With What Shall I Mend It, Dear Liza, Dear Liza?

Two years after Farman et al. (1985)’s findings were published, the ‘Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer’ was agreed. Under the Protocol, there are legally binding regulations to phase out (in other words, gradually reduce to nothing) the production and use of CFCs worldwide. The Protocol is now signed by 197 nations and continues to undergo revisions to set new targets for the CFC phase out process (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment, n/d). The original target was to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999 (Hardy and Gucinski, 1989) but this progressed to a complete phase out by 1995 (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment). The Protocol does not only require CFCs to be phased out though. Other substances that can react with ozone are also targeted to be phased out. These substances are appropriately named as ‘ozone depleting substances’ (Weatherhead and Andersen, 2006). Furthermore, one fact to note is that the obligations for developing and developed countries are different. The total phase out target for developing countries is later than for developing countries, this reflects the fact that they may have a lower ability to adapt and find alternatives than developed countries.

How successful was the phase out?

There is wide consensus among academics, politicians, researchers and scientists that this protocol has been one of, if not, the most successful international treaty ever (for example, The Australian Government; Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations; Aronson et al. 2011; Fahey, 2013; Mӓder et al. 2010). Indeed, what these scholars and politicians consider a success is the way that the agreement has reduced emissions of CFCs. By banning the production of CFCs and phasing out their usage, fewer chlorine molecules are able to react with ozone. Therefore the total layer of ozone gas should be restored. For example, Mӓder et al. ran a regression to analyse the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in protecting the ozone layer. The authors conclude from their analysis that their models have proven the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol and the ozone layer is indeed protected by the regulations that came out of the Protocol.

This evidence seems convincing, right? I thought it was, until I came across a video by the National Geographic, which can be accessed here (apologies I am unable to post it up on this blog). The video states that the ozone hole (not layer!) peaked in 2008. Therefore despite the widespread appraisal of the Protocol, levels of ozone have not actually been increasing since the ban of CFCs. Additionally, when NASA measures the amount ozone in Antarctica using satellites, the results are unexpected, and counter what scientists, politicians, and the general public, believe about the success of this regulation. For instance, figure 1 shows that the amount of ozone over Antarctica through the years has only been increasing since the Protocol, with 2014 spring levels still significantly lower than in 1979. This means that since the ban of CFCs, ozone depletion has continued!

Figure 1. Ozone levels in October 1979, 1989, 1999 and 2014. Adapted from ‘Map Archives' from NASA (2015). The depth of the ozone hole is measured in Dobson units. Purple and blue indicate low levels of ozone. Green and red indicate high levels of ozone.

What can explain this? Does this mean that banning CFCs was ineffective? Not necessarily. There are many factors that affect the levels of CFCs that remain in the ozone layer. These factors can limit the effectiveness of banning CFCs. For example, the ban was implemented approximately 50 years after CFCs first came into use. This means that 50 years’ worth of chlorine and bromine molecules are currently present in the ozone layer, despite having been emitted years ago. Thus, although Montreal has been effective at preventing further chlorine and bromine molecules from reacting with ozone, it has been unable to alter the composition of CFCs that are still present in the stratosphere. Current CFCs in the stratosphere remains a challenge to address unless the international community wishes to physically remove them from the stratosphere. I am definitely not suggesting that they do this as this task is impossible to carry out! The point I would like to make is that, unfortunately, humans’ past actions are leaving an unwanted legacy on the ozone layer which is beyond human control. Solomon (2004) states that lifetimes of CFCs can be between 50 and 100 years, showing that this legacy is going to exist for a long time and will prevent the ozone layer from fully recovering in the short term.

Another influence on the ozone layer is climate. Solomon mentions that a warm spring can result in less ozone depletion, and therefore a cold spring can lead to more ozone depletion. Given this trend, global circulations such as the Arctic Oscillation can affect the levels of ozone that are observed in Antarctica. As my post on 22 October explained, the Arctic Oscillation affects the climate in Antarctica and can be used to explain the extent of ozone depletion (Zhou et al. 2001). A further climatic factor that affects the level of ozone is temperature. Weatherhead and Andersen (2006:41) mention that ‘colder conditions in the lower stratosphere promote the formation of polar stratospheric clouds which contribute to severe ozone depletion’. These factors show that climate can interfere with levels of ozone, and that ozone levels are interconnected with a whole range of natural climatic systems. This makes the analysis of ozone complicated and challenging to understand. Furthermore, because of the range of factors that affect ozone, the true effect of the Montreal Protocol will never be fully known. This means that celebrating the success of the Montreal Protocol may be naïve.

Conclusions

Although the Montreal Protocol has successfully reduced emissions of CFCs, this is not enough to deal with the problem of CFCs. CFCs are still in the stratosphere which means that the hole in the ozone layer will be present until the end of CFC lifetimes. Furthermore, climate also affects ozone levels. These additional determinants of ozone levels complicate scientists’ understanding of ozone and so it is difficult to understand how successful the Montreal Protocol really is. As figure 1 shows, ozone levels are worse now than they were before the Montreal Protocol. Because of this, perhaps celebrating the success of the Protocol is premature.

I would like to end this post with a reference to the song indicated in the title. This folk song is a story about a hole in a bucket that needs amending. In order to fix it, many actions are required until the character trying to fix it cannot because he ends up back where he started and the story forms a loop. In terms of the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol has found a solution in the long term. However in the short term, CFC molecules will continue to destroy ozone molecules until the end of the CFC's lifetimes. This means that no additional measures can be implemented to protect the ozone layer as these attempts will only lead us back to the same problem (i.e. the problem of having chlorine and bromine molecules that were emitted in the past in the stratosphere). This post therefore emphasises that human actions from the past can continue to have effects on the Antarctic environment. This means that measures taken in the present do not compensate for the negative impacts resulting from the past. Because of this, I believe that the Protocol has achieved all it can for the moment and only time will tell how effective it is at restoring the ozone layer to natural levels. For this reason, I will award a point to the positive side. Now the score is 7-5.

My next post will sadly be my last and this is where I'll summarise the key findings from my blog. Thanks for reading!

Images to Display the Main Points So Far

By reading the human impacts on Antarctica, it can be difficult to picture what’s actually going on. In my blog, I have tried to make the posts as visual as I can, because this illustrates the extent of the issues I have discussed. Particularly because Antarctica is remote and relatively uninhabited, I have used maps to show where the places I talk about are.

Having said this, I feel like illustrations need their own post so today, I will be presenting a range of photographs that relate to the main issues I have mentioned so far: tourism, waste, entanglement and krill.

Figure 1.

Clean up operation of an abandoned landfill site at Thala Valley. The site was used from the 1960s to 1980s. An Australian research station dumped approximately 1,000 tonnes of soil here, which contains remains of used batteries and machinery. Source: Royal Society of Chemistry (2007)

Figure 2.

Freshly caught krill. Source: Australian government: Department of the Environment, Antarctic Division (2012)

Figure 3.

Researcher carefully taking a sample from a contaminated site. Source: Australian government: Department of the Environment, Antarctic Division (2012)

Figure 4.

Tourists enjoying the company of an Emperor penguin chick. Source: Wikipedia (2009)

Figure 5

Runner from the Antarctic Marathon smiling at a penguin. Source: B Positive Project (2013)

Figure 6.

Source: Peabody Essex Museum (2008)

Figure 7.

Diver among krill. Source: Sarano and Duran (2010) ‘Oceans:Official Companion to the Disney Feature Film’

Figure 8.

350 foreign officials attend an Annual Antarctic Treaty Conference in Uruguay in 2010. Main discussions included tourism, climate change and sovereignty. Source: Merco Press (2010)

Before I end this post, I'd like to recommend a couple of blogs and websites that have a good selection of photos that I would encourage my readers to take a look at. Firstly, Flickr's Antarctica page has a great range of pictures taken by tourist, and can be accessed by clicking here. Secondly, I came across a website called Wild Nature Images which has many photographs posted on their website, and can be accessed by clicking here. 

Waste Regulation

In my last post, I discussed how Antarctica suffers from contamination from research stations. This makes regulation an important strategy to try and limit the impact of these activities on the environment.

Montreal Protocol

The Montreal Protocol, as I have mentioned in this blog before, contains two annexes that relate to waste and pollution. These two annexes are Annex III, waste disposal and waste management, and IV, prevention of marine pollution. Under the annexes, countries that own, operate and manage research stations should endeavour to dispose of the waste produced with consideration to the environment.

Annex III states that sewage should not be disposed of in the sea ice or on the ice shelf. But, what I find disappointing about this Annex is that it allows sewage to be disposed of directly into the sea. This clause states that where large amounts of sewage are disposed of in the sea, it should be treated by breaking it down (maceration), (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, accessed through Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011). It seems counter-productive to allow sewage disposal into the sea, but not onto the sea ice or ice shelf given that there are just as many or perhaps more species living in the sea. Additionally, sewage is more susceptible to spread across the ocean if it is allowed to be dumped here. This shows that while measures are put in place to reduce human impact, there are not strong enough, limiting the effect of them.

Analysing Annex III further, I discovered that pesticides are banned from the ice and sea, however pesticides used and discarded for scientific purposes are allowed. This hardly shows commitment to protecting the environment. Additionally, as mentioned in my post Antarctic Treaty post, under the Antarctic Treaty, there should be freedom of scientific investigation. This further limits the extent that scientific research stations are obliged to follow the regulations. The regulations concerning waste and waste disposal should apply to every user of the Antarctic though. If there are exceptions, countries will use scientific research as an excuse to allow harmful chemicals into the Antarctic environment. Furthermore, if research requires the release pesticides in the first place, perhaps this research should be questioned because it is harming the environment at the same time.

Sewage treatment facilities

A positive aspect resulting from the Protocol, however, is that it is incentivising countries to implement treatment facilities to reduce waste. The Guardian (2014) interviewed a cook on the McMurdo station who reported that waste that must be shipped costs money to dispose of. This indicates that regulation is increasing the research station’s costs. To deal with this, treatment plants are being built as an alternative to shipping waste out. Sewage treatment facilities remove unpleasant matter from the waste and then chemically or physically disinfect what’s left over (Gröndahl et al. 2009). Subsequently, the treated water is released into the environment without harmful chemicals in it. The critical question here is, are the sewage treatment facilities effectively removing harmful substances from the waste?

The Rothera Research Station (see figure 1) continued to dump human and food waste into the sea until 2003 when it built a sewage treatment plant (Hughes, 2004). Liquid waste was sterilised with UV which was then released into the North Cove (ibid). Hughes discovered that this plant has been successful at reducing concentrations of faecal coliform (a type of bacteria) in Rothera. Figure 2a) shows the distribution of this bacteria in 1999 and 2b) shows the concentration in 2004. It is evident that the plant successfully reduced faecal coliform concentration.

Figure 1. Map showing Rothera Station on the Antarctic Peninsula (far left). 

Source: CIRES (2013)

Figure 2. a) concentration of faecal coliform in February 1999

b) concentration of faecal coliform in February 2004.

Successful reduction of faecal coliform in Rothera resulting from the release of treated water. Source: Hughes (2004)

This example shows how sewage treatment plants can reduce the effect of sewage waste on the Antarctic environment.

How many research stations are building sewage treatment plants?

There are over 100 permanent, summer and field stations in Antarctica (Polar Conservation Organisation, n/d). Gröndahl et al. (2009) investigated 71 stations, table 1 shows the results. The authors found that 41 permanent stations operate with sewage treatment plants. Although this represents more than half of those studied, it also signifies that perhaps there aren’t enough operating given the severity of the contamination occurring.

Table 1. The number of stations with sewage with sewage treatment plants out of a sample of 71. Source: Gröndahl et al. (2009)

Having said this, building a sewage treatment plant in Antarctica is particularly difficult. Climate, remoteness and wildlife disturbance are special considerations that have to be made when designing the plant and these factors contribute to the difficulty. Additional challenges are faced during operation of the plant. For example, if a spare part is required, getting replacements may take months due to remoteness. This means that contingency plans should be put into place, for instance, where is the sewage going to be stored in the mean time? Furthermore, because of the harsh climate, the plant must ensure that pipes don't freeze during operation (Connor, 2008). These factors mean that repairs or maintenance work is almost impossible to undertake, especially during the winter. Because of this, the treatment plants must be designed to require as little maintenance as possible. Difficulties like these can discourage countries from building sewage treatment facilities near their research stations. Therefore these problems can limit the uptake of treatment plants as an effective method to reduce waste discharge into the environment.

Moreover, despite Hughes’ successful results, it is important to bear in mind that not all sewage treatment plants have been successful. For instance, the Maitri plant experienced large reductions in the pH of wastewater and a large proportion of treated water was not biodegradable despite being treated (Ghosh et al. 1997). This was due to mechanical malfunctions. The purpose of treating water is to ensure that safer water is discarded into the Antarctic environment for the protection of marine life. If treatment plants are unable to produce safer water, then the plant is not worth having. This therefore highlights the importance of minimising operational problems and malfunctions. Although due to the problems mentioned above, this task is immensely difficult, showing that waste management remains one of the biggest challenges faced in Antarctica.

This post has shown that regulation can be effective if treatment plants are implemented, but the success of these are limited if they are not fully functioning. Moreover, The Montreal Protocol has obligations that must be followed when regarding waste and sewage disposal, although this is also successful to a limited extent due to exemptions given to scientific research. In my view, more stringent rules must be introduced if Antarctic marine life and nearby waters are to be restored to their natural state, i.e. that without human interference.

I have argued that it is possible for a sewage treatment plant to successfully treat sewage to release less harmful substances into Antarctic waters. This reduces the negative human impacts arising from research stations. Therefore, the future looks promising and because of this, the scores for negative human impacts verses positive/ natural impacts on Antarctica are 6-4.

All in the Name of Research…

Given that thousands of humans reside in Antarctica every year working in research stations, it is unlikely that the environment is going to remain unchanged. The reason for this is that humans create waste everywhere they go. Food and sewage waste are created by the simple act of living in Antarctica, but waste resulting from the research itself is also one of the main problems. Waste from building materials, batteries, fuel drums and laboratory chemicals (Aronson et al. 2011) are additional types of waste that the Antarctic is subjected to. This post will focus of sewage waste from chemical and human waste, discussing what the effects are.

I find this topic particularly interesting because in my view, researchers would not want to criticise their work. Much attention and credit goes to the research itself rather than the effects of the process that led to the discovery. This means that the extent of the waste problem may not be widely known. However, the waste problem was recently in the news (The National Geographic, 2014), where a study discovered that penguins’ tissues were found to be contaminated by a toxic flame retardant. The contaminants were being passed on by fish. The flame retardant supposedly came from waste from the McMurdo Station and another New Zealand base.

Chemical and human waste from the McMurdo Research Station

In the 1950s, before the Montreal Protocol (see my post on the Antarctic Treaty) and before any regulation, sewage was dumped into Winter Quarters Bay in McMurdo Sound (see figure 1) by those working in the McMurdo Station (Landis, 1999). The region earned a reputation to become 'one of the higher toxic concentrations of any body of water on Earth' (Aronson et al. 2011: 90), which certainly left a legacy on the environment. Contamination occurred from the disposal of heavy metals such as zinc and arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyl from abandoned sites (such as the Wilkes Station, see figure 2), and as mentioned, flame retardants (Tin et al. 2009).

Figure 1. Winter Quarters Bay in McMurdo Sound. Adapted from University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2005)

Figure 2. Abandoned Wilkes Station

One example of the effect of contamination from the McMurdo research station is a change in the behaviour of heart urchins. Lenihan (1992) conducted an experiment in Winter Quarters Bay. The author compared the burrowing behaviour of heart urchins near the McMurdo station with those near the Jetty and Cinder Cones stations, which are supposedly uncontaminated. The results found that 'heart urchins did not burrow into Winter Quarters Bay bottom sediment' but they did in Jetty and Cinder Cones bottom sediments (ibid: 321). This shows that the behaviour of heart urchins has changed due to contamination. In particular, urchins are finding the seabed toxic which shows that their habitats have become unsafe for them. Therefore one key finding from this study is that contamination has reached the bottom of the seabed. The potential effects of this can even alter survival rates because if urchins do not reach the seabed, they are susceptible to predators. Furthermore, some heart urchins are being killed because of the concentrations of metals found. Biodiversity in Antarctic oceans, is therefore being threatened by human actions.

A study conducted by Negri et al (2006) investigated contamination in sediments, bivalves and sponges in McMurdo Sound, which lies in the same region as the McMurdo Station. Figure 3 is a map showing where the McMurdo Station is, relative to the sampling sites used in the study. Metal concentrations were measured in Antarctic soft shell clam, called Laternula elliptica, because they are largely abundant which means they are good indicators of metal accumulation (ibid). Sediments extracted from the sponge tissue from the clam found the highest concentrations of copper, zinc, silver, lead and cadmium (ibid) compared to the other sites. This shows just how contaminated McMurdo Sound has become due to anthropogenic activities. Additionally, in the book 'Need for real world assessment of the environmental effects of oil spills in ice-infested marine environments. POAC 81. The 6th international conference on port and ocean engineering under Arctic conditions, Quebec, 27-31 July 1981. Vol. II', Robbilliard and Busdosh found that the concentration of the soft clam in Winter Quarters Bay has substantially reduced. This evidence also shows that these metal substances are harmful to marine life in the Antarctic waters.

Figure 3. Map of McMurdo Sound and Negri et al. (2006)'s sampling sites. 

So in summary, while research centres are an opportunity to find out more about human disturbance in Antarctica, they also, ironically, contribute to the disturbance as well. Biodiversity in Antarctica is unique to Antarctica and is being threatened by research stations’ waste. This effect is exaggerated by the expansion of research centres across the continent. Above, I mentioned that these studies represent the legacy of past waste disposal. Since the Antarctic Treaty, regulations have been implemented to prevent waste and contamination from affecting this pristine environment. It’s just a shame that past actions are having long term effects on the marine life in Antarctica. Was the regulation implemented too late? According to Negri et al., Winter Quarters Bay may have supported a rich community of benthic organisms prior to pollution from the McMurdo station, but communities have failed to recover since regulation was implemented. This indicates that perhaps it may have been.

It is important to stress that this post is not a criticism of the research undertaken, as written in my previous post, research is immensely valuable. It finds the effects of human activities and therefore helps find solutions. Rather, this post is a way of analysing the unintended consequences of the research. As was the case with regulating tourism, I emphasise again that more needs to be done to regulate waste. Next time, I focus on waste regulation. The scores for negative human impacts verses positive/ natural impacts on Antarctica are 6-3. 

Pause for Thought

Since I started this blog three months ago, I have covered a wide range of topics. Given this and the enormity of this subject, I thought that this post should summarise the main findings so far.

Here is a summary of the key points and conclusions:

• Different parts of Antarctica are being affected differently. It is easy to consider Antarctica as one unified system which is affected the same when things happen because the whole continent looks homogeneous. For example, “Larsen B has collapsed, quick! We have to find a way to stop the whole continent from melting!” In reality, ice sheets in Antarctica are complex to understand because they are affected by climate change, ocean circulations…etc. The Bipolar Sea-saw Pattern can help explain one part of the observed sea ice changes, however it is only a contributing factor out of many.
• Tourism is a recent phenomenon and as tourist numbers continue to increase, and they will do in the future, animals are being affected in different ways. But the extent that they are affected differs between species. Tourism also has indirect impacts which are just as damaging to the environment, for example oil spills.
• International organisations such as the UN try to create treaties to regulate Antarctica. I have analysed regulation in terms of tourism and found that there are flaws in them. In my view tougher restrictions are required if the environment is to remain unaltered by human actions. Furthermore, regulation can have negative and positive impacts on animals in Antarctica, for example, whaling bans, krill and penguins. It is unlikely that international organisations foresee these indirect food chain effects and this reduces the impact of regulation.
• Krill are immensely important in the Antarctic food chain but fishing activities may be jeopardising them. However, it is difficult to understand whether krill populations are reacting to fishing or natural changes in sea ice extent caused by La Niña. Because of this, separating natural impacts and human impacts is more complex than it seems. 
• Fishing is harmful for fur seals and other mammals because debris lost in the ocean creates entanglement.
• Regulation seems to be the only way that humans are trying to make amends. It seems that banning happens less often.

My Thoughts

Furthermore, I would like to use this as an opportunity to evaluate what I have posted so far, giving my thoughts on what I think I have done well and not so well.

• Diversity: I have tried to include a range of case studies throughout the blog to make it more interesting, drawing on different animals and explaining the different effects where ever I can. For instance, my discussions have drawn on fur seals, Adélie penguins, Gentoo penguins, krill, South Polar Skua…etc. I also want to point out that it has been an enjoyable experience learning about these wonderful animals!
• Geographical dispersion: I have tried to include case studies from different parts of Antarctica to illustrate what’s happening everywhere. This has been supplemented with maps (see below). Antarctica is a large continent and different regions are affected by different activities. Having said this, I believe I have focussed on west side of Antarctica more than the east side. While writing and researching, I have discovered that there is little literature on the east side of Antarctica which is the main reason why. Perhaps this is because eastern Antarctica is less accessible than the west side so research tends to be focussed here.
• Maps: I understand that naming Antarctic islands, ice sheets and seas could be confusing and hold little meaning if no one knows where they are. So where I can, I have places maps throughout the blog and highlighted where my case study locations are. Hopefully I haven’t created an overload, but I feel they are necessary!
• Balance: I have given a balanced view of the impacts throughout the blog, presenting arguments for natural causes as well as human impacts.

Is it S.O.S Antarctica?

The name of my blog suggests that, because of the human impacts, Antarctica is sending a distress signal, asking humans to leave it alone! So far, I have been counting the negative and postive/ natural impacts and they currently stand at 5-3 to negative impacts. Perhaps the continent is in trouble... In my last post I will attempt to answer the above question based on my previous posts and the total score.

Finally I wish to explain what the next few topics are. In this final month or so, I aim to discuss:

• The impact of research stations on Antarctica. Yes research has discovered ways to correct human impacts, but are there any negative impacts?

• The Ozone layer. So far I have focussed on terrestrial and marine impacts, but what about the atmospheric impact?

Thank you for reading, until next week, I’ll end with this cartoon to prepare for the next post. 

 Figure 1. The impact of research

Regulation Regulation Regulation

Is Montreal enough?

Are the Montreal Protocol and the general principles highlighted in Box 1 (from my post on Friday 14 November 2014) enough to remedy the potential negative wildlife impacts from tourism? This post is a discussion post where I will pick out and critically analyse some issues that I feel should be addressed going forward from the Montreal Protocol. You may also be pleased to know that this will be my final post about tourism!

The treaty has been criticised because there is no enforcement mechanism and because the tourism principles are non-binding (Lamers et al. 2012). There needs to be an enforcement mechanism otherwise governments will not take the principles seriously because they have nothing to lose if wildlife is negatively affected in Antarctica. Also, tourist companies need incentives to act to protect Antarctica. Without incentives created by governments, companies will feel relaxed about the limits because the short term gains are large and so they too lose nothing by disobeying the principles. Legally binding agreements and enforcement mechanisms are likely to make the Protocol more effective to help keep Antarctica in ecological equilibrium with minimal wildlife impact.

On a national scale, Argentina will lose out on tax revenues if business activities are restricted and Argentine tourist companies’ profits will fall. Tour companies that have to introduce mechanisms to reduce long-term degradation will incur costs, and revenues could fall if such mechanisms also add restrictions on tourist numbers. Because of this, profits will fall and so government tax revenues will also fall. The growth rate of the Argentine economy is currently 0.9% and over the past 20 years, the average growth rate has been only 0.84% (Trading Economics, 2014). These figures show that the Argentine government can greatly value the additional income that tourist companies generate for the country. Therefore if there is no enforcement mechanism, the government may be unwilling to act to ensure that the principles are met since this costs the economy. As can be seen, there is a strong economic element involved in regulating the Antarctic. In my opinion there should be an enforcement mechanism to encourage greater action to meet the goals the environmental standards proposed in Box 1 from my post on Friday 14 November 2014.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)

Annex One makes it a legal requirement for tour companies to conduct an EIA. The document must describe the scale of tourism and the impacts that these tourists are expected to have. Furthermore, tour companies must outline how they are going to limit these impacts. There is a wide range of literature on whether EIAs actually improve conservation efforts. If risks have been identified and the company has included methods to mitigate against them, this does not necessarily mean that the environment is healthier than it was before the intervention. In other words, the environment will be healthier without tourism and human interference altogether because a set of mitigation rules mean reducing the impact, not necessarily avoiding it. This is my general critique of EIAs.

Secondly, Lyons (1993) argues that the language used in the Annex means that the “appropriate” level of assessment is open to interpretation. Annex One includes phrases such as “a minor or transitory impact”, “detrimental changes” and “significant changes”, which are vague and therefore each tour company and government are free to choose their own definitions of these phrases. This also makes it easier for them to make an excuse about why tourism activities have higher environmental impacts than the Protocol set. For example, a tour company can simply point out to the countries in the Antarctic Treaty that their definition of detrimental is more extreme and in their view, introducing one or two invasive species is not classified as “detrimental”. The vague wording therefore reduces the effectiveness of the Protocol.

Also, because of vague description of standards, Kriwoken and Rootes (2000) mention that it’s difficult to determine what should and shouldn't be measured as an impact of tourism. What this means is that there needs to be quantitative standards that allow tour operators to measure and monitor the exact impacts so they can better understand how they can adhere to the regulatory standards.

Sum up

The treaty doesn't signal to me that Antarctica is in safe hands. The lack of clarity in the wording of the actual treaty has to be addressed. Despite Bauer’s view that the Protocol is a barrier to future tourism development (1994), I feel that they are not strong enough because they have no binding or enforcing mechanism. This means that the environmental and wildlife problems arising from tourism will persist and we need more regulation regulation regulation.

Next time I move on to the effects that humans have had on Antarctic krill.

Antarctic Treaty

According Garrett Hardin (1968), each herdsman wants to keep as many cattle as possible. The rational herdsman decides that adding additional animal to his herd will increase his utility. But each herdsman shares the commons, so if each herdsman decides to keep increasing cattle to the commons, the end result will be the depletion and ruin of the commons.

The commons here can be compared to Antarctica. Antarctica is an unregulated area of land which yields benefits to tourist companies who want to keep increasing tourist numbers as each additional tourist yields these companies higher utility (i.e. higher profits). The main assumption that Hardin uses is that the commons is unregulated. In this globalised world, it is rare, in my view, to find an industry that is unregulated – especially when it comes to nature and the environment. What matters in this debate though, is not whether there are regulations but how effective the regulations are.

One solution to the negative impacts explained last week is to reduce tourist numbers. This could potentially reduce the introduction of invasive species and the impact on penguin habitats. But as is obvious in my post from 27 October, tourist numbers are rising and I think this solution is unlikely. Companies running expeditions such as Poseidon Expeditions, Quark Expeditions, Chimu Adventures are profit maximising companies. This means they want to make as much money as possible and so reducing passenger numbers is undesirable because this reduces revenues and profits. Nevertheless, the Antarctic Treaty endeavours to do just this. In recognition of greater human visits to Antarctica, the Antarctic Treaty has been set up to prevent an environmental catastrophe.

The Antarctic Treaty

It was formed in 1959 and came into force in 1961 to govern human activities. It comprises of 46 countries, of which 28 have advisory status (i.e. power to make decisions). The treaty believes that the following provisions are the most important (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, n/d):

1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only (Art. I).

2. Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation (Art. II).

3. Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available (Art. III).

It claims these are the most important, however on reading these, my first impression is that there is no mention of the environmental concerns. Research seems to be the main agenda. As you will read later in my blog, research centres can also have negative impacts on the continent. So this is one flaw that I spotted when I began researching the treaty.   

The Rules of the Treaty are known as the Antarctic Treaty System, consisting of three international agreements:

1. Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (1972)

Aims to reduce commercial exploitation of seals.

2. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (1980)

Aims to conserve and manage marine living resources in Antarctic. The following measures, among others, are being taken (Fabra and Gascon, 2008):

a. Develop a management regime for krill that takes into account the impact of fishing on dependent species

b. Establish a monitoring program

c. Develop fisheries management policies

3. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty/ Montreal Protocol (1991)

Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty/ Montreal Protocol

The relevant agreement that relates to tourism is number 3: Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This protocol was established in 1991 once it was recognised that the number of tourists were increasing. This treaty is broken up into six annexes including:

1. The requirement of an environmental impact assessment/initial environmental evaluation for every activity before it’s due to start 

2. Rules concerning the conservation of fauna and flora 

3. Rules on waste disposal and waste management 

4. Rules on marine pollution 

5. The establishment of protected areas 

6. Preventative measures and contingency plans shouldoperate in case of an environmental disaster. 

(Accessed through: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011)

Of the Annexes, number three and number six mention tourism. There were previously no restrictions or regulations on tourism, but this changed in 2009 when an agreement was made among member countries to limit tourism by reducing the size of cruise ships, capping the number of passengers that land in Antarctica to 500 and capping passengers on the shore at any given time to 100 (BBC, 2009). This agreement was discussed in the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Baltimore. Box 1 displays the general principles that came out of these discussions.

Box 1: General principles of Antarctic tourism agreed in 2009
Source: Lamers et al. (2012)

So hopefully from this post I have illustrates that action is indeed being taken to help reduce the human impacts on Antarctica. The international community is not ignoring what is happening to wildlife in Antarctica and it’s important to acknowledge this. International treaties help regulate and reduce negative environmental issues. In particular, Annex 3 which relates to waste management is a useful starting point to improve the environment. 

This is where I’m going to end today. Because regulation aims to reduce the human impact, this is one point to positive impacts, so the updated score for negative impacts vs natural/positive impacts is 3-2. These treaties signify that we acknowledge and want to reduce our wrong doings. But are these really effective? Keep a look out for the next post where I will determine whether its one more point to negative impacts or not.