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.