircraft disaster on Mt Erebus, Ross Island, which cost 257 lives. Selection criteria and management requirements for each protected 28 site classification vary considerably (Chapter 2) . ATCM VII-2 requires that t he number and area of SPAs be kept to a minimum. Sites damaged by human interference may be declared SPAs. Management plans are required only for SSSI and, despite a recommendation by the Scientific Committee on Scientific Research (SCAR), management plans for SPAs have not been formally adopted. Managerial responsibility for protected sites lies with ATCPs, but there is considerable dependence on scientific advice from SCAR. In 1972 the SCAR Working Group on Biology established a Sub-Committee on Conservation charged with (a) protection of environments and biota by the designation of areas representative of undisturbed ecosystems, and (b) the formulation of management plans for these areas (Bonner and Smith, 1985). There are few analyses of the protected area system for the Antarctic terrestrial environment which involve practical knowledge of the plight of protected sites. Those by Cameron and others (1977), and Parker and others (1978) are notable but now out-dated . Here , case studies of protected sites are included under headings corresponding to conservation objects: (a) ecosystem and landscape preservation, (b) land-use planning, and (c) implementation and operation. Political and operational factors which influence protected sites are also discussed. 3.2.1 Ecosystem and Landscape Preservation The degree of protection afforded to ecosystems and landscapes is governed by (a) scientific knowledge of their distribution , extent, diversity and their conservation needs, and (b) the scope of the protected site classifications. Greater scientific understanding allows identification of sites worthy of special protection and the establishment of appropriate protected site classifications. This systematic approach to site protection has not been fully adopted in Antarctica. While scientific surveys have covered most ice-free land areas and the diversity, distribution and relative abundance of ecosystems are generally known (Walton, 1984), there is no strategy to ensure that protected areas are classified into biogeographical provinces, or that for each province there are a number of protected ecosystem types for replication. Instead, existing protected areas are neither representative of Antarctic ecosystems generally nor evenly distributed biogeographically. There are also deficiencies caused by the limited scope of protected area classifications. First, only partial protection is given to some ecosystems. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the narrow range and relative abundance represented in SPAs and SSSI. Most protected ecosystems (bird and mannnal breeding sites, and some coastal vegetation) depend on the marine environment for nutrients. However, the protection of marine sites has not been formally established by ATCMs - nor have marine sites for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems been proposed. In 1975 the SCAR Working Group on Biology invited proposals for 'Specially Protected Marine Areas' and 'Marine Sites of Special Scientific Interest' (MSSSI) (SCAR Bulletin, 1975). It subsequently supported ~roposals for MSSSI for the protection of benthic connnunities at Chile Bay, Greenwich Island and Port Foster, Deception Island (SCAR Bulletin, 1978; 1982), and South Bay, Doumer Island (SCAR Bulletin, 1983). - Management plans for these have been informally adopted by ATCMs. There are no marine SPAs. SPAs cannot be declared for biologically inactive features such as geological outcrops, or continental and sea ice, which may have important local effects on some ecosystems. It is also important to restrict human activities on some parts of the ice cap to ensure the continued existence of uncontaminated sites for environmental monitoring (SCAR Bulletin, 1985). 30 Recognition of ice-free areas worthy of special protection is no guarantee that protected status will formally be extended to them. A well documented case of this is the Dry Valleys of Victoria Land. In 1968 , the SCAR Working Group on Biology cited the Dry Valleys as deserving SPA status (Ugolini, 1970). Damage to the Valleys resulting from scientific studies was described by Benoit (1970) and the danger of contaminating biologically poor and sterile soils was noted by Holdgate (1970). Subsequent scientific investigations have caused carbon isotope contamination at various locations in the Dry Valleys (Parker, 1972). In 1969 and 1976 SCAR called for SPA proposals to be drafted for the Dry Valleys (SCAR Bulletin, 1969, 1977). The Dry Valley Drilling Programme, which commenced in the early 1970s, had a major environmental impact when drilling fluids leaked from drill casings; drilling fluids were pumped into a major lake (Parker and others, 1978). These incidents occurred despite rigorous environmental impact assessment in the early stages of programme planning. Lake Bonney remains the only major lake in the region not to have been contaminated to some degree by geological drilling. At 2 ATCM VIII a site in the Barwick Valley (300 km) was declared a SSSI. In 1976, the SCAR Working Group on Biology recommended that Lake Bonney in the Dry Valleys be declared a SSSI, and that existing protected site boundaries be extended, particularly for inland and marine areas vulnerable to disturbance (SCAR Bulletin, 1977), but no action has yet been taken in relation to the region or to its coastline, where geological drilling is now underway (Antarctic, 1984b). Secondly, scenic reserves cannot be established under existing protected site classifications. There are no guidelines for delimiting SHI, thus it is possible for SHI to include visual features but this opportunity has not been taken. Sites of Special Tourist 31 Recognition of ice-free areas worthy of special protection is no guarantee t hat protected status will formally be extended to them . A well documented case of this 1s the Dry Valleys of Victoria Land. In 1968 , t he SCAR Working Group on Biology cited the Dry Valleys as deserving SPA status (Ugolini, 1970). pamage to the Valleys resulting from scientific studies was described by Benoit (1970) and the danger of contaminating biologically poor and sterile soils was noted by Holdgate (1970). Subsequent scientific investigations have caused carbon isotope contamination at various locations in the Dry Valleys (Parker, 1972). In 1969 and 1976 SCAR called for SPA proposals to be drafted for the Dry Valleys (SCAR Bulletin, 1969, 1977). The Dry Valley Drilling Programme, which commenced in the early 1970s, had a major environmental impact when drilling fluids leaked from drill casings; drilling fluids were pumped into a major lake (Parker and others, 1978). These incidents occurred despite rigorous environmental impact assessment 1n the early stages of programme planning. Lake Bonney remains the only major lake in the region not to have been contaminated to some degree by geological drilling. At 2 ATCM VIII a site in the Barwick Valley (300 km) was declared a SSS!. In 1976, the SCAR Working Group on Biology recommended that Lake Bonney in the Dry Valleys be declared a SSS!, and that existing protected site boundaries be extended, particularly for inland and marine areas vuln~rable to disturbance (SCAR Bulletin , 1977) , but no action has yet been taken in relation to the region or t o its coastline , where geological drilling is now underway (Antarctic , 1984b). Secondly, scenic r e se r ves cannot be establishe d under existing protected site cla ss i f i cations . The r e are no gu i de lines for delimiting SHI, thus it is possible for SHI to include visual features but this opportunity has not been taken . Sites of Special Tourist 31 Interest (SSTI), proposed at ATCM VIII-9, may list visual amenity selection criteria, but as yet no sites have been proposed or established. 3.2.2 Land-use Planning While the Agreed Measures were innovative at the time of their introduction they have employed primitive land-use planning concepts and have not benefited from improved site planning methods used elsewhere. Inflexibility in site planning is partly the result of (a) the requirement for the number and size of SPAs to be kept to a minimum (ATCM VII-2), (b) the failure of ATCPs to formalise protected marine sites for the preservation of inshore marine areas on which land-breeding animals forage and which are a vital source of nutients for many plants, and (c) the small area of the ecosystems involved and their wide geographic separation. Two elements of land-use planning are used to direct discussion: (a) site planning needs and concepts, and (b) site management. The small size of sites and the lack of 'buffer zones' makes them susceptible to interference by man. Apart from protected islands and some peninsulas, the sites are delimited by rectilinear boundaries, which often neglect local biological or topographical features important to the protection of the ecosystems in question. Unless suitably extensive, rectilinear boundaries seem inappropriate; the demand for land and ice-covered areas around most sites is not pressing and protected areas do not reflect the boundaries of territorial claims. The ecological integrity of protected areas would be safeguarded by selecting natural landforms as site boundaries. This is particularly so for freshwater lakes and streams, which are oligotrophic water bodies and therefore easily upset by contamination of their catchments (Heyward, 1977). For example, the watershed of Barwick Valley (including glacier catchments) would be a more useful 32 boundary for a site which is intended as a 'reference base' for comparative studies with other Dry Valleys. The now revoked SPA on Fildes Peninsula, which included a lake and its shore up to 100m above the water's edge, is another example of ineffective planning. The protected shoreline represented a fraction of the total area of the lake's drainage basin and, in effect, the area of shore protected varied according to lake level. In 1968 the SCAR Working Group on Biology recognised the need to increase the areas of protected sites (Holdgate, 1970b) and in 1976 a recommendation along these lines was made to SCAR National Committees (SCAR Bulletin, 1977). Proposals for SSS! as buffer zones around SPAs have been made for Caughley Beach and Cape Royds, both on Ross Island (Bonner and Smith, 1985). This is a useful land-use planning technique within existing protected area classifications. However, because SSS! are intended to protect scientific opportunities and are designated for fixed periods, it cannot be regarded as an effective substitute for more appropriate land-use zoning. Because ATCPs require that the number and size of SPAs should be kept to a minimum (ATCM VII-2), there is obvious need for frequent review and re-adjustment of site boundaries, and the temporal and spatial requirements of wildlife cannot be accommodated . The area needed to provide a refuge for wildlife for 10 years may differ from that needed for SO - years, over which the amplitude of environmental fluctuations can be expected to be greater. This deficiency is apparent at protected sites for seals and penguins, and for ice-free land and freshwater pools which are also in a positive state of colonisation (Bonner, 1984). In 1984 a draft proposal to establish Biosphere Reserves, typically much greater in area than existing protected sites, was raised at SCAR and is currently under review (SCAR Bulletin, 1985). 33 Management plans are required only for SSSI and these are inadequate in regulating access to, and behaviour in, sites. This is despite the fact that among scientific activities, geological and biological research are responsible for the greatest number of potentially serious impacts (Myers and others, 1980). Generally, plans list only permissible activities. There is no recognisable authority to manage each site, nor are there guidelines for the conduct of scientific activities (such as sampling locations, techniques and access points where appropriate), or for the scheduling of field sampling activities. The net effect of poor management is localised and potentially significant human interference with biology, resulting in diminished research opportunities. Depending on the sampling techniques of field parties, the removal of specimens reduces the richness of sites for future studies. Some scientific studies may prejudice others. The inadvertent importation of microbiota into the Dry Valleys by field parties has contaminated sterile soils and further limited the locations where they may be studied. Research activities need to be carefully planned to preserve the intrinsic value of the sites concerned and to optimise scientific output. There is no systematic monitoring of the network of protected sites. The frequency of visits to SSSI depends on the associated scientific programme. Access to SPAs can be made only for compelling scientific reasona. Practical knowledge of specific sites is limited to the ATCPs involved in research activities there. Accordingly, management practice adopted for a protected site is formulated by one Treaty Party and occasionally jointly, as are decisions on what is an acceptable level of disturbance. This arrangement has had ·varying success, as environmental practices among ATCPs vary considerably. There has not been an inspection of conservation sites sponsored by SCAR or Treaty despite Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty, which 34 provides for this kind of control. The reports of inspections of stations have not included inspections of protected areas (Beck, personal conununication). Routine site monitoring would also identify basic shortcomings, bureaucratic or otherwise, of protected sites. For example, Cape Crozier was given SPA status at ATCM IV (1966) because of its 'rich bird and manunal fauna' and 'mixing of marine and terrestrial elements of outstanding scientific interest'. At ATCM VIII SPA status was revoked and SSSI designation extended only to part of the SPA site and an adjoining area, for long-term studies of population dynamics and social behaviour of penguins accessible from 'McMurdo' station (United States) and 'Scott' Base (New Zealand). Although the extent of the Cape Crozier Emperor penguin rookery was mapped in 1962 (Department of Lands and Survey, 1962) subsequent SPA or SSSI sites do not fully 2 cover the rookery. The SSSI is described as being 40 km in area (ATCM VIII-4) but this is an over-estimate. A small shelter and a helicopter landing pad are located in the revoked SPA. Accurate large-scale maps of protected sites need to be produced for proposing and managing sites. Site maps which accompany Antarctic Treaty recommendations frequently omit natural features and constructions within or close by sites. Accurate site maps are scarce and mostly outdated. Site locations given by SCAR (Bonner and Smith, 1985) for the Fildes Peninsula SSSI and the Barwick Valley SSSI differ from ATCM VII-4 and from the United States Geological Survey (1978). The existing monitoring of protected sites is, administratively, long-winded and incapable of matching the flow of relevant information or of reacting to expedition activities in Antarctica. Because SCAR and ATCMs are each held biennially and in alternate years, SSSI designations have been extended by ATCMs without having been formally reviewed by SCAR (see report of ATCM XII) . 35 3.2.3 Implementation and Operation The r egula t ion of human act i vity in Antarcti ca is problematical for t wo reasons . First, th e Antarctic Treaty system is one based on volunta r y s e lf-restraint (Heap and Holdgate , in pr ess) . ATCPs have responsibility for implementing the Agreed Measures , the Seals Convention and CCAMLR in accordance with Treaty Article IX (f). All recommendations and conventions, although seemingly separate, are inter- linked by obligations established under Article IV of the Treaty, which protects the interests of Claimant and Non-Claimant Parties ; it is aimed at achieving a status quo ante should the Treaty be terminated . In the case of CCAMLR, which may involve nations outside the Antarctic Treaty, Contracting Parties are bound to Article IV regardless of whether they are party to the Treaty . A practical res ult of t hi s inter- link ing of Treaty recommendations and conventions has been the expansion of the control of the Parties , both geographically and in terms of jurisdiction, over the living resources of the High Seas south of the Anta r ctic Convergence . It has also led t o multiple systems of jurisdict i on (Whyndam, 1973). Jurisdic tion is based on: • Territory. Claimant Par t ie s assert rights in relation to acces s and r egula tion of l i ving and mine r a l r e sources ; • Citizenship. All Parties, whether they are claimants or not , may exercise . control over their citizens throughout the Treaty area. Observers and exchange scientists are subject only to the jurisdiction of the country of which they are citizens (Article VIII-1); Origin of operations . Article VII-5 requires Contracting Parties to circulate notice of activities in advance of expeditions proceeding from its territory to the Antarctic. There are major ramifications in respect of nature conservation. For legal controls on nature conservation to be effective they must be capable of en fo rcement by a compe t e nt aut hor ity (Roberts, 1977). The 36 Antarctic Treaty makes no provision for a central authority to oversee the implementation of Treaty recommendations and related legislation. Instead, 'appropriate authority' is given to Contracting Parties. Enforcement is complicated because Parties enact legislation which is consistent with their juridical positions on sovereignty. It is not clear whether Parties are under an obligation to recognise each other's legislation (Auburn, 1982). In addition, Contracting Parties have drawn heavily on their domestic legislation and experience in setting wildlife protection standards and these vary in objectives and effectiveness. Depending on country of origin, environmental impact assessment may or may not be incorporated in planning Antarctic operations, and penalties for the same offence may differ - so may the definition of 'offence'. Secondly, because no agency has been established by the Antarctic Treaty to monitor the performance of ATCPs in respect of nature conservation, it is virtually impossible for ATCPs to make an objective assessment of existing conservation measures or related recommendations by SCAR. There is also a need for the greater involvement of SCAR, but its capacity to meet added obligations is marginal. In 1985 SCAR's membership was 17 (plus various WMO and ICSU agencies), operating on a budget from ATCPs of $US 125 OOO. SCAR's vast responsibilities for nature conservation, devolved on it by ATCPs, or which it has initiated, are summarised in Table 4. Although a non-governmental body, the overwhelming majority of SCAR's members are scientists from national Antarctic organisations. Many belong to a number of SCAR committees or Working Groups of scientific programmes which SCAR has fost ered, are members .of national delegations to Special, Consultative or Preparatory ATCMs, or are involved in the Scientific Committee established by CCAMLR. An Executive Secretary with secretarial support is SCAR's only permanent 37 TABLE 4. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) nature conservation recommendations devolving on, or initiated by, the Scientific Connnittee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora ATCM III-10 ATCM IV-19 ATCM VI-9 ATCM VII-2 ATCM VII-3 ATCM VIII-3 Requests SCAR to prepare reports on wildlife conservation and annexes to the Agreed Measures (i.e. protected species, specially protected sites). Welcomes SCAR's decision to study the status of Antarctic animal species and preservation requirements. Calls on SCAR to arrange publication and exchange of information under ATCM IV-19. Invites SCAR to review areas designated as SPAs . Invites SCAR to review areas designated as SSSI. Requests SCAR to propose SSSI Convention for Conservation of Antarctic Seals ARTICLE 5 Recorrnnends that SCAR receives, compiles and exchanges scientific information solicited by the Convention and reports on harmful effects of seal harvesting. Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources ARTICLE XIII Establishes working links with the Commission and Scientific Committee established by the Convention. Other Recommendations ATCM V-3 Encourages SCAR to continue research on the Southern Ocean. ATCM VI-4 Invites SCAR (a) to assess human interference in the Treaty area, (b) to propose measures to minimise harmful interference, and (c) to recommend scientific programmes on changes in the environment. ATCM VI-5 Invites SCAR to consider principles for the controlled use of radio isotopes in the Treaty area. ATCM VII-6 Invites SCAR to assess possible impact on the environment of the Antarctic Treaty area and dependent ecosystems of mineral exploration and exploitation. ATCM VIII-11 Invites SCAR to take responsibility for the Antarctic component of the research programme organised by SCOPE*. ATCM VIII-13 Invites ATCPs, in collaboration with SCAR, (a) to monitor changes in the environment, and (b) continue participation in relevant research progrannnes of UNEP**· ATCM VIII-14 Coordinate national geoscientific research and assesses likely environmental impact of mineral exploration and exploitation. ATCM X-4 Refers to SCAR the consideration of procedures for the collection of geological specimens. ATCM X-7 Invites SCAR to review programmes for determination of baseline measurements of hydrocarbon development. ATCM XII-3 Invites SCAR to advise on (a) activities which may be harmful to the environment , and (b) environmental assessment procedures. * SCOPE - Scientific Connnittee on Problems of the Environment ** UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme 38 staff. Consequently, SCAR conunittees and Working Groups are pressed to perform tasks requiring the coordinated input of members experience lengthy delays. For example, in line with responsibilities listed in Table 4 , one would have expected SCAR routinely to monitor sites it had reconnnended to ATCPs for SPA and SSS! status but, until recently, this has not been the case. In 1982, SCAR decided to compile a listing of conservation sites. It was published in March 1985, but a final version is not expected until 1987 (Bonner and Smith, 1985). Similar delays are experienced in other branches of SCAR . The SCAR Teleconnnunications Manual took four years to prepare, and nearly two years were needed for the report of the 1982 SCAR Symposium on Antarctic Logistics. Without additional finance and full-time staff, the SCAR Working Group on Biology cannot expect to cope effectively with demands above current level. This is not an encouraging sign; SCAR responsibilities under the Seals Convention or CCAMLR have not been fully exercised and a regime for the exploitation of minerals in Antarctica, which may involve SCAR, is irmninent. 3.2 . Logistic Constraints Only about one percent of the Antarctic is ice-free and accessible for the construction of stations, and associated facilities are extremely scarce . These locations are also vital habitats of plants, breeding birds and seals . The greatest concentration of stations and wildlife occurs in the Antarctic Peninsula region and islands of the maritime Antarctic . Protected sites are also concentrated in this reg i on . The land-use conflict between the claims of wildlife (and measures for its protection) and the neces s i ty for operational stations is inevitable. Consultative status to the Antarct i c Treaty requires the conduct of substantial scientific resea rch in the region 39 I I I 'such as the establishment of a station' (Treaty Article IX), but the Treaty is not prescriptive on the siting of stations. Also, disturbance 'to the minimum extent necessary' for the establishment, supply and operation of stations is permitted under the Agreed Measures (Article VII). The establishment of a station as a basis for Consultative status was removed at the First Special ATCM (1977) but this has not deterred nations acceding to the Treaty from constructing them. Nations with Antarctic territorial claims might view restrictions on the siting of their stations as an erosion of sovereign rights. The resilience of ecosystems in the face of interference from stations in close proximity is a major consideration in designating protected sites. Different approaches to site planning and management are required for each protected site, depending on the ecosystems involved, and on local factors such as terrain, station size, proximity, activities and anticipated growth . Nonetheless, competition between wildlife and man for land is real and disturbance is inevitable. SPAs and stations may be mutually exclusive. 2 At Cape Hallett, a small patch (1.2 km) of particularly rich and diverse vegetation which supports a variety of terrestrial fauna of outstanding scientific interest was declared a SPA in 1966. The SPA is part of the Willett Cove embayment , 300 m east of 'Hallett' station (United States and New Zealand) which operated continuously from 1956 to 1965, and closed in 1973. Before its designation, the SPA was subject to widespread disturbance for nearly a decade. Eklund (1964), Rudolph (1970) and Johnston (1971) describe disturbance to breeding birds caused by station construction and activities. Construction included site levelling and roadworks using caterpillar tractors. Two small huts were erected in the SPA (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research , 1963). Separate United States Navy and New 40 I II 111 l 11 Zealand emergency food depots were located at its southern boundary. During the bird breeding season blasting was necessary to install radio antennae. In the station area snow drifts formed by constructions permanently cover land which used to be ice-free, fertile and colonised by breeding birds (Dater, 1965a; Pascoe, 1984). The ground covered by buildings and stores represents 20% of the total penguin breeding area at Cape Hallett (Keys, 1984). The winter antics of station personnel in the early 1960s included homemade fireworks consisting of hydrogen balloons carrying oil-soaked rags. Soil was imported to the station and plants were cultivated outside. In 1964, restrictions were placed on station personnel to limit interference to birdlife (Dater, 1965b, 1965b). There were regular helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft operations; sufficient sea ice cover on Willett Cove for small aircraft operations was a factor in favour of locating a station at Cape Hallett, and Edisto Inlet (a Seal Reserve in accordance with the 1972 Seals Convention) was used as an ice-runway until the early 1970s (Fredrickson, 1971). The roadworks which form the western boundary of the SPA provided access to the Edisto Bay landing strip. Aircraft passengers visiting 'Hallett' included pet dogs and cats. An estimated 55 OOO gallons of fuel oil remain in ageing storage tanks and pose an ever-present threat to the local environment. Clean-up operations commenced in 1984/5 ; a small emergency and scientific base is to be re- established. Surplus fuel supplies are being removed (Antarctic, 1983, 1984a, 1984b). It is proposed to enlarge the Cape Hallett SPA (Bonner and Smith, 1985), but SPA status seems inappropriate. Human impact on the local environment at Cape Hallett was greater than at most Antarctic stations and its most important contribution may be as a SSSI for scientific studies of man's interaction with the polar environment. 41 PLATE 1. The Antarctic French station "Dumont d 'Urvil le", Terre Adelie. The scarcity of accessible land for station constructions is illustrated by "Dumont d'Urville" (circa 1980), which is perched on Ile de Petrel, 2 km from the Antarctic mainland. The station was established after the French station 'Port Martin', 60 km east, was destroyed by fire in 1952. The coastline of French Antarctic Territory is mostly ice cliffs. Crevassing associated with outlet glaciers occurs several kilometres inland. Neighbouring islets are being quarried to construct a runway. 3. 3 Political Const1·aints Terrestrial protected sites were among the first boundaries created under the Antarctic Treaty; activities permitted within them have been agreed by all ATCPs. As the Treaty system 1s founded on a connnitment to self-restraint by a range . of nations of differing political bias and attitudes to resource exploitation (Heap and Holdgate, in press), the plight of protected sites provides a rare insight into the operational priorities of ATCPs and the workings of the Treaty. On Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, there is a demonstrable gap between the theory and practice of the terrestrial protected area system. At ATCM IV (1966) Fildes Peninsula and the off-lying Ardley 2 Island (30 km) were given SPA status because of their 'outstanding ecological interest'. SPA status was applied to Arley Island despite the fact that radio antennae and three buildings, including a helicopter and seaplane hangar, had been established there and used by the Argentine Navy sporadically since 1953 (United States Project Officer, 1961). During the 1967-8 austral sunnner the Soviet Union constructed 'Bellingshausen' station on the Peninsula, and Chile followed a year later by constructing 'Presidente Frei Montalva' station. This involved the erection on Ardley Island of radio antennae and a hut, which were removed in 1982/3 (Carajal, 1982a). At the Second SCAR Symposium on Antarctic Biology (1968) SCAR sought an adjustment to the Fildes Peninsula SPA boundary (excluding Ardley Island) to take account of disturbance to nature caused by station activities (SCAR Bulletin, 1969). At ATCM V (1968) SPA status was revoked, except for a small lake and surrounding shoreline within 100 m of the water's edge at the northeast corner of the Peninsula. Subsequently, the SCAR Working Group on Biology reconnnended that SPA status be terminated because the catchment of the protected lake was 43 likely to be contaminated by extensive areas of land cut by tracked vehicles (SCAR Bulletin, 1975) . The lake now supplies fresh water to 'Artigus' station (Uruguay). SPA status was revoked at ATCM VIII 2 (1975) and, at the same time, two other sites (1 . 8 km) on the Peninsula were designated as SSSI to preserve fossils and Tertiary strata. The northernmost SSSI included a bunkering depot and a road linking the fuel depot with 'Bellingshausen' station, which were constructed in 1972/3. Vehicular traffic, except in emergency, is prohibited in the management plan. In 1979/80, Chile prepared a 1 200 m landing strip across the Peninsula and opened 'Teniente Rodolf Marsh Martin' station, adjacent to it. This is about 1 km from 'Presidente Frei Montalva' and connected with it by road. Subsequently, the landing ground was improved for intercontinental aircraft; the main approach path for landing is over Ardley Island (Carajal, 1982b; Studd, 1983). The People's Republic of China has established the most recent station, 'The Great Wall of China'. It was erected in two weeks and involved over 500 expedition personnel. Construction necessitated the eviction of penguins from breeding sites, and collections of lichen from various parts of the Peninsula were made to provide a uniform albedo surface for meteorological sensors (private connnunication). Five major stations, an intercontinental air runway, and several huts on Fildes Peninsula, with two others on- Ardley Island, now occupy the original Fildes Peninsula SPA (Headland and Keage, 1985). Since 1968 the numbers of breeding penguins on Ardley Island have declined from about 5 OOO to 1 OOO pairs (Ollig, personal connnunication). The SSSI on Fildes Peninsula, and those on Byers Peninsula, are the only site~ protected for geological reasons. The SCAR Working Group on Geology recommended that geological features, outcrops or deposits not be declared 44 [Courtesy Mr Pat Cooper] PLATE 2. 'Don't disturb the natural ecosystem _£.Y. installations!' A sign erected in February 1985 by scientists working inland of the Chinese, Chilean and Soviet stations on King George Island. This is a 'common-sense' approach to protect an important study site in an area of high human activity. Regardless of the accessibility of sites , signposts are required at the boundaries of all protected areas. A useful signpost for Antarctic conditions is described in Parks (1984). The marker consists of a brightly-coloured hollow tube i n which the site details and a visitor's log are housed. ATCM VI-14 reconunends that site descriptions be in s evera l languages . 45 ---·---------------,-.,.,..., protected sites 1n order not to attract undue attention to them (SCAR Bulletin, 1984). Experience at Fildes Peninsula demonstrates that protected sites have little force in the face of logistic and political priorities. The development has been haphazard; there has been little consultation among the nations involved. While the Agreed Measures make special provision for the establishment of stations, the concentration and expansion of stations has caused severe and widespread disturbance. Under these pressures, SPAs have proved more of an inconvenience than a management tool for nature conservation. SSS! status would appear to have been applied as an expedient. The irony is that the unregulated establishment of 'research' stations has significantly impaired protected sites and the scientific attributes of Fildes Peninsula. Political necessity appears to be responsible for the excessive duplication of station facilities among nations. SCAR's influence on events on Fildes Peninsula has been limited. SCAR's charter gives it the status of only an advisory body to ATCPs, who interpret and implement advice, an example being the recommendation by SCAR that the SPA boundary on Fildes Peninsula be redefined following the establishment of two stations there. This resulted .in the termination of SPA status for Ardley Island and all of Fildes Peninsula except a small lake and its shoreline. Because there is no mechanism under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty for assessing competing demands for resources, problems on Fildes Peninsula are likely to be duplicated elsewhere. 3.4 Conclusions The existing system of terrestrial protected sites has limited capability of meeting its objectives. Selection criteria for SPAs and SHI are too narrow - the 46 requirement for the number and areas of SPAs to be kept to a minimum, and for the fixed-period designations for SSSI, imposes self-defeating restrictions on each category. SPAs should allow for marine and non- biological sites. Marine SSSI need to be formalised. Broadening of selection criteria would provide more effective ecosystem protection, including the use of natural features to delimit sites. There is no protected site classification to preserve landscape and visual catchments. Existing sites are not fully representative of Antarctic ecosystems; a network of representative sites can only be formulated from an inventory of habitat and ecosystem types, which gives their relative abundance, distribution and geographical area. This would allow protected sites to be established on a biogeographic basis with redundancy in each biogeographic province. The inventory of ecosystem and habitat types would contribute to a conservation strategy for the Antarctic environment as a whole. There is a demonstrable gap between the theory and practice of the terrestrial protected area system. Protected sites close to major stations, despite their status, are liable to disturbance. More potent site management plans need to be developed. The degree of protection afforded to protected sites must be consistent with ac~ual and anticipated levels of human activity activities could be permitted as a temporary, seasonal or permanent arrangement. The responses of ATCPs to recommendations by SCAR for the extension of protected status to particular sites has been varied - the wider interests of ATCPs have prevailed in some cases. It has been suggested that a contributory factor is the low priority given to Antarctic scientific activities by some national governments (Alburn, 1982), although increasing Antarctic operations with corresponding financial commitment, and the acceptance by ATCPs of interim measures 47 requirement for the number and areas of SPAs to be kept to a minimum, and for the fixed-period designations for SSSI, imposes self-defeating restrictions on each category. SPAs should allow for marine and non- biological sites. Marine SSSI need to be formalised. Broadening of selection criteria would provide more effective ecosystem protection, including the use of natural features to delimit sites. There is no protected site classification to preserve landscape and visual catchments. Existing sites are not fully representative of Antarctic ecosystems; a network of representative sites can only be formulated from an inventory of habitat and ecosystem types, which gives their relative abundance, distribution and geographical area. This would allow protected sites to be established on a biogeographic basis with redundancy in each biogeographic province. The inventory of ecosystem and habitat types would contribute to a conservation strategy for the Antarctic environment as a whole. There is a demonstrable gap between the theory and practice of the terrestrial protected area system. Protected sites close to major stations, despite their status, are liable to disturbance. More potent site management plans need to be developed. The degree of protection afforded to protected sites must be consistent with actual and anticipated levels of human activity activities could be permitted as a temporary, seasonal or permanent arrangement. The responses of ATCPs to recommendations by SCAR for the extension of protected status to particular sites has been varied - the wider interests of ATCPs have prevailed in some cases. It has been suggested that a contributory factor is the low priority given to Antarctic scientific activities by some national governments (Alburn, 1982), although increasing Antarctic operations with corresponding financial commitment, and the acceptance by ATCPs of interim measures 47 11 for nature conservation may make this assertion difficult to support. These conclusions suggest that some or many ATCPs need to show much greater connnitment to obligations created by protected sites, and that the obligations must be enforcable. There is also a greater role for SCAR - particularly its Working Gro.up on Biology. The Working Group advises ATCPs on conservation research and has the expertise to formulate a conservation strategy for the Antarctic continent, including the inspection of protected sites and nature conservation measures of ATCPs. CHAPTER4 As a result of the shortcomings of the terrestrial protected site system discussed in Chapter 3, and the developments in site planning and managemen t outside the Antarctic, some poss i ble amendments t o terrestrial protected sites are proposed. These are: (1) to continue and develop present procedures and arrangements (the status quo), (2) to revise selectively Antarctic Treaty recommendations and conventions, (3) to declare Antarctica a World Park, and (4) to introduce a protected site classification, adapted from the UNESCO biosphere reserve concept. 4. Introduction Principal responsibility for nature and landscape preservation 0 south of 60 S lies with ATCPs; this responsibility is self-imposed (Antarctic Treaty Article IX) and acknowledged internationally by some agencLes outside the Antarctic Treaty (e . g . IUCN , 1981) . Ideally , revision of the terrestrial protected site measures should be considered as one component in a conservation strategy for the whole of Antarctica and its associated ecosystems. The strategy would take i nto account inter alia the sensitivity of the terrest r ial environment to in~er fe r ence and , based on the likely extent and persistence of di s turbance to the environment a s a r esult of r e sea r ch and logistic and commercial ac tivit i es , woul d establish guidelines for Antarctic operators. In fact, the Agreed Measures , the Convention for the Conserva tion o f Antarc t ic Seal s and CCAMLR have al ready est abl i shed a 'decentralised and functionally oriented' management system for Antarctic marine and terrestrial resources (Scu l ly, 1983). The biological interdependence of terrestrial environment on the ma r ine environment , with the relatively autonomous regimes established by Treaty recommendations and related conventions , necessarily complicate 49 the revision of measures for protection of terrestrial sites. Each resource management regime has conflicting approaches to environmental management; the primary object of the Agreed Measures 1s to minimise disturbance by man, whereas the Seals Convention and CCAMLR allow for rational use of the environment. As a result, suggested revisions to the terrestrial protected site system may include restrictions which conflict with arrangements formulated under the Seals Convention and CCAMLR. The approach adopted here is to identify improvements to the terrestrial protected site system which might respond to the inadequacies discussed in Chapter 3. Emphasis is given to practical improvements within the Antarctic Treaty which anticipate developments likely to affect the terrestrial environment, including any regime for the exploitation of minerals, and SCAR/IUCN collaboration. Generally, revisions to Treaty recommendations and practice are suggested without considering their political aspects. As each ATCP has enacted the Agreed Measures separately, the relevance of some suggested amendments will vary among Parties. In the absence of an Antarctic conservation strategy, the World Conservation Strategy (WCS; IUCN, 1980; IUCN Bulletin, 1980) and Arctic land-use planning and management practice are discussed as examples for improving the terrestrial protected site system. Improvements can be categorised as those which require selective adjustme~ts of existing measures (option 2), and new measures and procedures (options 3 and 4). 4.1. Option I - Status Quo The status quo option is to continue existing measures - key Antarctic Treaty directives are: Treaty Article IX (f), requiring Contracting Parties to take measures for the 'preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica'; ATCM IX-5, drawing attention of ATCPs to interference with the Antarctic environment caused by operations there; and ATCM XII-3, drawing attention of ATCPs to the need for environmental impact assessment (EIA) of scientific and logistic activities. A precautionary philosophy underlies these and other nature conservation measures; hitherto recommendations and agreements have been based on self-restraint. However, the gradual evolutionary approach to the resolution of Antarctic Treaty issues (Scully, 1983) is disadvantageous to protected sites subject to rapidly increasing disturbance. Owing to increasing human activities (including new research stations and extensions to existing facilities, increased scientific activity and possible future shore-based mineral or fisheries activities), practical - rather than precautionary - measures need to be implemented. One test for the evolution of conservation measures is ATCM XII- 3, which cites the importance of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on existing and future scientific and logistic programmes. The recommendation, and the invited response of SCAR (Benninghoff and Bonner, 1985), contains issues which are contentious in the Treaty system, especially the proposal to circulate among ATCPs impact assessments and the need for self-imposed restrictions. EIAs will potentially involve assessing disturbance to the terrestrial and marine environments and direct ATCPs towards issues and decision- making central to an Antarctic conservation strategy. It is likely that discussion of ATCM XII-3 by the Treaty Parties will be protracted; there is the possiblity that operations and activities in Antarctica will continue to increase at a rate exceeding that which the Treaty system can effectively guide so that disturbance to the environment is minimised. This deficiency is recognised outside the Treaty; SCAR has proposed a review of terrestrial protected sites in the event of mineral activity in Antarctica (SCAR, 1979). Also, Holdgate (1984) has stressed the importance of effective processes for environmental impact assessment, feeding into resource management systems, with monitoring to compare performance with prediction. 4.2. Option 2 - Revise Selectively Existing Measures Antarctic Treaty reconnnendations are formulated and agreed by all ATCPs; they provide the basic framework for selective revision, taking advantage of the experiences of ATCPs and plans for continuing involvement in the region. This option presupposes the active and continuing review of nature conservation procedures on an increased scale. This would be initiated by ATCPs and conducted either (a) by establishing a permanent Working Group reporting to ATCMs, (b) by preparation of a conservation strategy which would incorporate monitoring and review procedures, (c) or on the basis of advice from SCAR, or (d) by a combination of the above. For convenience, selective improvements are sunnnarised under five headings but, in practice, each impinges on several Treaty reconnnendations and procedures. 4.2.i Site Identification and Selection Criteria for identification of Specially Protected Areas (SPAs; Agreed Measures Article VII; ATCM VII-2) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI; ATCM VIII-3) are science-oriented; they need to be broadened in scope to include ecosystem concepts embodied in the WCS which have been adopted by CCAMLR. The Agreed Measures do not refer to ecosystems, nor to any ecological terms related to the ecosystem concept; ecosystem complexity and stability are not formally recognised criteria for site planning (Risebrough and others, 1972). Elements of ecosystem complexity include: species richness, connectance, interaction strength, and evenness. For ecosystem stability there are considerations of resilience, resistance, and 52 I 111 11 variability. Individual species abundance, species composition and trophic level abundance are additional variables (Pimrn, 1984). The ecosystem approach indicates the need to give protection to marine elements affecting terrestrial protected sites, and to monitor changes at all sites (both man-induced or naturally occurring impacts). Current practice makes it difficult to foresee threats or to devise strategies to protect sites from the secondary effects of seemingly disparate activities. Criteria for SPAs should be expanded to include non-biological sites. Formal protection of rare geological outcrops, especially fossils, needs to be established; some rare fossil occurrences coincide with the location of major Antarctic stations and inter-continental runways, and visits to these areas are among the most frequent in Antarctica. Ray and others (1984), and Ray (in press) outline different ways of identifying protected sites using the ecosystem approach. These include (a) identification based on lists of selected species, their diversity and probable threats to them, (b) classification of environments based on regional biotic and physical attributes, and (c) a habitat matrix approach based on biogeographical classifications. Theoretically, the pattern of protected sites to emerge from these selection processes, compared to existing procedures, would give a greater number of sites of larger area., encompass representative ecosystem and habitat types, and be more evenly distributed among biogeographical provinces. In addition, the regional signficance of wildlife would be emphasised. Landforms and areas of exceptional natural beauty would also be accorded regional importance. Geographic area is an important element in site identification; the stability of a site is dependent on its size and the ability of management practice to react to any pressures placed on it. Principles for establishing protected site boundaries are discussed by 53 Zentilli (1977) and the (Canadian) Task Force on Northern Conservation (Department of India n Affairs and Northern Development, 1984), and summarised below; boundaries should • encompass the values or resources that justify establishment of the site; • include natural features as boundaries; • include buffer zones to preclude future use of sites which could pose a threat to a site's integrity; • enclose sufficient area to facilitate infrastructure for administration, visitor use, protection, maintenance, and conservation, even though these areas may be devoid of interest from the viewpoint of conservation; and • enclose the visual catchments, sea and landscapes. Site identification criteria for historic sites given by ATCM I-9 are too general; sites which do not conform to 'traditional' concepts of Antarctic historical monuments have been so declared. These include a plaque from the Lions International Club (SHI No.35; see Appendix 1), statues (37, 40), a light-house (29), and a concrete monolith (32) . To some extent, the pattern of SHis (Figure 2) reflects the. over-enthusiasm by some ATCPs to designate sites rather than a comprehensive coverage of important monuments. While monuments are protected, their surroundings are frequently not - often detracti ng from their visual quality and the archaeological significance of relics which may be scattered about the monument (Harrowfield, 1983) . For example, historic monument status which has been given to a hut and a plaque at Cape Denison (SHI Nos. 12 and 13), associated with the 1911-14 Australasian Antarctic Expedition, should be terminated in favour of historic status being given to Boat Harbour and the whole station area as described by Ledingham (1979). Improved site identification criteria are no guarantee that desirable sites will be protected; the logistic requirements of Antarctic operators and the termination , within short periods , of 54 protection status for some sites (e.g. Fildes Peninsula), the inappropriate designation of others (e.g. Cape Hallett), and the failure to afford protection to valuable sites (e.g. Dry Valleys) indicate weaknesses in site selection procedures. First, more thorough investigation of proposals for protected sites is required among SCAR Working Groups in the early stages of site evaluation. Currently only the Working Group on Biology is involved in assessing the conservation value and management requirements of prospective sites independently of the planning and engineering proposals under consideration by the Working Group on Logistics. This gives rise to conflicting reports and confused guidance to ATCMs. An example is the 1978 SCAR General Assembly recommendation (adopted from the Biology Working Group) to establish two Marine SSSI in Chile Bay, Greenwich Island, for the protection of benthic communities (Bonner and Smith, 1985). These sites are SOO m and 800 m west of 'Capitan Arturo Prat' station (Chile). In 1982, the SCAR Working Group on Logistics reported on the proposed construction of a runway up to 1 430 m long extending into Chile Bay north of 'Capitan Arturo Prat'. Construction would involve site levelling by 3 blasting 1 OOO m of rock, drainage to the sea of coastal lagoons, 3 local quarrying of 100 OOO m, and a breakwater along the coastline (Alarcon and others, 1982). The 1982 report makes no reference to the proposed marine SSSis. Secondly, the value and special needs of proposed and existing sites would be better conveyed to ATCPs by SCAR representation at ATCMs. There would be additional benefits to SCAR and ATCMs from this arrangement. For SCAR it would (a) streamline communication between the two, (b) serve to remind SCAR of its administrative responsibilities to ATCMs, and (c) aid the formulation of research proposals of relevance to ATCPs . The caveat for SCAR is that involvement at ATCMs should not be prejudicial to its primary role of promoting collaborative scientific activities 1n Antarctica. The value for ATCMs would be (a) to have recourse to SCAR for reports and advice, and (b) to solicit SCAR advice on specified ATCM agenda items, especially in relation to SCAR reconunendations for protected sites. It is desirable that SCAR should be involved in defining boundaries and management procedures for sites whose protected status is altered - it is inconsistent for ATCPs to require SCAR to reconunend SPAs and SSSis and yet, without consultation with SCAR, to revoke and re- establish SPA and SSSis (Byers Peninsula and Fildes Peninsula). Experience has shown that this results in re-defined sites incapable of maintaining the biological assemblages for which they were designated. 4.2.2 Protection of Inshore Marine Areas Designation of marine protected sites 1s complicated by the overlapping responsibilities of the Agreed Measures , the Seals Convention and CCAMLR - all avoid the question of exploiting non- living resources and exacerbate the problem of designating protected sea-floor areas. Apart from seal reserves established by the Seals Convention (Figure 2), and the sea ice within SPAs (Cape Crozier, Taylor Rookery and the Dion Islands), special protection has not been afforded to inshore areas. Under CCAMLR Article IX marine sanctuaries can be established, but involvement of CCAMLR for establishing protected sites to complement terrestrial sites must be viewed as an expedient. It would (a) potentially involve org~nisations other than Antarctic Treaty Parties in decisions relating to the Antarctic terrestrial environment, (b) duplicate procedures for nominating and managing protected sites selected primarily to safeguard wildlife occurring on land, (c) place added pressures on SCAR to advise the [Australian Antarctic Division] PLATE 3. Emperor penguin rookery, Taylor Glacier, Mac.Robertson Land. The Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora have not been effectively applied to the in-shore marine environment although they specifically exclude whales and give special protection to seals . In-shore sea ice areas colonised by Emperor penguins are protected at Cape Crozier, Taylor Glacier and the Dion I slands but these designations make no reference to sea ice . 57 I I Scientific Cormnittee established by CCAMLR (CCAMLR Article XV) to reconnnend conservation measures - the Scientific Cormnission is already dependent on scientific research organised under the aegis of SCAR. Expanding the Agreed Measures beyond land and ice shelves to cover inshore marine sites does not entireiy solve these problems, especially the one of jurisdiction over the sea bed. There is no easy way to formalise procedures for marine protected sites. Because of its broad scientific scope and advisory role in the Agreed Measures, the Seals Convention and CCAMLR, it seems prudent that SCAR, rather than the CCAMLR Scientific Cormnission, should have responsibility for nominating and monitoring in-shore sites. Also, protection of the marine environment 1s a basic consideration in the imminent regime for the exploitation of Antarctic minerals (ATCM IX- 1), and it is unlikely that the regime would avoid establishing a means of inter-linking the Agreed Measures , CCAMLR and the Seals Convention to ensure consistent nature conservation measures (including the designation of protected sites). Salm and Clark (1982), and Ray (in press), discuss the identification and selection of marine protected areas on the basis of experience in the Arctic, but analyse highlight physiographic and biological differences between the polar regions and the need, in some instances, for independent approaches to the selection of marine protected sites. Antarctic off-shore marine ecosystems are generally circumpolar in distribution, with few genetically distinct populations. Endemism is high for animals and plants south of the Antarctic Convergence and seals and birds show a high degree of longtitudinal migration within 58 the circumpolar belt (Laws, 1977). Identification of important marine areas 1s hampered because the biology of the Southern Ocean has been under-sampled (SCAR/SCOR, 1977). The extent and distribution of benthic connnunit ies are perhaps the easiest to define and protect because of their diversity and abundance (Dell, 1972; White, 1984). The designation of protected inshore areas to safeguard foraging areas for land- breeding bird and seal populations (including Weddell seals, which breed on the near-shore sea ice) is complicated, but a practical way of minimising disturbance to land-breeding animals is to safeguard their foraging range from breeding sites. Seals and most birds are pelagic feeders ; however, their feeding ecology and diet 1s poorly understood. Breeding locations, duration and estimates of average daily food intake for Elephant (SS kg), fur (62 kg), and Weddell (64 kg) seals, along with a description of food composition, are given by Laws (1984). The foraging range from breeding sites is highly variable within and among species. At South Georgia the feeding range of lactating fur seals extends for 300 km to just beyond the continental shelf, but precise information for fur seals at other locations and for other seal species is not avai lable (Mccann, personal connnunica tion) . During the breeding season, Elephant seals are mostly shore-bound; this is followed by a brief time feeding ~t sea be fore the return to land to moult. Weddell seals are the most localised of all seal species and are thought to have a much more limited foraging range than other species. There is marked ecological separation in feeding behaviour: Elephant and Weddell seals feed on fish and squid at depths greater than 100 m, compared with fur seals, which feed mainly on krill and fish in water depths up to 80 m. Among seabirds there is considerable variation in feeding areas; penguins range from 30 to SOO km whereas petrels and albatrosses range from 300 to over 2 OOO km (Croxall, 1984) . Large feeding ranges and ecological separation within and among species of avifauna and seals increase the number of feeding locations and reduce competition among them. This is vitally important where seal and bird breeding locations are in close proximity. Factors which need to be considered when planning protected sites based on the foraging ranges of breeding birds and seals include (a) seasonal oceanographic conditions, (b) seasonal variations in food stocks, including 'up-current' activities (i.e. krill harvesting) which may influence food availability and foraging range, and (c) the land available for penguin and seal breeding sites, as populations limited by the availability of land for breeding would probably suffer greater disturbance from 'up-current' interference in food stocks. However, geographically defined marine protected sites cannot safeguard pelagic feeding birds and seals breeding on land from changes in water circulation, and 'up-current' fish and krill exploitation which may significantly deplete food stocks . Pelagic feeding animals are significantly affected by the movement of 'fronts' which separate three different water masses; the most significant is the Antarctic Convergence. Fronts have eddy diameters ranging f rom 80 to 500 km and durations from weeks to several months (Knox , 1983). Adverse seasonal or annual sea surface circulation combined with 'up- current' krill and fish exploitation may reduce significantly the breeding success of se~ls and birds in a region (Croxall, personal communication). Hence there is a strong case for designating geographically defined protected areas based on 'expected' foraging ranges in concert with the regulation of 'up-current' fish and krill exploitation. Also, protected sites based on foraging ranges from breeding sites are unlikely to safeguard non-breeding seal and bird populations away from breeding sites. For Elephant and Weddell seals this percentage is broadly similar (at least 20% of the total 60 population), but less for fur seals (McCann, personal conununication). Figures for bird species are not available. 4.2.3 Site Management Mandatory management plans for all protected site designations, site monitoring, and legal controls capable of enforcement are the three possible improvements described in Chapter 3. Currently, management plans are required only for SSSI and, like the maps which accompany SSSI (and SPA) recollUilendations, have little substance. In accordance with the requirements listed in ATCM VIII-3, management plans generally consist of the following paragraphs: site description, reason for designation, outline of research, expiry date of designation, proposed points of access, proposed pedestrian and vehicular routes, scientific activities and guidelines for sampling, and other restraints. Despite the poor quality of management plans (not one lists management objectives) most have operated for several years and have had their terms extended twice; management plans for SSSI are in need of major revision and are thus inadequate models for other protected site classifications. Management plans are to ensure the optimum use of a site without deleterious effects on the special features which render it worthy of protection. Their objectives and scope vary depending on the special , needs of protected sites, land-use pressures, and the institutional organisation for site -management. Poor scientific understanding, unpredictable land-use pressures (especially those from stations) and vague institutional responsibilities for enforcement, militate against attaining management goals for protected sites in Antarctica. Similar problems are experienced in land-use planning in the Arctic, which has biological and landform similarities to Antarctica and where administrative responsibility for environmentally sensitive areas is decentralised, even within one nation. Recent land- use planning studies in Arctic Canada (notably the (Canadian) Task Force on Northern Conservation (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1984) and Nelson and Jensen (1984) reach conclusions pertinent to site management planning in Antarctica. First, the scarcity and widely dispersed nature of scientific information on remote areas increases the need for experienced scientists to formulate management plans and to submit evaluations before plans are formalised. Although similar procedures exist for Antarctic protected sites, the evaluation of management plans for SSSI has not been rigorously pursued. The quality of management plans would be enhanced if they were formulated and evaluated by SCAR on the lines reconunended by Nelson and Jensen. The collaboration of. SCAR with the IUCN would complement management planning for Antarctic protected sites. Secondly, management plans have an important contribution to make in influencing the attitude and performance of participating institutions. In Antarctica , protected site boundaries and the activities permitted within them are agreed by all ATCPs, but there is a demonstrable gap, in some instances, between theory and practice. Management plans have a dual role of reminding ATCPs of their obligations in respect of wildlife and landform preservation, and of prescribing specific behaviour standards for specific sites. As Antarctic protected -sites are small in area and their biological inhabitants are vulnerable, management plans must eradicate the impression that areas outside protected sites are less likely to be affected by behaviour standards. Regulations governing permanent and moveable cultural and historic monuments on Svalbard, as described by Reymert (1979), could serve as a model for similar management methods in Antarctica. Greater awareness can also be achieved by designating 62 administrative authority over protected sites and by establishing a site monitoring system. For practical reasons, 'guardian' responsibility for protected sites (in Antarctica) should be vested in the nearest major Antarctic station or in the station sponsoring major research effort on the particular site. Guardian responsibility would extend (a) to ensuring proposed activities comply with Agreed Measures, SSSI or SHI provisions, (b) to providing intending visitors with accurate information on sites, (c) to overseeing visitors and field activities, (d) to recording visits and studies undertaken within sites , and (e) to reporting this information regularly to a protected area monitoring centre (discussed below). In accordance with the Agreed Measures, a person who oversees visitor and field activities should be designated an Inspector and be competent in the field activities proposed. The lack of a well-defined reporting and monitoring procedure for protected sites is disadvantageous to ATCPs and the protected sites ; basic information about conservation planning and related activities is not available, nor can operational procedures and performance for protected sites be assessed properly. The monitoring system would provide a long-term record of the status of particular sites and their contribution to the network as a whole. The SCAR listing of Antarctic Conservation areas (Bonner and Smith, 1985) is the first substantial compilation of information on protected sites and it would be wasteful for the listing not to be developed as a regional data base for Antarctica. Given its limited financial and Secretariat resources , SCAR (as the agency responsible for monitoring Antarctic protected sites) should investigate collaboration with the IUCN Protected Area Data Unit (PADU) for the design and operation of a data base . The PADU was established in 1981 by the Conunission for National Parks and Prot ected Areas ( CNNPA ), and in 1983 became part of the IUCN ' s Conservation Monitoring Centre (CMC) bas ,ed in Cambridge (conveniently placed for access to the SCAR Secretrariat). The work of the PADU is described by Harrison (1984a, 1984b, 1984c); it encompasses IUCN, UNESCO and UNEP projects and keeps protected sites lists produced for various international conventions. Because .SPAs and SSS! have been designed with scientific monitoring in mind and are pre-adapted for contributing to monitoring progrannnes, ATCPs should consider them as important contributions to continuing international environmental monitoring progrannnes. The PADU, through the CMC, is the data respository for the Global Environmental Monitoring Systems (GEMS) project started by SCAR's sister !CSU connnitte, the Scientific Connnittee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE). GEMS is now managed by the UNEP. In 1977 Rudolph and Benninghoff (1977) proposed the creation of an Antarctic biological monitoring system to collaborate with GEMS, whose objects are to 'provide the information necessary to ensure the present and future protection of human health and safety and the wise management of the environment' (Munn, 1973). The World Meteorological Organisation, governmental and non-governmental agencies contribute to GEMS monitoring studies on human health, transport of airborne pollutants, climate, ocean dynamics and pollution, and renewable resources (Croze, 1984). Against a background , of closer working relations between SCAR and the IUCN, SCAR collaboration with the - PADU promises the most immediate and rewarding area of cooperation. Despite the enthusiasm shown by nations operating in Antartica, when the Agreed Measures were introduced, for the concept of harmonised legislation and standing instructions to expeditions (Carrick, 1964; Roberts, 1966, 1977, 1978), the lack of legal controls capable of enforcement is a continuing obstacle to safeguarding protected sites. History has shown that it is highly unlikely that ATCM would sanction a revision of Treaty Article IV (which preserves the judicial and territorial claims of ATCPs), or Articles IV, VIII(l) and VII (l)(b) (which grant quasi-diplomatic status to observers and exchange scientists and their staff). These conditions prescribe new strategies for monitoring protected sites. Site management plans could incorporate conservation standards, policing and penalty clauses, and a reporting procedure for offences. Penalties for offences should not necessarily be monetary. Instead, a report of offences might be submitted to the ATCP authority sponsoring the offenders, the obligation resting with the authority to demonstrate that action had been taken to correct mis-doing. Regular inspections of protected sites should be made, in accordance with the inspection provisions of the Antarctic Treaty (Article VII (I)-(4)). The origins and scope of the provisions are given by Hanevold (1971). Their primary purpose is to ensure the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes, including prohibitions on nuclear weapons and the disposal of nuclear wastes. Their importance for monitoring nature conservation practices has not been fully realised despite the preamble to the Agreed Measures which states that it shall not 'restrict the implementation of the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty with respect to inspection'. The inspection provisions are broad; all the stations and activities of the Treaty Parties may be inspected, inspection~ of ships and aircraft are permitted at points of disembarkation and embarkation of cargo or personnel, and inspections can be conducted uni- or multilaterally. Unilateral inspections have prevailed, mainly because of logistics, and associated costs. However, it 1s unlikely that national inspection teams in their present form would feel competent or sufficiently informed to be able to assess the relative merits of conservation measures , including protected site management. An opportunity for this is available through the participation in inspections of SCAR , acting as a consultant to the sponsoring nation(s). Also, ATCPs might independently invite and sponsor SCAR to review, in confidence, their activities along the lines of the inspection , reporting and award system (European Diploma) established by the Council of Europe (1973). Either way, the participation of SCAR in protected site inspections is vital as a means of ensuring informed scientific assessment and response, and facilitating regular and systematic inspections of sites. 4.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) EIA is a 'procedure designed to identifiy and predict the impact of a human action on the biogeographical and geophysical environment and on Man's health and well being, and to interpret and communicate information about the impact' (Munn, 1979). ATCM XII-3 recommends that ATCPs ' scrutinize ••• research and logistic activities, in accordance with procedures they have developed or may develop' and , depending on the 'seriousness' of impacts, 'elaborate feasible research and logistic alternatives'. In addition, SCAR provided advice about categories of activities which might be expected to have a significant impact on the environment . Key elements found in some national EIA procedures are listed in the report of ATCM XII, presumably to stimulate consideration of. EIA procedures in Antarctica, as their use and methodology is still poorly developed in most countries (Holt and Talbot, 1978; Bradbury and others, 1984). ATCM XII-3 does not make EIA obligatory and the wording is vague - impact assessment can be defined within procedures already 'developed' by ATCPs - and while a suggested EIA format has been proposed by SCAR (Benninghoff and Bonner, 1985), the recommendation makes no suggestion of an independent review of completed EIAs. To adopt a pes.simistic view, there are parallels between the intentions expressed in ATCM XII-3 and those of the Agreed Measures, which call for disturbance associated with the establishment and operation of stations to be kept to a minimum; the inviolability of protected sites 1s not assured. Alternatively, for an evolving and progressive international agreement, which is how the Antarctic Treaty is portrayed by th e Contracting Parties, ATCM XII-3 has subtle but significant differences from earlier nature conservation recommendations, particularly in respect of protected sites. The EIA procedure will use ecological assessments as a basis for binary technical decisions on habitats and species threatened by a particular development - decisions which are potentially more difficult to make in Antarctica because scientific understanding 1s limited, particularly for the marine environment. As far as protected sites are concerned, EIA can be regarded as: (a) an important tool for identifying little-known, unspoilt environments and fragile ecosystems; (b) providing 'baseline' assessments of existing and proposed SPAs and SSSI as a means of determining their status and for future monitoring; and, (c) where scientific and logistic activities have a significant impact - recognising the special needs of existing and proposed protected sites ; - predicting impact of proposed activities, including second order and cumulative effects; formulating measures to minimise impact and maintain environmental and other qualities of protected sites. However, by creating an obligation (however vague) to impose EIA procedures on scientific and logistic support activities, the greatest potential contribution is improved land-use planning. Broadly speaking, land in Antarctica can be classified into three zones: Antarctica has the status of (a) a 'Special Conservation Area' · (Agreed Measures) within which there are (b) terrestrial protected sites (SPAs, SSSI, and SHI), and (c) station areas. Geographical boundaries for all but the station areas are obvious; the Antarctic Treaty makes no provision for the delimitation of station areas, or for consultation among ATCPs about their siting. This is despite the fact that sta t ions are a major source of local pollution and , in certain cases , th e ir uncontrolled development has proved delete r ious to protected sites (Headland and Keage, 1985). The failure of the Antarctic Treaty system to identify the need for EIA may account for nations not readily extending domestic EIA procedures to their Antarctic programmes. The redevelopment of Australia's three stations on the Antarctic continent and the initial construction for a runway at "Dumont d 'Urville" (France) did not involve EIA. EIA must include the definition of boundaries, ecological and geographical - interactions which may well ignore preconceived frontiers (Holdgate, 1983). Thus, without a direct reconnnendation to that effect, EIA will necessitate delimiting station areas as a basis for environmental planning . EIA is used in formula ting planning and design parameters for remote settleme.nts in the Canadian Ar ctic ; examples , wh i ch might prove useful for Antarctic station planning and development, are discussed by Gere i n (1980) . The f irst attempt to delimit a station area was in 1965 , when New Zealand i n collabor ation wi th t he US Navy and the (US) Nationa l Science Foundat i on formulated a n area development plan for Hut Point Pe n i nsula, McMur do Sound . Sta tion boundaries and historical and scientific sites were incorporated and regulations were prepared fo r each ( Cameron, 197 2) . I n 1967 the McMurdo Land Ma nagement and Cons ervation Board was establishe d. The pa s sing of the 1969 National Environment Policy Act compelled the US Antarctic Program to prepare an EIA for its station and field activities; these were the first EIAs to be undertaken in Antarctica and involved regular reviews of the Hut Point development plan. The 1975 review resulted in broadening the Conservation Board's responsibilities to include (a) the protection a nd pre s ervation of monuments and bui ldings , and sc ienti f i c benchmarks , (b) ensuring that logistic activities do not interfere with scientific studies, and (c) the protection and preservation of fauna and flora (Auburn, 1982). Although EIA procedures post-da te land- p l a nni ng for Hut Point, EIA has required consultation between nat i ons to ensure that different land-use plans do not conflict and that protected sites are safeguarded. Such an approach is overdue on King George Island and sections of the Antarctic Peninsula, where several national stations are in close proximity. 4.3. Option 3 - A 'World Park' The 'Special Conservation Area' status applied to the Antarctic Treaty area in the Agreed Measures may have encouraged the view that National Park or equivalent status existed there. The first call for an Antarctic World Park (AWP) was made in 1972 at the Second World Conference on National Parks . This and later calls for an AWP which have been conveyed to ATCPs are summarised below: 1972 Second World Conference on National Parks recommended that ATCPs ' negotiate to establish the Antarctic continent and its sur r ounding seas as the fi r st Worl d Par k , under the aus pices o f the Un ited Nat i ons (UN) '. 1975 The South Pacific Conference on Na tiona l Parks and Re serve s sponsored by New Zealand, the IUCN and the South Pacifi c Conunission proposed to the United Na t i ons Law of the Sea Convention that Antarctica and its surrounding seas be e s tab lished a s a World Park. 1975 At ATCM VIII New Zealand proposed, unsuccessfully, that Antarctica be given World Park status. 1981 The General Assembly of the IUCN called on ATCPs to 'ascribe to the Antarctic environment as a whole, a designation which connotes worldwide its unique character and values, and the special measures accorded to its planning, management and conservation'. 1982 The World National Parks Congress, recommended to the IUCN that 'the concept of a world park and other appropriate designations [in relation to Antarctica] be developed more urgently'. In addition, discussion of Antarctica by the UN General Assembly I I in 1984 involved submissions from non-government organisations (NGOs) calling for 'full protection for Antarctica and its related ecosystems' as a World Park (Greenpeace, 1984). A World Park has yet to be established; it is not a coherent and generally recognised concept which can readily be applied to the Antarctic. The Antarctic World Park concept has not been firmly stated and there is uncertainty about its basic elements (Horsler, 1984). These include whether (a) the Park is synonymous with wilderness, (b) a minerals regime and a Park are mutually exclusive, and (c) ATCPs' rights would be preserved in establishing Park regulations. The salient features of AWP proposals made by several authors are summarised below. The AWP concept pre-dates the 1978 IUCN Report on Categories, Objectives and Criteria for Protected Areas and the World Conservation Strategy (WCS; IUCN, 1980), but current thinking on the World Park draws on both. It implies acceptance of the concept of 'global commons' as defined by the WCS. According to Mosley (1984a), the northern geographic limit of the Park would be the Antarctic Convergence; it would encompass the entire Antarctic terrestrial and marine environment. Ship and station based research would continue. Commercial fishing would be prohibited and maritime sanctuaries established which exclude fisheries research. Mineral exploitation would be prohibited (Mosley, 1983), or a moratorium on mining imposed until appropriate research could ensure the protection of the Antarctic environment. An 'international authority' with administrative responsibility for Antarctic activities and environmental management is envisaged (ASOC, 1984; Barnes ·, 1984; Greenpeace, 1984; Mosley, 1984b). Ultimately, Antarctica would have World Heritage status under the 1972 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World's Cultural and National Heritage (Suter, 1980; 70 Mosley, 1984a). While it is difficult to define the AWP concept, it is also uncertain whether it incorporates ':es communis', to which the common heritage of mankind principle is likened. Res communis (a) is incompatible with sovereign or "owners'" rights to territory, (b) safeguards common territory for future use, (c) aims to conserve resources, and (d) intends to distribute equitably among developing states benefits from resource exploitation. Neither the global commons nor the res communis concept is compatible with the Antarctic Treaty. Treaty Article IV preserves the rights of Parties with territorial claims, while Article XIII enables UN members, or nations invited by ATCPs, to accede to the Treaty, which aims to 'further the purposes and principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations'. Thus ATCPs would argue that the Treaty satisfies items (b), (c), and potentially (d). There are procedural problems in extending the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage to Antarctica. Not all ATCPs are State Parties to the 1972 UNESCO Convention, and while it has been suggested that an Antarctic Claimant might take the initiative of nominating territory for World Heritage status (Mosley , 1983) , this appears inconsistent with Treaty Article X, wh i ch prohibits ATCPs from activities contrary to the principles or purposes of the Treaty . Moreover , as a consequence of Treaty Artic l e I V which expands the control of ATCPs - both geographical l y and in terms of jurisdiction - UNESCO' s World Heritage Comm i ttee cannot con fe r protected area status because t he activ i ties and legal protection for a site cannot be guarant eed - even by an Antarctic Claimant over its own territory. The 19 72 ca ll for the UN to take some r es ponsibil ity for an Antarctic World Park was attenuated partly by developments within the 71 Antarctic Treaty, such as the Seals Convention, and partly because of the UN's inexperience in Antarctic affairs. The 1981 IUCN pledge of making available to ATCPs expertise to ensure that activities carried on in Antarctica have minimum effects on the ecosystem, signals a change in strategy to improving nature conservation controls wholly within the Antarctic Treaty framework. The delay in adopting this later strategy probably reflects poor working knowledge of the Antarctic Treaty. In particular, Article III-(2) encourages ATCPs to establish co-operative working relations with specialised agencies of the UN and other organisations with an interest in Antarctica. There are currently no World Parks and, although 13 years old, the AWP idea has advanced little beyond conception. Mosley (1984a) points out that delays are symptomatic of resource exploitation regimes established by the Antarctic Treaty, which are characterised by long gestation periods. An AWP is the aim of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and Greenpeace International but is not IUCN policy, although widely debated within it (Mosley, 1984b; Ray and others, 1984). There is no organisation equivalent to the 'international authority' which has been proposed to manage Antarctic activities within an AWP, although there are parallels with the Antarctic Treaty and the Commission established under CCAMLR. IUCN, has observer status on the Commission .established by CCAMLR, and NGOs belong to some national delegations to ATCMs. Hence the Treaty system is the obvious one within which conservation controls may be developed further. 4.4. Option 4 - Antarctic (Biosphere) Reserves In addition to improvements to existing protected sites, ATCPs need to develop more elaborate site classifications to complement and enhance the existing areas. A new protected site designation should aim to 72 I rl I • give to areas degrees of protection which respond to a range of land-use pressures including tourism, with educational progrannnes on an international scale; • make provision for formulating management programmes for compat ib l e development which would increase protection of important sites and guide development in others; • provide for protection of terrestrial and coastal environments, single and mutliple land-use. This will involve the application of land zoning techniques. These thoughts have their origins 1n the 1968 SCAR Symposium on Antarctic Biology at which Sladen and Holdgate raised the possibility of bigger protected sites incorporating high habitat diversity (Sladen, 1970). Little progress has been made towards a new terrestrial protected site classification. Special Sites of Tourist Interest were proposed (ATCM VII-9), but none have been established, and selection criteria are not definite. Marine protected sites have been reconnnended but have not been formalised. In 1984, operating independently but along similar lines , the IU.CN (Mosley, 1984b) and SCAR (SCAR Bulletin , 1985) raised the possibility of applying to the Antarctic the 'Biosphere Reserve' concept developed by UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Prograrmne (MAB). Discussion within the IUCN centred on using the Biosphere Reserves concept as a means of extending World Heritage Status to Antarctica under the World Heritage Convention. Obstacles to achieving this objective have been outlined in the previous Section. SCAR 1s evaluating the applicat~on of the Biosphere Reserve concept to Antarctica without MAB involvement; the Working Group on Biology 1s preparing examples of 'Antarctic (Biosphere) Reserves' for the Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Sea regions. Biosphere Reserves are one of ten internationally recognised protected site classifications promoted by the IUCN's Connnittee on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA). They are conceived as 'protected areas of land and coastal environment (conservation units) which constitute a global network, representative of the major biomes' (IUCN, 1984). They include unspoilt ecosystems and the restoration of extensively modified ones to natural conditions so that they will be suitable as sites for ecological research, education, training, and environmental monitoring. The area of individual reserves is intended to bear a direct relationship to the number of species found there , although there is considerable variation within any ecosystem type and the number of species represented. The preferred boundaries are natural features and the mean size of reserves (excluding Greenland) 2 is 5 100 km. Ideally, reserves will have a 'core area' devoted to preservation of natural or near-natural ecosystems, surrounded by a 'buffer zone' which should consist of ecosystems ranging from natural to heavily modified. The various types of modified sites should generally be included in the the 'buffer zone' (di Castri and Loope, 1977). The IUCN (1984) details the attributes and management objectives for each of the CNPPA reserve classifications, which are listed below: I Scientific Reserve VI Resource Reserve II National Park VII Natural Biotic Reserve III - National Monument VIII Multiple Use Management Area IV Managed Nature Reserve IX Biosphere Reserve V Protected Landscape X World Heritage Site SPAs and SSSis established by the Antarctic Treaty have similarities to the Scientific Reserve classification, and SHis can be likened to the National Monument classification. Attributes which set Biosphere Reserves apart from other protected area categories and which are appropriate for Antarctica include: • the ability to accommodate special combinations of land-uses which cannot be duplicated by any other reserve category; • emphasis on the use of natural areas for research, and the encouragement of educational and training activities - long-term scientific investigations may assist site management; 74 emphasis on selection of representative samples of major ecosystems rather than those which are exceptional, and on conservation of ecosystems rather than upon individual species; • potential contribution to an international network of reserves for global monitoring studies. 2 In 1983, 226 Biosphere Reserves totalling 1 154 828 km had been established in 62 countries (UNESCO, 1983). Arctic and sub-Arctic 2 Biosphere Reserves account for 76.5% (879 793 km) of the total area designated under the biosphere classification. These figures do not 2 include the proposal to establish Ellesmere Island (196 OOO km) as a Biosphere Reserve (England, 1983), four reserves planned in the Soviet Union (Pryde, 1984), or the protected area network (ECE) established in Nordic countries, which is likened to the Biosphere Reserve concept (Pahlsson, 1983). Of the 32 Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, all but South Africa have National Conunittees under UNESCO's MAB programme (UNESCO, 1983), and 18 have established Biosphere Reserves in their respective countries. However, the concept has been applied to Antarctic regions only in a limited way; sub-Antarctic Macquarie 2 Island (12 785 km) which is outside the Antarctic Treaty area, was given Biosphere Reserve status in 1977. Arctic and sub-Arctic Biosphere Reserves are listed in Table 5. Arctic Biosphere Reserves cover the terrestrial (including ice sheets and shelves) and marine environments. Reserve status has been given to bird sanctuaries, migratory routes for wildlife, tourist areas, scientific research and archeological sites, sites of educational and cultural interest, and scenic reserves. Several reserves include remote settlements with some economic dependence on the reserves. The Biosphere Reserve classification complements Antarctic Treaty protected site designations and, regardless of collaboration with the MAB programme , ATCPs must view the concept as a much-needed land-use TABLE 5. Arctic Biosphere Reserves. Country and date of designation Area (km2) - Site descriptions United States of America (Alaska) Noatak Biosphere Reserve (1976) 30 352 Aleutian Islands Biosphere Reserve (1976) 11 009 Denali Biosphere Reserve (1976) 7 820 Glacier National Park (1976) 4 102 Greenland North and northeast Greenland (1977) 700 OOO (de Bonneud, 1976) Norway Northeast Svalbard Nature Reserve (1976) Soviet Union Kronotsky zapovednik (1985) Pechero-Ilychsky zapovednik (1985) Laplandsky zapovednik (1985) 15 550 (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 1981) 10 990 72 130 27 840 (Sokolov, 1981) (Sokolov and Chernov,1983) (Pryde, 1984) Compiled from: UNESCO (1983) and references cited. planning and management tool . 'Antarctic (Bios pher e) Reserve s ' c ould be defined wi thin the Antarctic Treaty as ' i n ternationally agr eed protected a r eas managed to demonstrate conservation values ' . This def inition would be compatible with the judicial pr econditions imposed by Trea ty Art icle IV. Antarctic Reserves would be 'internationally agreed' by ATCPs in keeping with Treaty principles and procedures ; ' protected areas ' requiring special measures to preserve ecosystems and land features; 'managed~ demonstrate conservation values', involving an obligation to management objectives for specific land- uses and agreed conservation values, and of regular review of site management • 'Antarctic Reserves' can potentially offer a means of • alleviating specific inadequacies caused by limitations of existing protected site classifications. For example, provision of 'buffer zones' and protection of coastal environments; and • allowing additional single and multi-purpose sites to be designated. This could involve the designation of inviolate areas , scenic reserves, and station sites. Some Antarctic operators are moving (consciously or otherwise) towards the Biosphere Reserve concept in l and-use plann ing . New Zealand and the Un ited St ates are developing fo r the whole of Ross Island, a management plan which includes one establi shed and one proposed SPA , 3 estab li shed and 4 pr oposed SSSis , and 7 SHis (Thomson, personal connnunication). Biosphere Res erves, as large area s wi th i n which mu l ti-purpose activities may take p-lace, will pose new challenges to Antarctic land- use planning. As discussed earlier, the boundaries of any protected site should depend on the purpose for which the site is established. There is also a need to protect the marine elements of terrestrial sites and to establish 'buffer zones' around sites. Scientific studies will provide vital information on the location and status of terrestrial fauna and flora, and information for determining seal and bird foraging patterns from breeding sites on land, which form the 77 biogeographic al provinces for terrestrial ecosystems. For site protection measures, however, translation into land-use plans is complicated by Antarctica's physiography; it 6 covered by a deforming ice sheet (13.5 x 10 is almost entirely 2 km) and surrounded in winter by a skirt of sea ice which undergoes a large annual variation 6 6 2 ranging from 2.5 x 10 to 20 x 10 km (Allison, 1983). Sea ice and icebergs are important habitats for birds, seals, and ice-associated flora. 4.4.1. Ice Catchments and Selected Ice Flowlines An untried land planning concept with potential for polar protected sites is the use of ice catchments and selected ice flowlines, in combination with the adjoining pack ice zone, to delimit conservation units. The biologically inactive Antarctic ice sheet is not covered by Antarctic Treaty protected site classifications, despite the fact that the ice sheet (a) constitutes almost the entire surface area of the Antarctic continent, (b) includes landform features peculiar to Antarctica, often on a scale which makes them unique, (c) has a controlling influence on the continental surface wind circulation and sea ice movements near-shore, (d) is the focus for substantial continuing glaciological and atmospheric research which may be jeopardised by the cumulative increase in pollutants 1n ' Antarctica, and (e) is claimed as sovereign territory by several nations. The compaction of successive layers of snowfall deposited over many thousands of years makes the ice sheet an important stor e of paleoclimatic and environmental information. Allison (1983) sunnnarises scientific investigations which have been conducted on the ice sheet. Those which require uncontaminated sampling locations include isotopic analysis of snow and ice, measurement of the quantity and composition of gas entrapped in ice, and the concentration and composition of deposited solid particles. The Antarctic ice sheet may be divided into 13 catchments (Figure 6); seven have convergent ice flow terminating in ice shelves and outlet glaciers, the remaining catchments have diverging or parallel i ce flow which can be sub-divided into regions. The entire national progrannnes of several ATCPs lie within particular ice catchments or selected ice streams, thus providing a basis for sub- division and regional land-use planning. There are also whole catchments and major ice streams unihabited by man which include large areas of ice-free land, diverse habitats and wildlife, and historic 2 monuments. The Rennick catchment (113 840 km) in Northern Victoria Land is a useful example. The catchment area includes a high proportion of ice-free land which has considerable geological interest (Stump and others, 1983), historic monuments at Cape Adare (SHI No.s 22 and 23), one established and one proposed SPA at Cape Hallett (SPA No.s 7 and 20), extensive Adelie penguin rookeries, and Adelie and Emperor penguin rookeries at Cape Hallett and Coulman Island; the Adelie penguin rookery at Coulman Island is the largest known (Wilson, 1983, 1984). Similar mixes of landforms, biology, and historical features occur in several other ice streams not permanently occupied by man. These areas have considerable potential as undisturbed baseline sites for comparison with other areas. The use of ice streams or catchments to delimit sites will utilise natural boundaries and reduce the likelihood of cumulative wind-borne pollution 1n 'baseline' sites. 900 Scale 0 /\, Major Ice catchment• ...r- Selected Ice flowtlnea 1000 Km ,eoo FIGURE 6. Major ice catchments and selected flowlines for the Antarctic ice sheet. Estimated catchment areas are listed. 2 Estimated areas (km) Ross Filchner Drenning Maud Land Lambert AdUie Land David Antarctic Peninsula 2 600 300 1 728 320 1 243 980 1 293 700 942 900 256 370 290 540 Ronne Coats Enderby land Wilkes Land Rennick Thwaites 1 408 820 1 191 360 353 440 1 781 940 113 840 712 400 2 The total continental area of Antarctic is 13 918 070 km. * The names and catchment boundaries have no official status. Adapted from: DREWRY, D. J. (ed). 1983. Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio , Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge. 80 CHAPTER 5 5. Conclusions The preced i ng discussion illustrates the need for ATCPs to be more responsive in establishing and operating terrestrial protected sites, commensurate with Antarctic Treaty obligations. ATCPs also need to ensure that the inadequacies of the terrestrial protected site system, including inadvertent or deliberate disregard of measures, are not transmitted to future conservation measures for the Antarctic marine environment. The four options which have been suggested for the improvement of the terrestrial protected site system are not exclusive; parts of options may be combined. Regardless of the preferred option or combination, discussion indicates the need for (a) an Antarctic conservation strategy encompassing the terrestrial and marine environments , (b) the establishment of an active Antarctic Tr eaty Secretariat , and (c) expansion of the SCAR Secretariat and greater collaboration with the IUCN. These proposals need to be implemented i n paral l el . Toge th er t hey would improve consultation between SCAR and ATCPs , and SCAR and I UCN , i n the des i gn and monitoring of protected s ites , as wel l as ensuring that na ture conservation mea sures were capable of being enforced. 5.1 Antarctic Conservation Strategy If the ultimate objec tive o f the An tarctic Trea t y as an environmental mechanism i s the ha rmonisation of utilitarian, conservation and aesthetic values (Heap and Holdgate, in press), it is difficult to see how this can be achieved without a conservation strategy to integrate Treaty recommendations on nature conservation and historic sites, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, and CCAMLR. 81 Because of the considerable overlap and ecosystem interdependence between the terrestrial and marine environments, consistent conservation standards and practice are required. The strategy proposed would have three central elements so far as the protected sites are concerned. These are (a) the preparation of ecosystem and habitat inventories for both environments as a basis for establishing a representative terrestrial protected site system, (b) formalised site selection and land-use planning criteria for a range of habitat, ecosystem and landscape types, and (c) systematic surveillance and monitoring of protected sites, perhaps by way of a 'guardian' arrangement for each site. Implicit 1n the expansion of the scope of site selection and land-use planning criteria is the addition to existing site designations of at least one new protected site category of much greater area, which would include multiple land-use. 5.2 Antarctic Treaty Secretariat While the Antarctic Treaty system has a demonstrated capacity to evolve institutions and techniques in response to new developments (Scully, 1983), it has not found it necessary to establish a Secretariat to oversee the implementation of reconunendations and conventions. Between 1961 and 1985, Antarctic Treaty Contracting Parties have increased in number from 12 to 32 (Headland, 1985); ten have acceded in the last four year•, suggesting that participation will continue to increase. Harmonisation of conservation and other values has become disproportionately more difficult with the accession of each new Contracting Party. While ATCPs might argue that the increasing number of Contracting Parties and the complexity of the Treaty system are not sufficient reasons to warrant the establishment of a Secretariat, there seems little option if Treaty nations wish, collectively , to consult and co-operate more actively with other international 82 organisations, particularly those with which the Treaty system has been coy. An active Secretariat would provide the Treaty Parties with a means of introspection; it might advise ATCMs in the same way SCAR provides scientific advice. Advice should include rules for behaviour in protected sites, and collaboration with SCAR on the preparation of site management plans, together with environmental impact assessment. 5.3 Expanded SCAR Secretariat While SCAR has been responsive to requests made to it, or which have devolved on it, by the Antarctic Treaty, this study shows the need for SCAR to be more active in the selection, design and monitoring of the system of protected sites, and in environmental impact assessment. However, with the current level of financial support available, additional demands would prejudice SCAR's primary role of initiating, promoting and coordinating scientific activity. Expansion of the SCAR Secretariat seems warranted for two reasons. First, with the three-fold increase in the number of countries active in the Antarctic an even greater increase in scientific productivity has occurred. At the same time, requests for scientific advice have been directed to SCAR by Antarctic Treaty reconnnendations and conventions. Secondly, commensurate with Treaty recommendations and against a background of increasing Antarctic operations, SCAR needs to take a more -active role in preparing management plans for protected sites, in the inspection of sites and in environmental impact assessment. There is also a need for improved communications among SCAR Working Groups in assessing proposals for protected sites, and for site monitoring (in collaboration with the IUCN's Protected Area Data Unit) in the form of a regional data base on Antarctic protected sites. SCAR should initiate and take the central role in preparing an Antarctic conservation strategy. 83 5.L} Concluding Remarks Currently, low levels of human activity 1n Antarctica, and the advent of the Antarctic Treaty, may encourage the view that conservation meas ures can be implemented more effectively in the Treaty area than elsewhere, but this does not appear to be the case. Yaffee, in a study on the implementation of the United States 1973 Endangered Species Act (1982), describes obstacles which led to several revisions of early drafts, and three amendments to the Act. He concludes that 'prohibitive policy' - where government authorities and individuals do not have legal choices about their behaviour - is the most difficult to enforce, even within one country. Perhaps the greatest challenge to the Antarctic Treaty is to impose restrictions capable of enforcement. Protected sites in the Treaty area, as indeed National Parks and protected areas outside it, are not entirely safeguarded. The activities of nations involved in Antarctica are internationally highly visible, particularly regarding nature conservation. ATCPs need to adopt more elaborate concepts and management for protected sites if they are to be regarded as responsible trustees acting on behalf of a much wider group of nations and connnunity. 84 REFERENCES NOTE 1. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) called for the protection of Antarctic penguins in 1905 and 1909: see: Birds, notes and news, 1905, Vol.10, p.65-77; 1909, Vol.11, p.81-3, p.90-1. These calls pre-date Falklands Islands and Dependencies Ordinances covering penguins. ALARCON, B., MARANGUNIC, C. and VILLANUEVA, V. 1982. Preliminary studies for the landing~rip at CapitAn Arturo Prat Base, Greenwich Island, in: SCAR, 1982. Report on Antarctic Logistics, Leningrad, USSR, 28 June - 3 July, 1982, p.156-94. ALLISON, I. (ed). 1983. Antarctic Climate Research, Proposals for the Implementation of a Programme of Antarctic Research Contributing to the World Climate Research Programme, SCAR Group of Specialists on Antarctic Climate Research, Scott Polar Research Institute, pp.65. ANDERSON, D. 1968. The conservation of wildlife under the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Record, Vol.14, No.88, p.25-32. ANTARCTIC (News Bulletin of the New Zealand Antarctic Society), 1983. Plans to clean up closed Hallett Station, Vol.10, No.3, p.96. ANTARCTIC (News Bulletin of the New Zealand Antarctic Society), 1984a . Hallett station may have new life, Vol.10, No.5, p.166-7. ANTARCTIC (News Bulletin of the New Zealand Antarctic Society) , 1984b , Vol.10, No.7, p.237. ANTARCTIC AND SOUTHERN OCEANS COALITION (ASOC), 1984. An Antarctic environmental protection agency. Antarctic Briefing No.6, October 12, 1984~ Washington, D.C., pp.2. AUBURN, F. M. 1982. pp. 361. Antarctic Law and Politics, Hurst and Co, London, BARNES, J. N. 1984. Antarctica, the politics of protection, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Working Session of IUCN...-;- Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Madrid, 3-4 November. BENNINGHOFF, W. S. and BONNER, W. N. 1985. Man's Impact on the Antarctic Environment, The Response by the Scientifi~Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to Recommendation XII-3 of the Twelfth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, pp.56. BENOIT, R. E. 1970. in: HOLDGATE, M. W. (ed). 1970. Antarctic Ecology, Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, Academic Press, p.951. BOARDMAN, R. 1981. International Organisation and the Conservation of Nature, MacMillan Press, London. pp.215. ~- -~ BONNER, W. N. 1984. Conservation and the Antarctic, in: LAWS, R. M. (ed). 1984. Antarctic Ecology, Academic Press, p:S21-50 . 85 BONNER, W. N. and SMITH, R. I. (eds). 1985. Conservation Areas in the Antarctic, A Review prepared by the Sub-Connnittee on Conservation of the SCAR Working Group on Biology, Scott Polar Research Institute Cambridge, pp.299. BRADBURY, R.H., HAMMOND, L. S., REICHELT, R. E. and YOUNG, P. C. 1984. Predict ion versus explanation in environmental impact assessment. Search, Vol.14, No.11-12, p.323-5 . BUSH, W. M. 1982. Antarctica and International Law - A Collection of Inter-State and National Documents, Oceana Publications , Londo;-:- 2 Vols, pp.589. CAMERON, R. E. 1972. Pollution and conservation of the Antarctic terrestrial ecosystem, in: PARKER, B. C. (ed). Proceedings of the Colloquium on Conservation Problems in Antarctica, 10-12 ~ ~- September, 1971, Virginia Polytechni~and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p.267-308. CAMERON, R. E., HONOUR, R. C. and MORELLI, F. A. 1977. Environmental impact studies of Antarctic sites, in: LLANO, G. A. (ed). 1977. Adaptations Within Antarctic Ecosys~ms, Proceedings of the Third SCAR Symposiun on Antarctic Biology, Washington D.C., 26-30 August, 1974, p.589-98. CARRICK, R. 1960. Conservation of nature in the Antarctic. SCAR Bulletin, No.6, September, p.66-72. CARRICK, R. 1964. Problems of conservation in and around the Southern Ocean. in: CARICK, R. (ed). Biologie Antarctique, SCAR Symposium, 2-8 September, 1962, Paris, Herman Press, p.589-98. CARVAJAL, E. M. 1982a. Completion and movement of the transmitter station in support of meteorology, in: SCAR, 1982. Report on Antarctic Logistics, Leningrad, USS'il,° 28 June - 3 July, 1982, p.30-7. CARVAJAL, E. M. 1982b. Runway at 'Rodolfo Marsh Martin' station, in: Scientific Corrnnittee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), 1982. Report on Antarctic Logistics, Leningrad, USSR, 28 June - 3 July, 1982, p.144-55. COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 1973. Regulations for the European Diploma, Resolution (73) - 4, Adopted by the C~ittee of Ministers on 19 January, 1973, at the 217th Meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, pp.28. CROZE, H. 1984. Global monitoring and biosphere reserves, in: UNESCO, Conservation, Science and Society, Contributions to th~First International Biosphere Reserve Congress, Minsk, USSR, 26 September - 2 October, 1983, p.145-50. CUMPSTON, J. S. 1968. Macquarie Island, ANARE Scientific Reports, Series A(l), Narrative, Government Printing Office, Canberra, pp.380. CROXAL, J. P. 1984. Seabirds, in: LAWS, R. M. (ed). 1984. Antarctic Ecology, Academic Press, p-:S33-621. 86 DATER, H. M. 1965a. Hallett Station - from idea through to the IGY. Antarctic Journal of the Unite~ States, Vol.6, No.5, p.21-31. DATER, H. M. 1965b. Hallett Station - from the IGY to summer station status. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol.6, No.6, p.19-32. de BONNEUD, L. 1976. N. E. Greenland national park. Parks, Vol.l, No.I, p.9-11. DELL, R. K. 1972. Antarctic benthos. Advances 1n Marine Biology, Vol.10, p.2-216. DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT. 1984. Report of the Task Force on Northern Conservation, Ottawa, Department of Indian Affairs and~orthern Development, December, 1984, pp.48. DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND SURVEY (New Zealand Government), 1962. Cape Crozier Map Sheet, 1:50 OOO scale, Wellington. DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (DSIR, New Zealand Government), 1963. Seabee Spit, Cape Hallet Antarctica, Map Sheet, New Zealand Government Printer, Wellington. di CASTRI, F.and LOOPE, L. 1977. Biosphere reserves: theory and practice~ature and Resources, Vol.13, No.I, January - March, p.2-5. DREWRY, D. J. (ed). 1983. Antarctica: Glaciological and Geophysical Folio, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge. DUBROVIN, L. I. and PETROV, V. N. 1967. Scientific Stations in Antarctica 1882-1963, Polar Information Services, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., pp.429. EDWARDS, R. Y. 1953-4. The Achilles heel of wildlife preservation. Orynx, Vol.2, p.179-80. EKLUND, C.R. 1964. Population studies of Antarctic seals and birds, in: CARRICK, R. (ed). 1964. Biologie Antarctique, SCAR Symposium, 2-8 September, 1962, Paris, Herman Press, p.415-19. ENGLAND, J. 1983. Ellesmere Island needs special attention. Canadian Geographic, Vol.103, No.3, p.8-17. FREDRICKSON, L. H. 1971. Environmental awareness at Hallet Station. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol.6, No.3, p.57. GEREIN, H.J. F. 1980. Conununity Planning and Development in Canada's Northwest Territories, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada. GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, 1984. The Future of the Antarctic, Background for the Second Un1ted Nation~Debate, 22 October, 1984. HANEVOLD, T. 1971. Inspections in Antarctica. Nordic Journal of International Politics, Vol.2, p.103-114. 87 HARRISON, J. 1984a. Maintaining a database on the world's protected areas. Parks, Vol.7, No.4, p.3-5. HARRISON , J . 1984b. PADU - evolving directions, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Working Session of IUCN's Cormnission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Madrid, 3-4 November"; p.43-6. HARRISON, J. 1984c. An international data bank on biosphere reserves and the need for standardisation, in: UNESCO, Conservation, Science and Society, Contributions to the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress, Minsk, USSR, 26 September - 2 October 1983, p.371-6. HARROWFIELD, D. L. 1983. Historical archaeology in Antarctica. New Zealand Antarctic Record, Vol.l, No.3, p.45-50. HEADLAND, R. K. 1984. The Island of South Georgia, Cambridge University Press, pp . 293. HEADLAND, R. K. 1985. The Antarctic Treaty signatories: signatories and dates. Polar Record, Vol.22, No.139, p.438-9. HEADLAND, R. K. (in preparation). A Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related HistorTcal Events, Polar Research Series, Cambridge University Press. HEADLAND, R. K. and KEAGE, P. L. 1985. Activities on King George Island grou~South Shetland Islands , Antarctica. Polar Record , Vol.22, No.140, p.475-84. HEAP, J. A. and HOLDGATE, M. W. (in press). The Antarctic Treaty system as an environmental mechanism: an approach to environmental issues, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop~ the Antarctic Treaty Syste;:- 7-13 January, 1985. HEYWARD, R. B. 1977. Freshwater ecosystems : review and synthesis, in: LLANO, G. A. (ed). 1977. Adaptations Within Antarctic Ecosyste~, Proceedings of the Third SCAR Symposiun on Antarctic Biology, Washington D. C., 26-39 August , 1974, p.801-28. HOLDGATE, M. W. 1970a. Conservation in Antarctica, in: HOLDGATE, M. W. (ed). 1970. Antarctic Ecology , Scientific co;;:;iittee for Antarctic Research, Academic Press, Vol.2, p.921-45. HOLDGATE, M. W. 1970b. p.959, in: HOLDGATE, M. W. (ed). 1970. Antarctic Ecology, Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, Academic Press. HOLDGATE, M. W. 1977. Terrestrial ecosystems in the Antarctic, in: Scientific Research in the Antarctic, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society"c;'f London, Series B, No.279, p.5- 25. HOLDGATE, M. W. 1984. The use and abuse of polar environmental resources. Polar Record, Vol.22 , No.136, p.25-48. HOLDGATE, M. W. and ROBERTS, B. B. 1961. Wild Life Laws Relating To The Antarctrc:-and Subantarctic, prepared for Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scott Polar Research Institute . 88 HOLT, S. J. and TALBOT , L. M. 1978. New Principles for the Conservation of Wild Living Reso~es, The Wildlife:3ociety of the United States of America, Wildlife Monograph No.59, pp.32. HOOK, E. K. 1978. Criminal jurisdiction in Antarctica. University of Miami Law Review, Vol.33, No.2, December , p.489-514. HORSLER, A. 1984. p.327-39, in: HARRIS, S. (ed). 1984. Australia's Antarctic Policy Options'; Centre for ·Environmental Studies, Monograph No.11, Australian National University Press, Canberra . IMSHAUG, H. A. 1972. Need for conservation of terrestrial vegetation in the subantarctic, in: PARKER, B. C. (ed). Proceedings of the Colloquium on Conservation Problems in Antarctica, 10-12 September 1971, Virginia Polytechnic-Ynstitute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p . 229-38. INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN), 1978. Categories, Objectives and Criteria For Protected Areas, Corrnnittee on Criteria and Nomenclature Corrnnission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Gland. INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN), 1980. World Conservation Strategy, Gland. INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN), 1981. IUCN General Assembly Resolution on Antarctica's Environment and the Southern Ocean. INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (IUCN), 1984. Categories , objectives and criteria for protected areas, Corrnnittee on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA), in : McNEELY, J. A. and MILLER, K. R. (eds). 1984. National Parks, Conservation and Development - The Role of Prot ected Areas in Sustaining~ciety , IUCN, Gland,~7-53. IUCN Bulletin, 1979. A whale sanctuary. Vol.10, No.4, p.25. IUCN Bulletin, 1980. What the World Conservation Strategy says about Antarctica, Vol.11, Nos. 7-8, p.77-80. JOHNSTON, B. R. 1971. Skua numbers and conservation problems at Cape Hallett, Antarctica. Nature, Vol.231, No.5303, 1971, p.468. KEYS, J. R. 1985. Antarctic Marine Environments and Offshore Oil, Connnission for the Environment, New Zealand Government, Wellington, pp.168. KNOX, G. A. 1983. The living resources of the Southern Ocean: a scientific overview, in: ORREGO VICUNA, F. (ed). 1983. Antarctic Resources Policy - Scientific, Legal and Political Issues, Cambridge University Press , p.12-60 . LAWS, R. M. 1953. The Elephant seal industry at South Georgia. Polar Record, Vol.6, No.46, p.746-54. LAWS, R. M. 1972. Seals and birds killed and captured in the Antarctic Treaty area, 1964 to 1969. Polar Record, Vol.16, No.101, p.343-45. 89 LAWS, R. M. 1973. Harvesting the sea. Polar Record , Vol.16, No.103, p.541-52 . LAWS, R. M. 1977. The significance of vertebrates in the Antarctic marine environment, in: Llano, G. A. (ed). 1977. Adaptations Within Antarctic Ecosystems, Proceedings of the Third SCAR Symposium on Antarctic Biology, Washington D.C., 26-30 August, 1974, p.411-38. LAWS, R. M. 1984. Seals, in: LAWS, R. M. (ed). Antarctic Ecology, Academic Press, p.621-716. LEDINGHAM, R. B. 1979. 1978 expedition to renovate the 1911-13 Australasian Antarctic Expedition base hut. Polar Record, Vol.19, No.122, p.485-92. LIPPS, J. H. 1978. Man's impact along the Antarctic Peninsula, in: PARKER, B. C. (ed). 1978. Environmental Impact in Antarctica'"; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p.333-70. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT (NORWAY), 1981. Environmental Regulations for Svalbard, Revised Edition, pp.43. MORELLI, F. A., CAMERON, R. E., GENSELL, D.R. and Randall, L. P. 1978. Monitoring Dry Valley drilling sites,in: PARKER, B. C. 1978. Environmental Impact in Antarctica, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p.145-49. MORGAN, I. R., CAPLE, I. W., WESTBURY, H. A. and CAMBELL, J. 1978. Disease Investigations of Penguins and Elephant Seals on Macquarie Island, Department of Agriculture, Victoria State Government (Australia), Research Project Series No.47, April, pp.51. MOSLEY, G. 1983. Antarctica: how we can save it. Habitat, Vol.11, No.6, p.2-7. MOSLEY, G. 1984a~ The natural option: the case for an Antarctic world park, in: HARRIS, S. (ed). 1984. Australia's Antarctic Policy Option"s';" Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Monograph No.11, Australian National University, Canberra, p.307-27. MOSLEY, J. G. 1984b. Concepts for protected areas, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Working Session of IUCN's CommTssion on National Parks and Protected Areas-,-Madrid, 3-4 November":- MUNN, R. E. 1973. Global Environmental Monitoring Systems (GEMS) - Action Plan for Phase 1, Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Report No.3, pp.130. MUNN, R. E. (ed). 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment, Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), John Wiley and Sons. MURPHY, R. C. 1941. Conservation and scientific forecast. Science, Vol.93, No.2426, p.603-9. 90 MURPHY, R. C. 1962. Antarctic conservation. Science, Vol.135, No.3499, p.194-7. MURPHY, R. C. 1964. Conservation of Antarctic fauna, in: Biologie Antarctique, SCAR Symposium, 2-8 September, 1962,~aris, Herman Press, p.573-7. MYERS, C. E., HATCHER, R. F., TUCKER, R. C. and WAUGH, N. S. 1980. Environmental assessment of Antarcti~ research. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.14, No.6, p.668-72. NELSON, J. G. and JENSEN, S. 1984. Planning and Managing Environmentally Significant Areas in the~rthwest Territories: Issues and Alternatives, Canadian Arctic Resources Cormnittee and Faculty--;;I Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo (Northwest Territories Series 1), pp.139. ORREGO VICUNA, F. 1983. Antarctic resources policy: an introduction, in: ORREGO VICUNA, F. (ed). 1983. Antarctic Respources Policy - ~ientific, Legal and Political Issues, Cambridge University Press, p.1-12. PAHLSSON, L. 1984. Reference areas with representative types of nature in the Nordic countries and the proposed ECE system of representative ecological areas, in: UNESCO, Conservation, Science and Society, Contribution-;-to the First International Biosphere Reserve Congress, Minsk, USSR, 26 September - 2 October 1983, p.233-41. PARKER, B. C. 1972. Conservation of freshwater habitats on the Antarctic Peninsula, in: PARKER, B. C. (ed). Proceedings of the Colloquium on Conservation Problems in Antarctica, 10-12 ~ ~- September, 1971, Virginia Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p.143-62. PARKER; B. C., HOWARD, R. V. and ALLNUTT, F. C. T. 1978. Surmnary of environmental monitoring""of the DVDP, in: PARKER, B. C. (ed). 1978. Environmental Impact in Antarctica, Virginia Polytechnic Ins .titute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p.211-51. PARKS, 1984. Reserve boundary marker, Vol.9, No.2, p.21. PASCOE, J. G. 1984. A census of South Polar skua at Cape Hallet, Antarctica. Notornis, Vol.31, Part 4, p.312-19. PIMM, S. L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, Vol.307, No.26, January, p.321-26. PRYDE, P.R. 1984. Biosphere reserves in the Soviet Union. Soviet Geography, Vol.25, No.6, p.398-408. RAY, G. C., McCORMICK- RAY, M. G. and TICCO, P. C. 1984. A protected area system for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Working Session of°"""rUCN's Commission o'it'Nattonal Parks and Protected Areas,~adrid, 3-4 November":" p.65-9. 91 RAY, G. C. (in press). Identification and selection of protected areas for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, in: Proceedings of the Joint IUCN/SCAR Symposium on Scientific Requirements for Antarctic Conservation, Bonn, 22-26 April, 1985. REYMERT, P. K. 1979. Cultural monuments on Svalbard. Polar Record, Vol . 19 , No.121, p.337-42. RISEBROUGH, R., DAYTON, P., IMSHAUG, H., SAMSEL, G. and SCHOFIELD, E. 1972. Sunnnary of the work group on the evaluation of the Agreed Measures, in: PARKER, B. C. (ed). 1972. Proceedings of the Colloquium'c;n Conservation Problems in Antarctica, 10-1-2~ September, 1971, Virginia Polytechni~Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p.309-12. ROBERTS, B. B. 1966. Wildlife conservation in the Antarctic. Oryx, Journal of the Fauna Preservation Society, April, Vol.8, No.4, p 232-43. ROBERTS, B. B. 1977. Conservation in the Antarctic, in: Scientific Research in the Antarctic, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, No.279, p.97-104. ROBERTS, B. B. 1978. International co-operation for Antarctic development: the test for the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Record, Vol.19, No.119, p.107-20. RUDOLPH, E. D. 1970. Conserving the Antarctic terrestrial ecosystem. Biological Conservation, Vol.3, No.I, p.52-4. RUDOLPH, E. D. and BENNINGHOFF, W. S. 1977. Competitive and adaptive responses of invading versus indigenous biotas in Antarctica - a plea for organised monitoring, in: LLANO, G. A. (ed). 1977. Adaptations Within Antarctic Ecosystems, Proceedings of the Third SCAR Symposiun on Antarctic Biology, Washington D.C., 26-30 August, 1974, p.1211-26. SCAR Bulletin, 1959, No.3, September, p. 40-1. SCAR Bulletin , 1960, No.5, May, p.63. SCAR Bulletin , 1961a , Conservation of nature in Antarctica, Vol. 8 , No.68, May, p.103-11. SCAR Bulletin , 19 61 b , No . 7 , January , p .1 03-1 1. SCAR Bulletin , 1969, No . 32 , May, p.751. SCAR Bulletin, 1975 , No .49 , J anuary, p. 59- 86 . SCAR Bulletin, 1977a, SCAR Working Group on Biology , Repor t of an informal meeting held in Cambridge , 17-18 May , 1976, No . SS , p.165-72. SCAR Bulletin, 1978, No.60 , September, 146. SCAR Bulletin, 1978, No.60, September, p.107-8. SCAR Bulletin, 1982, No.70, January, p.2. 92 SCAR Bulletin, 1983, No . 73, January, p.50. SCAR Bulletin, 1984, No.77, May, p.34. SCAR Bulletin, 1985, No.BO, May, p.577-87. SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ANTARCTIC RESEARCH (SCAR), 1972. SCAR Manual, pp .128. SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ANTARCTIC RESEARCH (SCAR), 1981. Constitution, Procedures and Structure, Amendments to the SCAR Manual 1972, Cambridge, pp.19. SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ANTARCTIC RESEARCH (SCAR) and SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON OCEANIC RESEARCH (SCOR), 1977. Biological Investigations of Marine Systems and Stocks (BIOMASS), Vol.l: Research Proposals, pp.79. SCHOFIELD, E. 1972. Preserving the scientific value of cold desert ecosystems: past and present practices and a rationale for the future, in: PARKER, B. C. (ed). Proceedings of the Colloquium on Conservation Problems in Antarctica, 10-12 September, 1971, ~ Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, p.193-226. SCULLY. R. T. 1983. Alternatives for cooperation and institutionalization in Antarctica, in: ORREGO VICUNA, F. (ed). 1983. Antarctic Respources Policy - Scientific, Legal and Political Issues, Cambridge University Press, p.281-96-.~ SLADEN, W. J. L. 1970, in: HOLDGATE, M. W. (ed). 1970. Antarctic Ecology, Scientifi"'c""Committee for Antarctic Research, Academic Press, p.950. SLAM, R. V. and CLARK, J. R. 1982. Marine Coastal Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers, International Union for the Conservati~ of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, pp.302. SOKOLOV, V. 1981. The biosphere reserve concept in the USSR. AMBIO, Vol.10, No.2-3, p.97-101. SOKOLOV, V. E. and CHERNOV, Y. I. 1983. Arctic ecosystems: conservation and development in an extreme environment, Nature and Resources, Vol.19, No.3, p.2-9. STUDD, G. 1983. British Antarctic Survey Air Operations Manual, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge. STUMP, E., LAIRD, M. G., BRADSHAW, J. D., HOLLOWAY, J. R., BORG, S. G. and LAPHAM, K. E. 1983. Bowers graben and associated tectonic features cross northern Victoria Land. Nature, No.304, 28 July, 1983, p.334-6. SUTER, K. D. 1980. World Law And The Last Wilderness, Second Edition, Friends of the Earth, Sydney, pp.120. THOMSON, R. B. 1977. Effcts of human disturbance on an Ad~lie penguin rookery and measures of control, in: LLANO, G. A. (ed). 1977. Adaptations Within Antarctic Ecosystems, Proceedings of the Third SCAR Symposiun on Antarctic Biology, Washington D.C., 26-30 August, 1974, p.11177-80. UGOLINI, R. E. 1970. in: HOLDGATE, M. W. (ed). 1970. Antarctic Ecology, Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, Academic Press, p.951. UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (UNESCO), 1981. List of National Comrnittees for the Progrannne on Man and the Biosphere-,-UNESCO, July, pp.139.~- -~ ~ ~- UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (UNESCO), 1983. MAB Information System, Biosphere Reserves, Prepared for UNESCO by the Protected Areas Data Unit of the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, pp.61. UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1978. Department of the Interior , 1978. Webb Lake, 1:50 OOO Map Sheet. UNITED STATES PROJECT OFFICER, 1961. Antarctic Stations, Washington, D.C., pp.SI. WALTON, D. W. H. 1984. The terrestrial environment, in: LAWS, R. M. (ed). 1984. Antarctic Ecology, Academic Press, p.1-60. WHITE, M. G. 1984. Marine benthos, in: LAWS, R. M. (ed). 1984. Antarctic Ecology, Academic Pre~, p.421-62. WILSON, G. J. 1979. Oiled penguins in Antarctica. New Zealand Antarctic Record, Vol.2, No.2, p.3. WILSON, G. J . 1983. Distribution and Abundance of Antarctic and Sub- Antarctic Penguins:! synthesis of Current Knowledge, BIOMASS Working Party on Bird Ecology, Cambridge, pp.45. WILSON, G. J. 1984. Distribution and abundance of penguins in the Ross Sea sector of Antarctica. New Zealand Antarctic Record, Vol.6, No.I, p.1-7. WYNDHAM, R.H. (ed). 1973. Report of the Working Group on Legal and Political Questions, [unpublished~eport of Informal Meeting of Experts (Antarctic Treaty), Oslo, May - June. YAFFEE, S. L. 1982. Prohibitive Policy, Implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act, MIT Studies in American Politics and Public Policy, No.9~IT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp.239. ZENTILLI, B. 1977. Determining national park boundaries. Parks, Vol.l, No.4 , p.7-10. ZUMBERGE, J. H. (ed). 1979. Possible Enviromental Effects of Mineral Exploration and Exploitation in Antarctica, An Adaptation of a Report of the Group of Specialists on the Environmental Impact of Mineral Respource Exploitation and Exploitation in Antarctica (EAMREA), convened by SCAR in response to Antarctic Treaty Reconnnendation VIII-4, SCAR, March, 1979, pp.59. 94 APPENDIX 1. 1. Dates and Places of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. Antarctic Treaty signed 1 December, 1959 - in force 23 June 1961. I - 10 to 24 July, 1961, Canberra. II - 18 to 28 July, 1962, Buenos Aires. III - 2 to 13 June, 1964, Brussels. IV - 13 to 18 November, 1966, Santiago. V - 18 to 29 November, 1968, Paris. VI - 19 to 31 October, 1970, Tokyo. VII - 30 October to 10 November, 1972, Wellington. VIII - 9 to 20 June, 1975, Oslo. IX - 19 September to 7 October, 1977, London. X - 17 September to 5 October, 1979, Washington. XI - 23 June to 7 July, 1981, Buenos Aires. XII - 13 to 27 September, 1983, Canberra. 2. Dates and Places of General Assemblies of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. I [inaugural] - 3 to 5 February, 1958, The Hague. II 4 to 11 August, 1958, Moscow. III 2 to 6 March, 1959, Canberra. IV - 29 August to 2 September, 1960, Cambridge. V 9 to 14 October, 1961, Wellington. VI 20 to 24 August, 1962, Boulder. VII 23 to 27 September, 1963, Cape Town. VIII - 24 to 29 August, 1964, Paris. IX - 20 to 24 September, 1966, Santiago. X - 10 to 15 June, 1968, Tokyo. XI - 17 to 22 August, 1970, Oslo. XII - 14 to 19 August, 1972, Canberra. XIII - 3 to 7 September, 1974, Jackson Hole. XIV 18 to 23 October, 1976, Mendoza. XV 16 to 26 May, 1978, Chamonix. XVI 14 to 24 October, 1980, Queenstown. XVII - 5 to 9 July, 1982, Leningrad. XVIII- 1 to 5 October, 1984, Bremerhaven. 'I I 111,, APPENDIX 2. Monum,mts identified by the Antarctic Treaty as Sites of Historic Interest. 1. Flag mast erected in December 1965 at the South Geographical Pole by the First Argentine Overland Polar Expedition . 2. Rock cairn and plaques at 'Syowa' Station in memory of Shin Fukushima, a member of the 4th Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition, who died in October 1960 while performing his duties. 3. Rock cairn and plaque on Proclaimation Island, Enderby Land, erected in January 1930 by Sir Douglas Mawson. The cairn and plaque commemorate the landing on the Island of Sir Douglas Mawson with a party of men from the British, Australian and New Zealand Research Expedition of 1929-31. 4. Station building to which the bust of V. I. Lenin is fixed, together with a plaque in memory of the conquest of the Pole of Inaccessibility by Soviet Antarctic explorers in 1958 . 5. 6. 7. Rock cairn and plaque at Cape Bruce, Mac.Robertson Land, erected in February 1931 by Sir Douglas Mawson. The cairn and plaque commemorate the landing on the Cape of Sir Douglas Mawson with a party of men from the British, Australian and New Zealand Research Expedition of 1929-31. Rock cairn at Walkabout Rocks, Vestfold Hills, Princess Elizabeth Land, erected in 1939 by Sir Hubert Wilkins. The cairn contains a canister containing a record of his visit. Stone with inscribed plaque, erected at Mirny Observatory, Mabus Point , in memory of driver-mechanic Ivan Khmara who perished on fast ice in 1954. 8. Metal monument-sledge at Mirny Observatory,. Mabus Point, with plaque in memory of driver-mechanic Anatoly Shcheglov who perished in the performance of official duties. 9. Cemetery on Buromskiy Island, near Mirny Observatory, in which are buried Soviet, Czechoslovakian and GDR citizens, members of the Sovi e t Antarctic Expedition, who perished in 1960. 10. Building (magnetic observatory) at 'Dobrowolsky' Station, Bunger Hills, with plaque in memory of the opening of 'Oasis' Station in 1956. 11. Heavy tractor at 'Vostok' Station with plaque in memory of the opening of the Station in 1957. 12 . Cross and plaque at Cape Denison, George V Land, erected in 1913 by Sir Douglas Mawson on a hill situated 300 metres west by south from the main hut of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-14 . The cross and plaque commemorate Lieutenant B. E. S. Ninnis and Dr. X. Mertz, members of the expedition, who died in 19 13. 13. Hut at Cape Denison, George V Land, built in January 1912 by Sir Douglas Mawi;on for the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911- 14. 14. Remains of a rock shelter at Inexpressible Island, Terra Nova Bay, constructed in March 1912 by Victor Cambell's Northern Party, British Antarctic Expedition, 1910-13. 15. Hut at Cape Royds, Ross Island, built in February 1908 by Ernest Shackelton. 16. Hut at Cape Evans, Ross Island, built in January 1911 by Captain Robert Falcon Scott. 17. Cross on Wind Vane Hill, Cape Evans, Ross Island, erected by the Ross Sea Party of Ernest Shackelton's Trans-Antarctic Expedition, 1914-16, in memory of three members of the Party who died in the vicinity in 1916. 18. Hut at Hut Point, Ross Island, built in February 1902 by Captain Robert Falcon Scott. 19. Cross at Hut Point, Ross Island, erected in February 1904 by the British Antarctic Expedition, 1901-04, in memory of T. Vince, a member of the expedition who died in the vicinity. 20. Cross at Observation Hill, Ross Island, erected in January 1913 by the British Antarctic Expedition, 1910-13, in memory of Captain Robert Falcon Scott's party which perished on the return journey from the South Pole, March 1912. 21. Stone Hut at Cape Crozier, Ross Island, constructed in July 1911 by Edward Wilson's party (British Antarctic Expedition, 1910-13) during the winter journey to collect Emperor penguin eggs. 22. Hut at Cape Adare built in February 1899 during the 'Southern Cross' Expedition led by C. E. Borchgrevink. There are three huts at Cape Adare: two date from Borchgrevink's expedition, and one from Scott's Northern Party, 1910-11. 23. Grave at Cape Adare of Norwegian biologist, Nicolai Hanson, a member of C. E. Borchgrevink's 'Southern Cross' Expedition, 1899- 1900. This is the first known grave in Antarctica. 24. Rock cairn known as "Amundsen's Cairn", on Mount Betty, Queen Maud Range erected by Roald Amundsen on 6 January, 1912, on his way back to 'Framheim' from the South Pole. 25. Hut and plaque on Peter I 0y , built by the Norwegian Captain Nils Larsen in February 1929 at 'Framnaesodden'. 26. Abandoned installation of Argentine Station 'General San Martin' on Barry Island, Debenham Islands, Marguerite Bay, with cross, flag mast and monolith built in 1951. 27. Cairn with plaque on Megalestris Hill, Petermann Island, erected in 1909 by the second French expedition led by J. -B. Charcot. 97 11 111 1 I' I 1111111 28. Rock cairn at Port Cha~cot, Booth Island, with wooden pillar and plaque inscribed with 1~he names of the first French expedition led by J. -B. Charcot which wintered there in 1904 aboard 'Le Fran~ais'. 29. Light-house named 'Primero de Mayo' erected on Lambda Island, Melchoir Islands, by Argentina in 1942. 30. Shelter at Paradise Habour erected in 1950 near the Chilean Base 'Gabriel Gonzales Videla' to honour Gabriel Gonzales Videla, [said by Chile to be] the first Head of State to visit the Antarctic. 31. Memorial plaque marking the position of a cemetry on Deception Island where some 40 Norwegian whalers were buried in the first half of the twentieth century, The cemetry was swept away by a volcanic ereption in February 1969. 32. Concrete monolith erected in 1947, near 'CapitAn Arturo Prat' Base on Greenwich Island. Point of reference for Chilean Antarctic hydrographic work. 33. Shelter and cross with plaque near 'Arturo Prat' Base on Greenwich Island. Named in memory of Lieutenant-Commander Gonzalez Pacheco, who died in 1960. 34. Bust of Chilean naval hero Arturo Prat erected in 1947 at the Base of the same name on Greenwich Island. 35. Wooden cross and statue of the Virgin of Carmen erected in 1947 near 'CapitAn Arturo Prat' Base on Greenwich Island. There is also nearby a metal plaque of the Lions International Club. 36. Metal plaque at Potter Cove, King George Island, erected by Edward Dallmann to commemorate the visit of the German expedition of 1 March, 1874. 37. Statue of Bernardo O'Higgins, erected in 1948 in front of the Station of the same name. 38. Hut on Snow Hill Island built in January 1903 by a party of th~ Swedish South Polar Expedition, led by Otto Nordenskjold. 39. Stone Hut at Hope Bay built in January 1903 by a party of the Swedish South Polar Expedition, led by Otto Nordenskjold. 40. Bust of General San Martin, grotto with a statue of the Virgin Lujan, and a flag mast at Base 'Esperanza', Hope Bay, erected by Argentina in 1955; together with a graveyard with stele in memory of members of Argentine expeditions who have died in the area. 41. Stone Hut on Paulet Island built in February 1903 by C. A. Larsen, Norwegian captain of the wrecked vessel 'Antarctic' of the Swedish South Polar Expedition, led by Otto Nordenskjold, together with a grave of a member of that expedition. \\I I 111 111 11 42. Area at Scotia Bay, Laurie Island, South Orkney Islands, in which are found: stone hut built in 1903 by the Scottish Expedition led by W. S. Bruce: the Argentine Meteorological and Magnetic Observatory, built in 1905; and a graveyard with seven tombs (dating from 1903). 43. Cross er ected in 1955, at a distance of 1 300 metres north-east of the Argentine base 'General Belg~ano' at Piedrabuena Bay, Filchner Ice Shelf. 44. Plaque erected at the temporary Indian Station 'Dakshin Gangotri', Princess (sic) Astrid Kyst, Dronning Maud Land, listing the names of the members of the First Indian Antarctic expedition which landed nearby on 9 January, 1982. SOURCE: Annex to Antarctic Treaty Reconunendation VII-9, and the Report of the XIIth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. I\ 11 I 111 I APPENDIX 3. Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) . Site l ocations are given in Figures 4 and 5 - r es pectively. SPAs APPROXIMATE AREA (sq.km) 1. Taylor Rookery, Mac.Robertson Land 2. Rookery I s lands, Holme Bay 3. Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast 4 . Sabrina Islet, Balleny Islands 5. Beaufort I s land, Ross Sea 6. Cape Crozier, Ross Is land (see SSSI No,4) 0.2 0.9 2.4 0.7 18.6 (18.0) DATE DESIGNATED OR PROPOSED ATCM IV ,November 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 R,!ASON FOR DESIGNATION SCAR MATRIX CODE Emperor penguin colony. One of the few colonies located wholly on l and . Ter restrial - Cl, El, Hl . Breed i ng site for six bird species. Two (Giant petrel and Cape pet rel ) occur nowhere else in the reg ion. Terres tria l - El, Hl. Breed i ng site for several bird s pecies . Terrestrial - Bl, Cl, Dl , El, Hl. Island support s r epresenta t ive fauna and flora whi ch have a high latitude ~istribution . Terres t rial - Cl, Dl, El , Hl. Important breeding location for several bird species i n the region. Island is a valuable reference area for research. Terrestrial - El , HI . ASSOCIATED HUMAN ACTIVITY (supplement a ry to Bonner and Smith, 1985) Field hut inside SPA manned continuously from 1967 to 1959. Regular winter and sununer visits to hut made from 'Mawson' (established 1954)(Dubrovin and Pet rov, 1971). Killing of penguins by es caped dogs h~been recorded but without long-term damage to penguin populations •. 'Mawson' station 140 km east . Mawson 30 km south-west . Field hut 2 1970, is 14 established which time scientific km east. ' Casey' station (Austra lia), establ ished km north, It replaced 'Wilkes' station , by the United States in 1957, closed 1969 , at it was operated by Australia. Sporadic visits. Occasional visits by ship and helicopter par ties. Occasional landings by helicopter from pas s ing ships and associated scientific activities. Or iginal designation - protect rich bird and mammal fauna and adjoining terrestrial elements, which are of outs tand i ng scientific value . SPA s tatus terminated 1975 . 100 Cape Hallet t, Victoria Land Dion ls lands, Marguerite Bay Green Island, Berthelot Is l ands Byers Peninsula, Livingston I s la nd, South Shetland I slands (see SSSI No.6) Cape Shirreff, Livingston I s land 0 .1 0.2 2.2 2.6 Fildes Penins ula, (27. 0) Ki ng George I sland, South Shetland I sland s (see SSS! No.5) (0. 1) 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 ATCK V 1968 Ri ch and diverse vegetation supporting a variety of t errestrial fauna and an i mpor tant bird breeding s i te. t errestrial - Bl, Cl, Dl, Hl , I s lands support the only breeding Emper or penguins on the west side of the Antarctic Peninsul a . Terrest r ial - Bl , Cl , Dl, El, Hl. Exceptional vegetative cover supporting a diverse Anta r ctic ecosystem. Terrestrial - Bl, Cl , El, Hl. A joint New Zealand and United States station operated continuously from 1957 to 1965 and then for summer s only . A road borders the SPA. Establishment of s tation displaced about 8 OOO Ad~lie penguins from a colony adajacent to the SPA. A significant reduction in t he breeding success of Skuas also recorded. In the Cape Hallett area, recovery of Ad~lie penguins or Skuas has no t been secured despite 10 years without station occupancy (Pas coe, 1984) . Removal of station constructions commenced in 1984 (Bonner and Smith, 1985). Occasional visits have included helicopt~landings by scientific parties from the F.R. Germany, New Zealand and United States , and tourist ships. Refuge hut on island. Island group occupied over winter in 1980 by a French private expedition aboard Damien.!.!_, Island is 6 km south-west of British and Argentine summer stations on the Argentine Islands , No major constructions. Or ig i nal designation - Protection of a large variety of fauna and flora in a small area which i s of scientific interest . Di ver sity of pl ant and a nimal l i fe , i ncluding Elephant seals, wh ich are of r esearch interest. Terrestrial - Bl, Cl , El, HI . I n land waters - Ml2, Q3-4 , Mar ine - S7, S8 , S9 . Or igi nal designa tion - protection of a bi ologically diverse region of out s tanding ecological i n te r es t, Rede s ignation - protection of one of several smal l lakes which, being ice-free in s ummer , are of ecological interest. 101 From 1819 to 1825 site of intensive sealing. No maj or constructions. Prior to SPA status, hangar and summer base constructions on Ardley Island. 'Bellingshausen' station (USSR) constructed in SPA in 1967, followed by 'Presidente Eduardo Frei' (Chile) , es t ablished in 1968. Several field hut s and refuges established on the Peninsula and off-lying islands (Headland and Keage, 1985). Considerable disturbance to wi ldlife around stat i ons and nearby penguin rookeries (Lipps, 1978) . 13. Moe Island, South Or kney Islands 14. Lynch I s land , South Or kney Islands 15 . Southern Powell Island group , South Or kney Islands 1.2 0.9 6. 2 16. Coppermi ne Peninsula, 0.7 Robert I sland, South Shetland Islands 17. Litchfie ld Island, 1.5 Arthur Habour, Southern Anvers I sland 2 TOTAL AREA 38.4 km ---- 1966 1966 1966 ATCM VI 19 70 ATCM Vlll 1975 PROPOSED SPAs WITHIN THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AREA 18. North Coronation Island , South Or kney I slands 19. Lagotel l erie Island, Marguer i te Bay SCAR XV~ll 1984 1984 A representative sample of the marine Antarctic ecosystem. An important reference site for compara tive -biological studies. Terrestrial - BI, Cl, El, HI. The most extensive coverage of Hair grass known in the Antarctic Treaty area. Terrestrial - Al, BI, Cl, El, HI . Maritime - SS-8. Substantial fauna and flora communities. Site includes a growing Fur seal population. Terrestrial - BI, Cl, Dl, El, FI, HI, No major constructions. Nearest ·station is 'Signy Island' (British), 3.6 km north-east. Surrounding sea is a Seal Reserve under the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals . No major constructions. Nearest station is 'Signy Island' (British) , 4.6 km south. Surrounding sea is a Seal Reserve under the Convention for the Conservat i on of Antarctic Seals . No major constructions. Nearest station is 'Orcadas' (Argentina) 10 km east . Surrounding sea is . a Seal Reserve under the Convention for the Conservat i on of Antarctic Seals, Inland waters-L4, LI!, Ll2, M4, P4, Q4. Marine - SS-9 , US-9 . Substantial fauna and flora communities of scientific interest. Chilean refuge hut on the isthmus but no other constructions. Nearest station is 'Arturo Prat' (Chile), 14 km south. Terrestrial - BI, Cl, DI, El, FI , HI. Inland waters - M4, Ml2. Marine - S7, SB, S94. Unusually rich terrestrial and ·marine li fe. Breeding location for six bird species. Terrestrial - Al, BI, Cl, DI, El, FI, HI . Mar ine - SS, S7, SS. Island is adjacent to three stations: 400 m south of 'Base N' (British) occupied from 1954 to 1958, and destroyed by fire in 1971 (Lipps, 1978) ; 'Old Palmer' station, occup ied from 1964 to 1968; and 1 km west of (new) 'Palmer' station (United States). Debris surrounding all station s is being removed (Bonner and Smith, 1985). Rarely visited coastline. Site includes continental ice, i ce-free land and inshore area. Remote plant community 90 km from the limit of their southern distribution. 102 20. Extension to Cape Hallett, SPA No .7 21. Caughley Beach, Ross Island 1984 1984 Near double the area of t he ex isting site to cover mo r e vegetated ground. Proposal to .se t aside a core a rea within a proposed SPA to protect mos s s t ands f r om i nt erfe r ence by visitors and research activities. 103 ~ SSS! APPROXIMATE AREA (sq . km) ------------ I. Cape Royds , 0. 3 Ross Island 2. Arr i val Heights, 0. 7 Ross Island 3. Barwick Valley, 300 Vi c toria Land 4 . Cape Crozier, 19. 3 Ross Island 5. Fildee Pennin&u la , 1. 8 King George !&land , South She tland Islands DATE DESIGNATED REASON FOR DESIGNATION ASSOCIATED BUMAN ACTIVITY OR PROPOSED SCAR MATRIX CODE (supplementary to Bonner and Smith, 1985) ---------------------------- --------------- ATCM VIII 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 Southernmos t Ad~lie penguin colony . Monitoring of penguin populations is of considerable scientifc va lue . Terrestrial - El, Hl . 'Radio-quite' zone for instrument a tion concerned with atmospheric research. Among the least disturbed and contaminated in the Dry Valleys of Victoria Land. Valuabl e reference site for comparative bi olog ical studies. Terrestria l - ES, E6 , ES, G5-8 . Inland wa t ers - K3-4, Kl 2, M3-4. Redisignat i on - important site for monitoring Ad~lie penguin populations. Terrestrial - BI, Cl, DI, El, Hl. Pr otection of fossils and Tertiary rock stra t a. Terrestrial - BI, Cl , DI, Hl. I nland wa ters - Ll, PI, QI. Marine - S5-9. 104 Penguins harvested by various expeditions in the early 1900s. Between 1955 and 1961, penguin populations nearly halved to 1 100 pairs. Reduction attributed to disturbance from 'McMurdo Sound' (United States ) and 'Scott Base ' (New Zealand), which are 36 km distant , and from frequent Visits by tourist vessels. Decline halted in 1963 by adoption of regulations agreed between United States and New Zealand , which limit visits to the site and overflying of aircraft (Thomson, 1977). Ad~lie penguin population now recovered its pre-1955 level. Various radio antennae, observatory bu i ldings and road works. Camps and depot s established over the years have been mainly cleared . Vashka Lake level monitored since 1971 / 2 season. 'Vanda' station (New Zealand) 15 km south . Station is serviced by helicopter . Helicopter landing area and a small hut adjacent to si te . Site includes the location of the message post left on the 1901-4 Discovery Expedition for the Morning. Adjacent is Wilson's stone igloo (H is toric Monument No.21). 'McMurdo' (United States) and ' Scott' (New Zeal and) stations are 70 km south-west . See Chapter 3, and Headland and Keage (1985) . 6 . Byers Pen ins ula, 28 .9 Livingston I sland, South Sh etland Islands 7. Haswell I sland, 0.8 Queen Ma r y Land 8 . Admiralty Bay, 13.6 King Geor ge Island, South She tland Islands 2 TOTAL AREA 365.4 km. 1975 1975 ATCM X PROPOSED SSS I WITHIN THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AREA 9. Port Fos t er, Deception Island, South She tland Islands 10. Chile Bay , Greenwich Island, South She tland Islands Protection of fossils. Terrestrial - Al, BI, Cl, DI, El, Hl. Inland waters - Kl2, Ll-4, .Ml-4, Ml2, Ni-2, Pl - 2. Marine - S7, S8, S9. Opportunities for research on several bird species. Terrestrial - Cl, DI, El, Hl. Protection of bird and mammal populations which are being studied. Terrestrial - Al, Bl, Cl, DI, EI, HI. Inland waters - Ll-4, Ml-4, Ml2, Pl-4, Ql-4. Marine - S5-9, U5-9. Preservation of two areas for scientific studies of the benthic in the caldera of Deception Island. Marine - S6, V6, W6. Preservation of two 'baseline' sites for comparative benthic research in the Antarctic. Marine - S8-9, V6. 105 Important sealing ground 1820-1825. No major const ructions. 'Mirny' station (Soviet Union) is 3 km south • . Neighbouring Buromskiy Island, 600 m south, i s a graveyard for the members of the Soviet expedition who perished in a fire at 'Mirny' in 1960. Buromskiy Island is an Historic Monument (Site No.9). 'Arctowski' station is 200m from the northern site boundary. The site of the Italian station 'Cincha Italia' (1976-7) is 400 m west of 'Arctowski'. Regular visits t·o site by tourist cruise ships (Headland and Keage, 1985). Sites are 2 to 3 km off-shore 'CapitAn Arturo Prat station (Chile) established in 1947. A 1 430 m landing strip for inter-continental aircraft on the shore of Greenwich Bay (600 m north of station) is proposed. Site deve lopmen t includes drainage of lagoons, site levelling using local aggregate and modification of the shoreline by the construction of a breakwater (Alarcon and others , 1982). See Chapter 4. ~- 11. South Bay, Dommer Is l a nd , Pa lmer Ar chi pe lago 12. Rother a Poin t , Adelai de I sland 13. Caughl ey Beach , Ross Island (Re fer SPA No. 21) 14. Tramway Ri dge, Ross I s l and 15. Canada Gl aci er , Victoria Land 16. Extension to Ca pe Royd s , Ross Is l a nd ( SSSI No . l ) 17. Maxwell Bay , Ki ng Geor ge I s land , South _She tla nd Is lands 18. Harmony Cove, Nelson I sland , South Shet land Is lands 19. Cape Pr i maver a , Danco Coast Recommended SCAR XVII 1978 Reco11DDended SCAR XVIII 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 Preservation of sub-tidal and benthic habitats to a depth of of 45 m for comparative studies. Marine - S5-7 , V5-6. Preservation of a botantical research s i te from nearby station activities . Establish a 'buffer' zone to a proposed SPA, which is the focus of continuing terrestrial biological studies . Preservation of one of the few locations in Antarctica of fumarolic vegetation associated with local volcani sm. An important site for continuing biological and limnological studies. Nearby 'Rothera' station (British) established in 1976. Station has a snow runway facility. Mainly United States and New Zealand scientific act1v1ty with emphasis on biology and geology . 'Cape Bird' (summer) station is. within 500 m and serviced by helicopter. Tourist cruise ships have visited under supervision. In 1979, oiled penguins observed at Cape Bird rookery (Wilson , 1979). Increased scientific activity in the site since 1971/2 by New Zealand, United States and Japanese scientists. Increasing scientific act1v1ty over the past decade. Hut established at Lake Fryxell (near the site) in 1978/9. Impacts around Lake Fryxell have included minor earthworks, erection and destruction by high winds of a glass-house, trampling of vegetation. The impact on the SPA is not known. To extend SSS! site No.I 500 m seaward. Preservation of the south-east coast of Maxwell Bay from i nterference to ma11DDal and seabird breeding areas. Preservation of representative fauna and flora for research s tudies. Preservation of seabird breeding s ites and tidal pools for continuing research. 106 20 . Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coas t 21 . Clark Pen i nsula, Budd Coas t 22. White Island, McMurdo Sound 23. Linnaeus Terrace, Victoria Land 24. Biscoe Point, Anvers Island 25. Deception Island, South Shetland I s lands 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 Preservation of moss and lichen stands 'tor comparative studies, including those on the impact of stat ion activities on vegetation. A.s above. Prese r vation of a population of Weddell seals on the north and wes t coa sts which feed under the Ross Ice Shelf . Preservation of fragile rock formation and associated b i ota f or continuing research . Preservation of large stands of two Antarctic flowering plants . Covers five areas on t he inner coast of Port Foster which are are being recolonised by plants fol l owing vo lcan i c al t eration to the landscape. Site adjoins the site of the rebuilt 'Casey' stat ion. The south and east boundary is a melt lake used to supply the station with water. A road forms the west and north boundary of of the site . The inner coast of Port Foster i nc l udes the sites of the Norwegian 'Hekto Whaling Company' fa ctory (1912-1931), 'Base B' (Br i tish) 1943-1968, 'Presidente Pedro Aguirre Corda' (Chile) 1954-1968, 'Decepcion' station (Argentina) 1947-1968. Extensive volcanic activity took place 1967-1971.