You are in: Home » Communication & Education » Circulars » Circular 752
SCAR Circular No 752
SCAR Advice to the Antarctic Treaty
30 May 2002
To:
SCAR Executive Committee
National Committees
Associate Members
Chief Officers
SCAR Circular No. 752
Dear Sir
SCAR Advice to the Antarctic Treaty
At XXIV ATCM the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) established two Intersessional Contact Groups (ICGs) to examine and comment on new draft Management Plans for existing Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). These two ICGs are led by Dr J Jatko (US) for the plans submitted by the United States and by Dr N S Gilbert (UK) for the plans submitted by the United Kingdom. SCAR has been invited to take part in both these ICGs.
At the recent meeting of the Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation (GOSEAC), the Group considered all these plans and made comments on each of them. The relevant excerpt from the draft report of the GOSEAC meeting giving general comments is enclosed, together with the draft plans and the specific comments by GOSEAC on each plan. This material has also been placed on the Members Only section of the SCAR website
In order for the comments to be forwarded from SCAR to the ICGs, National Committees and Chief Officers are requested make any additional comments and to forward them by e-mail to the SCAR Secretariat. These will be collated into two papers that Delegates will be asked to approve at XXVII SCAR. Following that, the two papers will be submitted to the ICGs as the formal SCAR comments on the plans.
Please note also that, in addition to comments on the eleven draft management plans, comments are also requested on the United Kingdom's proposed options for SPA no 18 &emdash;North Coronation Island. The GOSEAC discussion on this matter is included in the extract from the GOSEAC report at agenda item 6.3.12.
It will help considerably if comments could be received before the SCAR meeting as far as possible, in order that they can be collated and passed to the ICGs and the CEP by 27 July 2002, the deadline for submitting Working Papers to XXV ATCM.
Yours faithfully
P D Clarkson
Enc: Extract from the draft report of the GOSEAC XII meeting
Draft Management Plans and GOSEAC comments for the following Protected Areas
| SPA no 7 | Cape Hallett, Victoria Land | |
| SPA no 8 | Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay | |
| SPA no 9 | Green Island, Berthelot Islands | |
| SPA no 21 | Avian Island, Marguerite Bay | |
| SSSI no 1 | Cape Royds, Ross Island | |
| SSSI no3 | Barwick & Balham valleys, Victoria Land | |
| SSSI no 4 | Cape Crozier, Ross Island | |
| SSSI no 6 | Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island | |
| SSSI no 18 | Northwest White Island, McMurdo Sound | |
| SSSI no 29 | Ablation Point/Ganymede Heights, Alexander Island | |
| SSSI no 3l | Mt Flora, Hope Bay |
SCAR Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation
GOSEACReport of GOSEAC XII Meeting
College Station, Texas, United States, 24-27 April 2002
Extract from the draft report
6. Protected and Managed Areas
6.3 Specially Protected Area Plans
The Group congratulated the originators of the eleven management plans on the standard of preparation, particularly of the maps that are a considerable improvement over many of the maps that have been adopted in the past.
It was felt that plans should contain more, rather than less, detail but that only essential information should be included in the plan; any additional information should be placed in an annex or an appendix.
The Group expressed concerned that statements on poultry products occur in all the plans under consideration whereas there is, at present, no scientific evidence that Newcastle's disease has been or can be transferred to the Antarctic avifauna. Under the precautionary principle the Group felt that the agreed treatment of poultry would be useful in all plans that are designated specifically to protect birds but was not clear why it should be included in other plans.
Detailed comments on each plan will be provided to the leaders of the two contact groups for assessing the plans; only general comments are given here.
6.3.1 Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay (SPA 8)
The Group questioned the reason for changing the title of the Area; noted a number of numerical errors; and some names missing from the maps.
6.3.2 Green Island, Berthelot Islands (SPA 9)
Some minor numerical errors and some minor language clarifications were highlighted; it was noted that a replacement Map 2 is being prepared.
6.3.3 Ablation Point/Ganymede Heights, Alexander Island (SSSI 29)
Some minor changes were proposed. It was also suggested that there should be a geological map because the geology is one of the reasons for designation.
6.3.4 Mt Flora, Hope Bay (SSSI 31)
Some minor revisions to the boundaries were suggested, including designating the glacier margins as the boundaries so that changes to the glaciers will not necessitate revision of the boundary descriptions.
6.3.5 Cape Hallett, Victoria Land (SPA 7)
Some minor changes were suggested. It was also suggested that an additional inset location map showing the Ross Sea region would be helpful.
6.3.6 Cape Royds, Ross Island (SSSI 1)
A revised description of one boundary was suggested. It was also suggested that an additional inset location map showing the Ross Sea region would be helpful.
6.3.7 Barwick & Balham valleys, Victoria Land (SSSI 3)
Some minor changes were proposed. It was also suggested that there should be a geological / geomorphological map because the geology and geomorphology are two of the reasons for designation, and that an additional inset location map showing the Ross Sea region would be helpful.
6.3.8 Cape Crozier, Ross Island (SSSI 4)
The extension of the terrestrial boundaries was discussed. It was suggested that an additional inset location map showing the Ross Sea region would be helpful.
6.3.9 Northwest White Island, McMurdo Sound (SSSI18)
The difficulty of defining the coastline of the island, leading to a poor quality map, was recognized. It was suggested that an additional inset location map showing the Ross Sea region would be helpful.
6.3.10 Avian Island, Marguerite Bay (SPA 21)
The Group suggested that parts of 6 (i) now given in Annex 1 should be restored to the main body of the management plan. The value of a 100 m wide off-shore buffer zone was questioned.
6.3.11 Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island (SSSI 6)
The Group suggested that parts of 6 (i) now given in Annex 1 should be restored to the main body of the management plan. It was also suggested that there should be a geological / geomorphological map because the geology and geomorphology are two of the reasons for designation.
6.3.12 North Coronation Island (SPA 18)
The United Kingdom's attempt to revise the Management Plan for SPA no 18 has identified the fact that the original values for protecting this site are based largely on assumptions that cannot be substantiated by available data. Significant physical restrictions on access to the site, by both sea and air, make the collection of data extremely difficult.
Consequently, the United Kingdom had proposed three options on how best to proceed.
1. Maintain the status quo. Continue with protection of the site as an SPA without alteration of the values to be protected. Amend the Management Plan to meet the requirements of Annex V, whilst recognising the severe limitations in knowledge about the site;
2. Continue with protection of the site as an SPA, but amend the values to be protected. Possibilities include, the potential usefulness of the area as a reference and/or wilderness site. But it would be important to recognise that insufficient data are currently available to adequately substantiate such an approach;
3. Terminate the designation of this SPA on the grounds that insufficient data are available to justify continued protection of the site.
The argument for keeping the site is that, as a pristine area, it should be used as a reference site. However, the counter argument is that if there are no baseline data (as in this case) it cannot be used as a reference site.
The Group proposed that SPA no 18 should be de-listed as there were no compelling scientific reasons to continue site protection.
About Acrobat/PDF files