Skip navigation


You are in:  Home » Publications » Bulletins » Bulletin 140

bulletin 140

SCAR Bulletin No 140, January 2001

Address List of SCAR Groups of Specialists

Antarctic Neotectonics (ANTEC)

Dr T J (Terry) Wilson (Convenor), Ohio State University, Department of Geological Sciences, 275 Mendenhall, 125 South Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, United States.
E-mail: wilson43@osu.edu

Dr A (Alessandro) Capra, Polytechnic of Bari, Faculty of Engineering - Taranto, Distart - Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
E-mail: alessandro.capra@mail.ing.unibo.it

Prof R (Reinhard) Dietrich, Technische Universität Dresden, Institut für Planetare Geodäsie, DE-01062,Dresden, Germany.
E-mail: dietrich@ipg.geo.tu-dresden.de

Dr J M (Jesus) Ibañez, Instituto Andaluz de Geofisica, Campus de Cartuja s/n, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
E-mail: ibanez@iag.ugr.es

Dr T S (Tom) James, Geological Survey of Canada, Pacific Geoscience Centre, 9860 W Saanich Road, Sidney, BC V8L 4B2, Canada
E-mail: james@pgc.nrcan.gc.ca

Mr J (John ) Manning, AUSLIG, PO Box 2, Belconnen, ACT 2616, Australia.
E-mail: johnmanning@auslig.gov.au

Dr A (Andrea) Morelli, Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica, Via di Vigna Murata 605, 00143 Roma, Italy.
E-mail: morelli@ingrm.it

Antarctic Subglacial Lakes

Prof Dr H (Heinz) Miller (Co-Convenor), Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Columbusstrasse, Postfach 12 01 61, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany.
E-mail: miller@awi-bremerhaven.de

Dr J C (John) Priscu (Co-Convenor), Montana State University, Department of Biology, Bozeman, MT 59717, United States.
E-mail: ubijp@montana.edu

Dr R E (Robin) Bell, Columbia University, Torrey Cliff, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Route 9W, Palisades NY10964, United States.
E-mail: robinb@ldeo.columbia.edu

Dr S Bulat, Russia.
E-mail:

Dr J C (Cynan) Ellis-Evans, British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, United Kingdom.
E-mail: jcel@bas.ac.uk

Dr M C (Chuck) Kennicutt II, Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, Texas A & M University, 833 Graham Road, College Station, Texas 77845-9688, United States.
E-mail: mck2@gerg.tamu.edu

Dr V (Valery) Lukin, Arctic & Antarctic Research Institute, Bering St, 38, 199397 St Petersburg, Russia.
E-mail: lukin@raexp.spb.su

Dr J-R (Jean-Robert) Petit, LGGE-CNRS, BP 96, F-38402, St Martin D-Heres Cedex, France.
E-mail: petit@glaciog.ujf-grenoble.fr

Dr R D (Ross) Powell, Northern Illinois University, Department of Geology & Environmental Geosciences, 312 Davis Hall, Normal Road, Dekalb, Illinois 60115, United States.
E-mail: ross@geol.niu.edu

Dr I (Ignazio) Tabacco, Dst Geofisica, Via Cicognara 7, 20129 Milano, Italy.
E-mail: ignazio.tabacco@unimi.it

Global Change and the Antarctic

Dr A H L (Ad) Huiskes (Acting Convenor), Netherlands Institute of Ecology -NIOO-CEMO, Department of Littoral Vegetation, PO Box 140, 4400 AC Yerseke, Netherlands.
E-mail: huiskes@cemo.nioo.knaw.nl

Prof S F (Steve) Ackley 111 Villa Ann, San Antonio, TX 78213, United States
E-mail: sackley@pol.net

Dr I F (Ian ) Allison, Antarctic CRC & Australian Antarctic Division, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-80, Hobart 7001, Australia.
E-mail: ian_all@aad.gov.au

Mr M R (Mark) Thorley, British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, United Kingdom.
E-mail: m.thorley@bas.ac.uk

Prof A C (Andrew) Clarke, British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, United Kingdom.
E-mail: andrew.clarke@bas.ac.uk

Prof E E (Eileen) Hofmann, Center for Coastal and Physical Oceanography, Crittenton Hall, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, United States.
E-mail: hofmann@ccpo.odu.edu

Dr T H (Jo) Jacka, Antarctic CRC and Australian Antarctic Division, Box 252C, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.E-mail: jo.jacka@aad.edu.au

Prof P A (Paul) Mayewski, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space (EOS), Morse Hall, 39 College Road, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824-3525, United States.
E-mail: mayewski@unh.edu

Dr R D (Ross) Powell, Northern Illinois University, Department of Geology & Environmental Geosciences, 312 Davis Hall, Normal Road, Dekalb, Illinois 60115, United States.
E-mail: ross@geol.niu.edu

Dr D (Dominique) Raynaud, Domaine Universitaire, Laboratoire de Glaciologie de Géophysique de l'Environnement, BP 96, F-38402 Saint-Martin d'Hères Cedex, France.
E-mail: raynaud@glaciog.ujf-grenoble.fr

Prof G E (Gunter) Weller, Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR), 301 International Arctic Resarch Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7740, United States.
E-mail: gunter@gi.alaska.edu

Environmental Affairs and Conservation

Dr D W H (David) Walton (Convenor), British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, United Kingdom.
E-mail: d.walton@bas.ac.uk

Dr J M (Tito) Acero, Instituto Antártico Argentino, Cerrito 1248, 1010 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
E-mail: jmacero@abaconet.com.ar

Prof P J (Peter) Barrett, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Earth Sciences, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand.
E-mail: peter.barrett@vuw.ac.nz

Dra E S E (Edith) Fanta, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Departamento Biologia Celular, Cx P 19031, 81531-970 Curitiba PR, Brazil.
E-mail: esfanta@bio.ufpr.br

Dr M (Mitsuo) Fukuchi, National Institute of Polar Research, 9-10 Kaga 1-chome, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-8515, Japan.
E-mail: fukuchi@nipr.ac.jp

Mr J E (Jan Erling) Haugland, Norsk Polarinstitutt, PO Box 505, Longyearbyen, Svalbard N-9171, Norway.
E-mail: haugland@lby.npolar.no

Dr M C (Chuck) Kennicutt II, Geochemical and Environmental Research Group, Texas A & M University, 833 Graham Road, College Station, Texas 77845-9688, United States.
E-mail: mck2@gerg.tamu.edu

Prof Dr H (Heinz) Miller, Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Columbusstrasse, Postfach 12 01 61, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany.
E-mail: miller@awi-bremerhaven.de

Prof Dr M (Michael) Oehme, University of Basel, Organic Analytical Chemistry, Neuhausstrasse 31, CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland.
E-mail: oehme@ubaclu.unibas.ch

Dr J (José) Valencia, Departamento Cientifico, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Avenida Luis Thayer Ojeda 814, Providencia, CP 6650553, Santiago, Chile.
E-mail: jvalenci@inach.cl

Seals

Dr J L (John) Bengtson (Convenor), National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NOAA/NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE Seattle, WA 98115, United States.
E-mail: john.bengtson@noaa.gov

Dr M N (Marthan) Bester, University of Pretoria, Mammal Research Institute, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.
E-mail: mnbester@zoology.up.ac.za

Prof A S (Arnoldus) Blix, University of Tromsø, Department of Arctic Biology, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway.
E-mail: asblix@fagmed.uit.no

Dr I L (Ian) Boyd, British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, United Kingdom.
E-mail: i.boyd@bas.ac.uk

Dr H (Harry) Burton, Australian Antarctic Division, Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania 7053, Australia.
E-mail:

Dr J (Joachim) Plötz, Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Postfach 12 01 61, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany.
E-mail: jploetz@awi-bremerhaven.de

Dr C J (Colin) Southwell, Australian Antarctic Division, Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania 7053, Australia
E-mail: colin_sou@antdiv.gov.au

Prof D (Daniel) Torres, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Thayer Ojeda 814, Providencia, Santiago, Chile.
E-mail: dtorres@inach.cl

Finance Committee

Dr R (Roland) Schlich, Ecole et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre, 5 Rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg, France.
E-mail: rschlich@eost.u-strasbg.fr

Prof S L (Steven) Chown, University of Pretoria, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Pretoria 0002, South Africa.
E-mail: SteveC@scientia.up.ac.za

Prof G (Georg) Kleinschmidt, Geologisch-Paläon-tologisches Institut der Universität Frankfurt, Sencken-berganlage 32, D-60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
E-mail: kleinschmidt@em.uni-frankfurt.de

Top of page

Measures, Decisions and Resolutions adopted at the
XII Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting,
The Hague, The Netherlands, 11-15 September 2000

 

Measure 1 (2000)

Antarctic Protected Areas System: Revised Management Plans for Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.The Representatives,

Recalling Resolution 1 (1998) allocating responsibility among Consultative Parties for the revision of Management Plans for protected areas;

Recommend to their Governments the following Measure for approval in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty:

1. That the Management Plan for Specially Protected Area No 14, attached to this Measure , be inserted in the Annex to Recommendation IV-14 to replace the plan previously annexed to that Recommendation.

That the Management Plan for Specially Protected Area No 19, attached to this Measure, be inserted in the Annex to Recommendation XIII-11 to replace the plan previously annexed to that Recommendation.

That the Management Plan for Specially Protected Area No 20, attached to this Measure, be inserted in the Annex to Recommendation XIII-12 to replace the plan previously annexed to that Recommendation, and that thereupon SSSI No 10, as designated by Recommendation XIII-8, shall cease to exist.

That the Management Plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No 8, attached to this Measure, be inserted in the Annex to Recommendation X-5 to replace the plan previously annexed to that Recommendation.

That the Management Plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No 17, attached to this Measure, be inserted in the Annex to Recommendation XIII-8 to replace the plan previously annexed to that Recommendation.

That the Management Plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No 22, attached to this Measure, be inserted in the Annex to Recommendation XIV-5 to replace the plan previously annexed to that Recommendation.

That the Management Plan for Site of Special Scientific Interest No 34, attached to this Measure, be inserted in the Annex to Recommendation XVI-2 to replace the plan previously annexed to that Recommendation.

2. That the Parties ensure that their nationals comply with the mandatory provisions of the revised management plans.

[Note: The actual management plans are not reproduced here but will be published in subsequent issues].

Top of page  

Measure 2 (2000)

Antarctic Protected Areas System. Extension of expiry dates for
certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest

The Representatives,

Recalling Recommendations VIII-4, XIII-8, XIV-5, XV-6 and XV-7 adopting the Management Plans for Sites of Special Scientific Interest numbers 1, 2, 3, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32;

Noting that the expiry date for these sites is 31 December 2000, but wishing to continue to protect these sites, until such time that their respective Management Plans have been revised in accordance with Annex V of the Environmental Protocol;

Recommend to their Governments the following Measure for approval in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty:

That the date of expiry of the management plans in the list annexed to this Measure be extended until 31 December 2005, and that this Measure be applied provisionally, to the fullest extent possible consistent with their Governments' domestic laws and regulations, pending such approval.

Annex to Measure 2 (2000)

SSSI No 1 Cape Royds, Ross Island

SSSI No 2 Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island

SSSI No 3 Barwick Valley, Victoria Land

SSSI No 16 North-eastern Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast

SSSI No 20 Biscoe Point, Anvers Island

SSSI No 21 Parts of Deception Island, South Shetland Islands

SSSI No 24 Summit of Mount Melbourne, Northern Victoria Land

SSSI No 25 Marine Plain, Mule Peninsula, Vestfold Hills

SSSI No 26 Chile Bay, (Discovery Bay), Greenwich Island

SSSI No 27 Port Foster, Deception Island, South Shetland Islands

SSSI No 28 South Bay, Doumer Island, Palmer Archipelago

SSSI No 29 Ablation Point-Ganymede Heights, Alexander Island

SSSI No 31 Mount Flora, Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula

SSSI No 32 Cape Shirreff, Livingstone Island, South Shetland Islands

Top of page

Decision 1 (2000)

The Representatives,

Acting upon the advice of the Committee for Environ-mental Protection

Confirmed as observers to the Committee for Environ-mental Protection according to Rule 4c of the CEP Rules of Procedure the following organisations: ASOC, IAATO, IHO, IUCN, UNEP, and WMO, until such time as the ATCM decides otherwise.

Top of page

Resolution 1 (2000)

Guidelines for Implementation of the Framework for Protected Areas set forth
in Article 3, Annex V of the Environmental Protocol

The Representatives,

Noting that Article 3 of Annex V of the Protocol provides a framework for the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas;

Recognising that these Areas must conform to the requirements of Article 3 of Annex V;

Recalling Resolution 2 (1998) Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas;

Conscious of the need for general guidance in the assessment and definition of potential specially protected areas;

Recommend that:

the "Guidelines for Implementation of the Framework for Protected Areas set forth in Article 3, Annex V of the Environmental Protocol", attached to this Resolution , be used by those engaged in the development of proposals for specially protected areas in Antarctica.

Top of page

Guidelines for Implementation of the Framework for Protected Areas set forth in Article 3, Annex V of the Environmental Protocol

Part I: Introduction

1.1 The Antarctic Treaty System and Protected Areas

A variety of instruments have been developed within the Antarctic Treaty system to help protect special places such as important wildlife breeding areas, fragile plant communities, cold desert ecosystems and historic places. These instruments have included the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora and numerous recommendations to Parties.

More recently Annex V of the Environmental Protocol was agreed. It defines the basic structure or framework for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) with a list of values that may merit special protection (Article 3(1) and types or examples of area to be protected (Article 3(2)) (refer Appendix I). Article 3(2) of Annex V states that Parties shall seek to identify such areas within a systematic environmental-geographical framework. Such areas will then be included in the existing series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.

Antarctic Specially Protected Areas is the only category of protected area provided for under Annex V of the Environmental Protocol (refer Article 2). Another category of area, Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs) are defined in Article 4 and are areas with special management requirements. ASMAs are not considered in these guidelines.

Protected areas provide a higher level of protection for specific values beyond that achieved by other forms of planning and management measures under the Protocol. These areas are designated within geographically defined limits and are managed to achieve specific protection aims and objectives.

1.2 Aim of the Guidelines

The aim of the guidelines is to assist the Parties, SCAR, CCAMLR, COMNAP and the CEP to apply Article 3 of Annex V of the Environmental Protocol for the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The guidelines provide a set of tools to enable more systematic assessment, selection, definition and proposal of areas that might require greater protection in accordance with the provisions of Annex V of the Environmental Protocol. It is hoped that they will facilitate methodical assessment and designation of such areas.

1.3 Structure of the Guidelines

The guidelines are organised into three main parts representing a process for assessing, selecting, defining and proposing new protected areas.

Part I is an introductory section, which offers a brief explanation of the existing mechanisms to protect Antarctic areas within the Antarctic Treaty system. This section also establishes the aims of the guidelines and details the way they are structured.

Part II provides guidance for assessing the potential of an area or site for protection and includes checklists on the framework for protected areas provided in Article 3(1) and 3(2). The checklist provides guidance on the values to be protected and on how to determine what should be protected and why, i.e. the reasons for protection. The concept of quality, including quality criteria, is defined to provide a further means of assessing whether an area merits being specially protected. Finally, the concept of environmental risk is presented as a very important aid in assessing the area's need for enhanced protection.

Part III provides guidance for defining areas for protection under Article 3 of Annex V of the Protocol, including ways to apply the concept of feasibility.

Part IV briefly notes the steps for proposing areas for protection including drafting of management plans and refers readers to the "Guide to Preparing Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas".

NOTE: As these guidelines have no legal status, those wishing to establish new protected areas should also carefully examine the provisions of Annex V of the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty and should seek advice from their national authority at an early stage.

Top of page

Part II: Assessing the protection potential of an area

2.1 Assessing Values to be Protected (Article 3(1))

When seeking to assess whether an area merits protection, a clear understanding is needed of the values to be protected. Values are generally taken to mean something of worth, merit or importance. Table 1 offers a checklist of the values listed in Article 3(1) that could be used to help identify those values represented in possible specially protected areas.

If it is considered that any examples of the values listed in Article 3(1) are contained or represented in a particular area then further investigation of the area for protected area status may be worthwhile.

 

Table 1. checklist of the values listed in Article 3(1)

Environmental values does the area contain physical, chemical or biological features e.g., glaciers, fresh water lakes, melt pools, rock outcrops, plant life or animal life that are particularly unique or representative components of the Antarctic environment?
Scientific values does the area contain physical, chemical or biological features of special interest to scientific researchers where the principles and methods of science would be applicable?
Historic values does the area contain features or objects that represent, connate or recall events, experiences, achievements, places or records that are important, significant or unusual in the course of human events and activity [1] in Antarctica?
Aesthetic values does the area contain features or attributes e.g., beauty, pleasantness, inspirational qualities, scenic attraction and appeal [3] that contribute to people's appreciation and sense or perception of an area?
Wilderness values does the area contain characteristics e.g., remoteness, few or no people, an absence of human-made objects, traces, sounds and smells, untravelled or infrequently visited terrain that are particularly unique or representative components of the Antarctic environment? [3]
Combination does the area contain any combination of the above values?
Ongoing or planned scientific activities does the area include ongoing or planned scientific projects or activities?
2.2 Assessment of Potential Protection and Use Category (Article 3(2a-i))

Article 3(2a-i) provides a list of examples of areas that can be designated as ASPAs. It should be noted that the specific examples of areas identified are not exclusive and that other examples of protected area could potentially be included provided they aim to protect the values set out in Article 3(1). In addition, it should be noted that Article 3(2) does not provide a uniform series of values, features, objectives, categories or uses of potential ASPAs.

A conceptual methodology has been developed to help understand more systematically what should be protected and why (i.e. examples or categories of areas and reasons for their proposed designation). Table 2 provides a checklist of the potential types or categories of areas to be protected and their management or use objectives. The aim is to provide a tool that can be used for the clearer identification of the important components or attributes of possible protected areas once the values to be protected have been agreed (refer section 2.1).

Table 2. checklist for identifying and clarifying the type of area to be protected (protection category) as well as the use or reasons (use category).

Protection Categories (i.e. what is being protected)

Ecosystems would the area be protected for its ecosystems? i.e. dynamic complexes of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as an ecological unit [4].
Habitats would the area be protected for its habitats? i.e. the places or types of site where an organism or population naturally occurs [4].
Species assemblages would the area be protected for its species assemblages? i.e. important or unusual groupings or populations of one or more species of fauna or flora (usual type of area protection of species in Antarctica).
Species (taxa) would the area be protected for its species? i.e. special groups of organisms which resemble each other and sometimes are linked to a common habitat to a greater degree than members of other groups, and which commonly form reproductively isolated groups that will not normally breed with members of another group [5].
Geological, glaciological or geomorphological Features would the area be protected for its geological, glaciological or geomorphological features? i.e. distinctive or special characteristics of the history, structure or components of the Earth's crust, rocks, fossils and cryosphere or a result of present or past processes beneath or at the Earth's surface in Antarctica
Landscapes would the area be protected for its landscape? i.e. expanses of coastal or inland scenery, usually at a scale where they contain a mosaic of inter-related ecosystems, and characterised by particular patterns of geometry, heterogeneity, patch dynamics and biophysical processes [6].
Aesthetic would the area be protected for its aesthetic features? i.e. attributes concerned with beauty, appreciation, perception and inspiration [3].
Wilderness would the area be protected for its wilderness features? i.e. attributes concerned with remoteness and a relative absence of both people and indications of past and present human presence or activity [3].
Historic would the area be protected for its historic features? i.e. things which represent or recall events, experiences, places, achievements or records that are important, significant or unusual in the course of human events and activity in Antarctica.
Intrinsic would the area be protected for its intrinsic features? (The real or inherent nature of a thing is worth protecting in its own right i.e. without requiring use).

Use Categories (why the area is being protected)

Scientific research would the area be protected for scientific research?
Conservation would the area be protected for its conservation purposes? (Conservation embraces both protection and judicious use, management of biodiversity, intrinsic value and importance in maintaining the life sustaining systems of the biosphere: distinguished from "sustainable use" and "sustainable management" [4])

The checklist may also help to ensure that possible protected areas are considered in a more standardised way and to aid further work in the designation process (e.g. assessment and subsequent development of management plans.

2.3 Quality Criteria

Quality criteria can be applied as a checklist to evaluate further whether an area deserves special protection or not. The quality of a potential protected area can be thought of as an overall degree of excellence in terms of the values it contains. Table 3 provides a checklist of questions that can be used to assess the quality of a proposed protected area.

The reasons for area protection summarised in Tables 1 and 2 could be analysed together with the quality criteria in Table 3 using the matrix set out in Table 4 as a guide. This approach may provide a convenient and efficient method of evaluation and identification of a potential area. It could also help in the comparison of potential areas and for determining priorities for protection.

 

Table 4. Matrix of area values and categories from Tables 1 and 2 against quality criteria from Table 3

Quality Criteria Represen-tativeness Diversity Distinctiveness Ecological Importance Degree of Interference Science and Monitoring
Value / Category
Ecosystems
Habitats
Assemblages
Species
Features
Landscapes
Aesthetics
Wilderness
Historic
Science
Conservation
Intrinsic
2.4 Environmental Risk Assessment

Environmental risk assessment can be used to further assess possible protected areas i.e. to help decide whether a particular area merits protection of its special characteristics (not as a means to modify or prohibit ongoing activities in or near the area). Risk assessment should assist in identifying what the actual and potential threats and risks are to an area containing outstanding values.

This step in the protected area process recognises that every area identified as having important values may not need to be formally designated as an ASPA. Most areas will not need additional protection because they are naturally robust or because the Antarctic Treaty system already provides sufficient protection. It should be noted that the degree of environmental risk to a potential area (e.g. as identified through application of the checklist in Table 5) is not a prerequisite for formal protection of an area under the Environmental Protocol. However, areas identified as subject to risks that threaten the identified values to an unacceptable or unmanageable level may need to be considered as a priority or more worthy of more formal protection.

Table 5 provides risk criteria in the form of a checklist for assessing environmental risk to a possible protected area.

Potential areas that "score" highly in regard to the checklists in Tables 3 and 4 (e.g. meet many of the criteria listed) and that have been assessed as being at some risk environmentally (Table 5) may be considered for further investigation as a possible ASPA. Consideration should then be given to advancing the proposal further, in particular into the selection and proposal phases

Table 5. Checklist for assessing environmental risk to a possible protected area
Human activities and impacts
  • Are human activities regularly, infrequently or almost never carried out in the area?
  • Are biological or abiotic components or processes of the area vulnerable to any existing or likely future human activities in the area itself or nearby?
  • Could these activities directly, indirectly or in a cumulative way result in impacts on the values for which this area has been identified or modify them in any way?
  • How likely, frequent and intensive might the impacts be and over what temporal and spatial scales?
  • When disturbance occurs, what is the time taken to return to pre-disturbance or equilibrium levels?
Natural processes
Are natural processes (e.g. atmospheric, climatic, marine, biological or glacial processes) likely to modify the area or its values?
Natural variability and viability
  • What are the short and long term variations (e.g. seasonal changes) in populations of biota present in the area?
  • Is the likely variation due to natural processes likely to be smaller, similar to or larger than impacts of human activities in the area?
  • Are there any medium- or long-term indications that natural trends could result in significantly different characteristics of the area which could effect its future viability, require a reassessment of protected status or necessitate changes in management?
  • To what extent does natural buffering protect the area from outside influences?
Non-Antarctic threats
Would protection of the area be compromised by processes originating or driven from outside the Antarctic such as global change, ozone depletion or long-range transport of contaminants such as long-lived chemical pollutants and introduction of non-native species?
Urgency
Do human activities pose imminent environmental risks?
Scientific uncertainty
  • How well known are the natural values and other characteristics of the area and potential impacts of human activities on them?
  • Could these uncertainties mask significant threats to the area and its values?
 
Top of page

 Part III: Defining areas for protection

3.1 Tools for Assisting in Selecting Protected Areas

Once potential areas have been assessed, further design and assessment is needed to ensure that they are suitable for eventual selection and proposal as ASPAs. Area design and feasibility criteria are two tools that can be used to assist in further defining of areas for protection.

3.2 Area Design

There is a wide body of literature on aspects of protected area design and selection relevant here which is beyond the scope of these guidelines. Important aspects of design include boundaries, size and shape, access, management tools, duration and relation to other protected areas (see Table 6). Proposers may wish to consult Lewis-Smith and others (1992), Thorsell (1997), IUCN (1998), FAO (1988) and Dingwall (1992).

 
Table 6. Checklist of feasibility criteria for assessment of possible protected areas
Boundaries
  • Are the proposed boundaries consistent with management objectives? (E.g. do they protect foraging areas of birds in an important breeding area and/or do they enclose other ecosystem components required for continuity of species identified?).
  • Can boundaries be easily defined for management purposes and identified by visitors? (E.g. can fixed natural boundaries such as mountain peaks, ridgelines, shorelines, or water depth be used?).
  • Can management objectives be met regardless of the future use of areas adjacent to the protected area boundary, including conflicts between different values or management objectives, and acceptability to others?
What are the existing scientific or other uses of the area?
Are there conflicting values (e.g. between environmental and scientific values in Article 3(1)) or between protection and use categories, or management objectives?
Size
  • Is the area large enough to maximise the chance of management objectives being achieved?
  • Is it large enough to contain all or most of the key elements identified, in their natural relationships, so that it will be self-perpetuating?
  • What is the minimum size needed to achieve management objectives?
  • Is the area small enough to minimise conflicts between different values or management objectives?
  • Is the area large enough to accommodate future changes (e.g. due to climate change?)
Possible management tools
  • Are there management tools available that could be used to help achieve management objectives and minimise conflicts? (E.g. would zoning be useful to facilitate recognition, protection and management including partitioning between objectives such as protection of vulnerable species in core breeding areas, provision of reference areas and capacity for human activity in suitable fringe areas?).
  • Can management programmes be formulated to attain management objectives? (E.g. signage or boundary markers, survey and research, monitoring, any specific information needed for reporting).
Time period/duration
  • Can the area be protected for a time period that allows full achievement of management objectives?
  • Are there some seasonal periods when parts of the area or species in it are not vulnerable to human activity?
Accessibility/logistics
  • Is the area sufficiently accessible for management operations?
  • Might the logistics needed negatively impact on management objectives and are there alternative management options?
  • Would inaccessibility help achieve management objectives by deterring potentially impacting activity?
Ability to protect more than one value and meet different management objectives (i.e. complementarity)
  • Is there more than one value or objective in Article 3 (1) & 3(2) that can be protected in the area?
  • Would the site add value to the Antarctic protected area system, in quality as well as quantity?
  • Is there an appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of protecting the area, and appropriate equity in the distribution of it and adjacent protected and unprotected areas?
3.3 Feasibility Criteria

The feasibility of a possible protected area is defined here as how possible is it to implement proposed management objectives for a particular area under consideration. The criteria defined in Table 6 could be used to assess feasibility. While the meaning of each of these criteria is generally clear, the implications or their application may not be. Therefore Table 6 is structured as a checklist with additional questions to highlight some of the issues involved and to offer further guidance.

Therefore, if an area has been through an assessment process (Part II), and has satisfied feasibility criteria (Part III), it may be considered as a worthy candidate for further evaluation as a potential ASPA. The outcome of checking and analysis against criteria in Table 6 could also be used to help prepare the draft management plan for the area.

 
 

Top of page

Part IV: Proposing areas for protection

4.1 Drafting Management Plans for Proposed ASPAs

Once a candidate area has been assessed, it is ready for the next stages in the process. A draft management plan is prepared as required by Article 5 of Annex V. The document "Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Protected Areas" was recommended by CEP 1 and adopted at ATCM XXII in 1998 to give some practical elaboration of Article 5. This document should be referred to when drafting management plans for ASPAs.

4.2 Further Steps in the Designation Process

The final stages in the designation process involve formal consideration (review) by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties of a draft management plan following the outline in Article 6 of Annex V.

Figure 1 below provides a flowchart illustrating the assessment process from identifying the values and potential protection categories of a proposed area, to considering quality aspects, to identifying any environmental risks, to assessment of feasibility and finally to a decision on whether to develop a proposal for designation of the site as an ASPA.

Top of page

Part V: Documentation

5.1 Articles 3(1) and 3(2) of the Environment Protocol

Article 3(1)

Any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area to protect outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness values, any combination of those values, or ongoing or planned scientific research.

Article 3(2)

Parties shall seek to identify, within a systematic environmental-geographical framework, and to include in the series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas:

(a) areas kept inviolate from human interference so that future comparisons may be possible with localities that have been affected by human activities;
(b) representative examples of major terrestrial, including glacial and aquatic, ecosystems and marine ecosystems;
(c) areas with important or unusual assemblages of species, including major colonies of breeding native birds or mammals;
(d) the type locality or only known habitat of any species;
(e) areas of interest to ongoing or planned scientific research;
(f) examples of outstanding geological, glaciological, or geomorphological features;
(g) areas of outstanding aesthetic and wilderness value;
(h) sites or monuments of recognised historic value; and
(i) such other areas as may be appropriate to protect the values set out in paragraph 1 above [Article 3(1)].
5.2. References
(see bibliography for full citation where needed)
1. adapted from Geddes and Grosset 1996
2. Antarctic Heritage Trust
3. adapted from Porteous 1996 with reference to philosopher Kant.
4. Convention on Biological Diversity
5. Allaby 1977

Top of page

 

Bibliography

Allaby, M. 1977. A dictionary of the environment. MacMillan Press, London.

Anon. 1998. Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Protected Areas. Report of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXII, Norway.

Austin, M P and Margules, C R. 1986. Assessing represen-tativeness. In "Wildlife conservation evaluation", (M B Usher, Editor) Chapman and Hall, London, pp 45-67.

Calow, P. 1998. Handbook of environmental risk assessment & management. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

De Lange, P J and Norton, D A. 1998. Revisiting rarity: a botanical perspective on the meanings of rarity and the classification of New Zealand's uncommon plants. In "Ecosystems, entomology and plants", Royal Society of New Zealand Misc. Series 48, pp 145-160.

De Poorter, M and Dalziel, J C (Editors). 1996. Cumulative impacts in Antarctica. Proceedings of the Washington Workshop 18-21 September 1996. IUCN. 145 pages.

Dingwall, P R 1992. Design and delimitation of protected areas. In "Developing the Antarctic Protected Area System" (Lewis Smith and others, Editors). Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN Workshop 29 June-2 July 1992. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp 49-52.

FAO 1988. National parks planning: a manual with annotated examples. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. Conservation Guide 17, 105 pages.

Forey, P L, Humphries, C J and Vane-Wright, R I (Editors). 1994. Systematics and conservation evaluation. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Geddes and Grosset. 1996. English dictionary. Geddes and Grosset Ltd.

German Republic. 1999. Factors influencing risk analysis in relation to human activities in Antarctica based on German experience with logistics during German Antarctic research. Information Paper 38, XXIII ATCM, Lima, Peru, 13 pages.

Harwell, M A, Cooper, W and Flaak, R. 1992. Prioritising ecological and human welfare risks from environmental stresses. Environmental Management 16, pp 451-464.

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, 261 pages.

IUCN. 1998. National system planning for protected areas (AG Davey, main author). World Commission on Protected Areas, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 1, 71 pages.

Lewis-Smith, R I, Walton D W H and Dingwall P R. (Editors)1992. Developing the Antarctic Protected Area System. Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN Workshop 29 June-2 July 1992. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, 137 pages.

Mackinnon, J, Child, K and Thorsell, J. 1986. Managing protected areas in the tropics. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Njaastad , B. 1998. Antarctic Protected Areas Workshop, Norwegian Polar Institute Report 110, 86 pages.

Norton, D A. 1999. Forest reserves. In "Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems" (M Hunter, Editor) Cambridge University Press, pp 525-555.

O'Conner, K F, Overmars, F B and Ralston, M M. 1990. Land evaluation for nature conservation &endash; a scientific review. Conservation Science Publication 3, Department of Conservation , Wellington.

Porteous, J D. 1996. Environmental aesthetics. Routledge, London and New York, 290 pages.

Pressey, R L and Logan, V S. 1994. Level of geographical subdivision and its effects on assessments of reserve coverage: a review of regional studies. Conservation Biology 8(4), pp 1037-1046

SCAR and COMNAP. 1996. Monitoring of environmental impacts from science and operations in Antarctica. Report of the Oslo and Texas workshops in 1995 and 1996. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs. 43 pages plus annexes.

Thorsell, J. 1997. Nature's hall of fame: IUCN and the World Heritage Convention. Parks 7 (2), pp 3-7

Udvardy, M D F. 1975. A classification of the biogeo-graphical provinces of the world. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Occasional Paper 18.

Valencia, J (Editor). 1999. Final report of the second workshop on Antarctic Protected Areas. Instituto Antártico Chileno, Santiago, 37 pages.

Top of page

 

Resolution 2 (2000)

Support for CCAMLR and its Measures to Combat Illegal, Unregulated and
Unrestricted Fishing, Including a Catch Documentation Scheme
for Dissostichus spp. (Toothfish).

The Representatives,

Recalling ATCM XXII Resolution 3 (1999) regarding Support for the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in its efforts to deal with the problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in the Convention Area;

Recalling also that the Preamble to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol) reaffirms the conservation principles of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources;

Recognising that the Objective of the Protocol (Article 2) is for Parties to commit themselves to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems;

Noting that the Eighteen Meeting of the Commission to CCAMLR has introduced a Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp. to identify the origins of Dissostichus spp. entering the markets of Contracting Parties and to determine whether Dissostichus spp. harvested in the Convention Area were caught in a manner consistent with CCAMLR Conservation Measures; and

Noting further that as part of that Scheme, the Commission invites non-Contracting Parties (to CCAMLR) whose vessels fish for Dissostichus spp. to participate in the Catch Documentation Scheme.

Recommend that:

All Parties to the Antarctic Treaty which are not Contracting Parties to CCAMLR and whose flag vessels fish for toothfish, or who are involved in the trade of toothfish, participate in, or comply voluntarily with, the CCAMLR Catch Documentation Scheme for Dissostichus spp.