Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-s74w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T08:03:59.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas: permitting, visitation and information exchange practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2013

L.R. Pertierra  and
K.A. Hughes
L.R. Pertierra
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
K.A. Hughes*
Affiliation:
British Antarctic Survey, NERC, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
*
*corresponding author: kehu@bas.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) represent the highest level of area protection within the Antarctic Treaty area. To reduce environmental impacts, ASPA visitors must comply with the Area's management plan and receive an entry permit from an appropriate national authority. Parties to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty are obliged to exchange information on: i) the number of permits allocated for the forthcoming season, and ii) the number of visits to ASPAs during the previous season. We assessed the effectiveness of current permitting and information exchange practices by examining ASPA visitation data supplied to the Antarctic Treaty System's Electronic Information Exchange System during 2008/09–2010/11. We found that Parties have interpreted and implemented the protected area legislation inconsistently. Furthermore, some Parties did not fulfil their obligations under the Protocol by failing to provide full information on ASPA visitation. Estimations suggested that the level of ASPA visitation varied with ASPA location and the main value being protected. However, without full disclosure by Parties, ASPA visitation data is of limited use for informing general and ASPA-specific environmental management practices. Improved provision and formal interpretation of ASPA visitation data are recommended to enable more co-ordinated and effective management of activities within ASPAs.

Keywords

ASPAsAntarctic TreatyEnvironmental Information Exchange Systemenvironmental managementenvironmental protocolpermits

Information

Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 553 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2011. Guidelines to the preparation of management plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. Resolution 2 (Annex). http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ats_meetings_meeting_measure.aspx?lang=e.Google Scholar
ATCP (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties). 1991. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt%5Catt006_e.pdf.Google Scholar
ATS (Antarctic Treaty Secretariat). 2010. Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES): report on the 2nd operational season and summary information examples. Secretariat Paper 9. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXIII Committee for Environmental Protection XIII. 3–14 May 2010, Punta del Este, Uruguay.Google Scholar
ATS (Antarctic Treaty Secretariat). 2012. Report of the Informal Contact Group on the improvement of the EIES and other information exchange matters. Secretariat Paper 10. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXV Committee for Environmental Protection XV. 11–20 June 2012, Hobart, Australia.Google Scholar
Australia. 2001. Report from the Intersessional Contact Group reviewing information exchange requirements. Working Paper 7. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXIV Committee for Environmental Protection IV. 9–20 July 2001, St Petersburg, Russian Federation.Google Scholar
Australia. 2010. Subsidiary Group on management plans - report on term of reference #4: improving management plans and the process for their intersessional review. Working Paper 30. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXIII, Committee for Environmental Protection XIII. 3–14 May 2007, Punta del Este, Uruguay.Google Scholar
Bonner, W.N.Lewis Smith, R.I. 1985. Conservation areas in Antarctica: a review prepared by the Subcommittee of Conservation of the Working Group on Biology. Cambridge: SCAR/International Council of Scientific Unions, 299 pp.Google Scholar
Braun, C., Mustafa, O., Nordt, A., Pfeiffer, S.Peter, H.-U. 2012. Environmental monitoring and management proposals for the Fildes Region (King George Island, Antarctica). Polar Research, 10.3402/polar.v31i0.18206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CEP (Committee For Environmental Protection). 2010. Report of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP XIII). Punta del Este, Uruguay, 3–7 May 2010. http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM33/rp/atcm33_rp001_rev3_e.pdf.Google Scholar
COMNAP (Council Of Managers Of National Antarctic Programs). 2012. Antarctic facilities. https://www.comnap.aq/facilities.Google Scholar
Cowan, D.A., Chown, S.L., Convey, P., Tuffin, M., Hughes, K.A., Pointing, S.Vincent, W.F. 2011. Non-indigenous microorganisms in the Antarctic - assessing the risks. Trends in Microbiology, 19, 540–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, K.A.Convey, P. 2010. The protection of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems from inter- and intra-continental transfer of non-indigenous species by human activities: a review of current systems and practices. Global Environmental Change, 20, 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, K.A., Fretwell, P., Rae, J., Holmes, K.Fleming, A. 2011. Untouched Antarctica: mapping a finite and diminishing environmental resource. Antarctic Science, 23, 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis Smith, R.I. 1994. The Antarctic Protected Area System. In LewisSmith, R.I., Walton, D.W.H.&Dingwall, P.R., eds. Developing the Antarctic Protected Area System. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN, 15–26.Google Scholar
New Zealand. 2009. Updated analysis of representation of Annex V categories and Environmental Domains in the system of Antarctic Specially Protected and Managed Areas. Working Paper 31 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXII Committee for Environmental Protection XII. 6–17 April 2009, Baltimore, United States.Google Scholar
Penhale, P.A.Hofman, R.J. 1994. The Antarctic Protected Area System. In LewisSmith, R.I., Walton, D.W.H.&Dingwall, P.R., eds. Developing the Antarctic Protected Area System. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN, 57–60.Google Scholar
SCAR (Scientific Committee On Antarctic Research). 2010. Biodiversity-based evaluation of the Environmental Domains Analysis. Working Paper 3 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXIII Committee for Environmental Protection XIII. 3–14 May 2010, Punta de Este, Uruguay.Google Scholar
Terauds, A., Chown, S., Morgan, F., Peat, H., Watts, D., Keys, H., Convey, P.Bergstrom, D. 2012. Conservation biogeography of the Antarctic. Diversity and Distributions, 18, 726–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tin, T., Fleming, Z.L., Hughes, K.A., Ainley, D.G., Convey, P., Moreno, C.A., Pfeiffer, S., Scott, J.Snape, I. 2009. Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment. Antarctic Science, 21, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States. 1998. Improving annual exchange of Antarctic information - facilitating information exchange. Information Paper 28. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXII, Committee for Environmental Protection I. 25 May 1998–05 June 1998, Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar