Protection of Antarctic soil environments: A review of the current issues and future challenges for the Environmental Protocol

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Review

Protection of Antarctic soil environments: A review of the current issues and future challenges for the Environmental Protocol

MARK

T.A. O’Neill School of Sciences, Waikato University, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Antarctica Environmental protocol Environmental management Human impacts Soil environment

2016 marked the 25th anniversary of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Terrestrial ice-free areas constitute approximately 0.18% of Antarctica, but represent the most biologically active, historically rich, and environmentally sensitive sites. Antarctic soils are easily disturbed and environmental legacies of human activities are scattered across the continent; many are remnants of the 1950s-1980s when environmental protection was less comprehensive than today. Adoption of the Environmental Protocol in 1991 represented an important and proactive shift in Antarctic governance, securing environmental protection as a fundamental tenet of the Treaty System. Twenty five years on standards of environmental management have greatly improved, yet environmental pressures are compounding. Shortcomings in the implementation of the Environmental Protocol exist due to disparities in cultural values, operational realities, and inconsistent environmental impact assessments among governments and National Antarctic Programs. Non-native species management remains underdeveloped; and there is inadequate representation of all biogeographic regions within the Protected Area system; therefore jeopardizing conservation of Antarctic biodiversity and the integrity of the soil environment. Fundamental improvements are required to address the current shortcomings and ensure effective environmental protection for the next 25 years, including: (1) increased multinational and multidisciplinary collaboration to answer targeted research questions addressing contemporary management challenges, (2) effective communication of science to policy makers and environmental managers to inform decisionmaking, and (3) making the mandate of long-term monitoring of the terrestrial environment a high priority for all governments signatory to the Antarctic Treaty.

1. Introduction The Antarctic continent is an internationally managed natural reserve devoted to peace and science, designated as such by the Antarctic Treaty (1959). Human activities in Antarctica have shifted focus considerably over the last 200 years, from resource exploitation (sealing and whaling) to exploration,to science and tourism in recent times. Since the International Geophysical Year (1957/58) scientific research programmes have expanded (approx. 5000 people working in Antarctica annually) (COMNAP, 2012a), and tourism increased to more than 39,000 tourist visitors in the 2015/16 season (IAATO, 2016). Like elsewhere in the world, as our activities increased and diversified, humans began to alter and degrade the landscape. The Antarctic Treaty (1959) did not provide prescriptive advice on environmental protection and consequently Treaty Parties set about to agreeing to an additional suite of international instruments to address environmental issues not covered in the Treaty. Tin and others (2014) provide an excellent summary of the history of the Antarctic Treaty

E-mail address: tanya.o'[email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.017 Received 20 April 2017; Received in revised form 30 May 2017; Accepted 25 June 2017 1462-9011/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

System (including all legal instruments designed for the protection of the Antarctic environment). 2016 marked the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (hereafter the Environmental Protocol). This synthesis paper seeks to review the last 25 years of improvement in environmental management of the Antarctic soil environment. The soil environment was chosen to constrain the scope of the synthesis and undoubtedly other elements of the terrestrial environment (e.g. freshwater bodies, intertidal zones etc.) could equally well be included. This paper presents some of the major scientific research and policy contributions that have enhanced the environmental protection of the soil environment. It considers: (1) the attributes of Antarctic soils that promote either resilience or vulnerability to degradation; (2) the provisions within the Environmental Protocol relating to the soil environment, giving examples of management changes following adoption of the Environmental Protocol; (3) outlines the major shortcomings in the implementation of the Environmental Protocol; and (4) gives some of the possible solutions to address the current shortcomings to ensure

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

McCraw (1967) for the Taylor Valley in South Victoria Land. Later workers mapped soil spatial distribution in selected areas, and in a few instances noted the vulnerability and recoverability of soil to varying scales of human activities. Our understanding of Antarctic soils is limited in some remote regions by the lack of soil survey data. Even in areas close to research stations, such as the Vestfold Hills in East Antarctica, there are limited studies documenting the distribution and characterisation of nearby soils and sediment (Mergelov, 2014). Detailed accounts of the history of human activity in Antarctica and resulting impacts on the soil environment are given in Campbell and Claridge (1987), Tin and others (2009) and O’Neill and others (2015) and references therein. The impacts from camping activities of scientists and movement of tourists has been well documented (Campbell et al., 1993; Tejedo et al., 2012, 2014; O’Neill et al., 2013, 2015; Balks and O’Neill, 2016). Localised studies on the recoverability of soil substrates following pedestrian traffic have revealed one set of guidelines does not necessarily fit all, where some maritime Antarctic sites are more resilient and readily recoverable due to the warmer, higher rainfall environments; other maritime sites where extensive moss and lichen communities are present, are highly vulnerable to damage. Arid sites on softer soil substrates in the Ross Sea region, such as in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, are vulnerable to disturbance with some visible impacts lasting many 10 s to 100 s of years, whereas at other sites visible disturbance from less severe activities such as camping are undetectable within a few seasons. 3. The environmental protocol The Environmental Protocol (ATCP, 1991), signed in 1991, was the first step toward a comprehensive statement of environmental principles governing the conduct of Treaty Nations activities in Antarctica. The Environmental Protocol was intended to strengthen the Antarctic Treaty and built on and incorporated many existing SCAR (Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, established in 1958 to advance Antarctic Research and provide independent and objective scientific advice and information to the Antarctic Treaty System) and Antarctic Treaty measures and recommendations on conservation (such as the 1964 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna), waste management and marine pollution. By signing the Parties committed themselves to “…protection of the Antarctic environment and its dependant and associated ecosystems, including its wilderness and aesthetic values…” (Article 2 and Article 3(1)). It is the responsibility of the signatory governments to design their own internal institutional structures (appropriate national laws, regulations, administrative actions and enforcement measures) to comply with the Environmental Protocol’s requirements (Article 13). Although the Environmental Protocol did not come into force until 14 January 1998, some signatory governments through their National Antarctic Programmes (NAP: “the entity with national responsibility for managing the support of scientific research in the Antarctic Treaty Area on behalf of its government and in the spirit of the Antarctic Treaty”, COMNAP, 2008a), adopted the principles of the Environmental Protocol shortly after signing (Klein et al., 2008). Broadly, the Environmental Protocol currently comprises six annexes dealing with (I) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), (II) Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna, (III) Waste Disposal and Waste Management, (IV) Prevention of Marine Pollution, and (V) Management of Protected Areas (see http://www.ats.aq/e/ep.htm for links to individual annexes). Annex VI on Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies was adopted by the 28th Antarctic Consultative Treaty Meeting (ATCM) in Stockholm (2005) and will enter into force once approved by all Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. Under Article 11 of the Environmental Protocol the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) was established as an expert advisory body to provide advice to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties “in connection with the implementation of” the Environmental Protocol (Article 12). The remit of the CEP includes providing advice on the need

Fig. 1. Example of an arid McMurdo Dry Valley soil and landscape (top); Maritime Antarctic penguin-influenced soil and landscape (bottom). Photos from Megan Balks.

effective environmental protection for the next 25 years. 2. Antarctic soil environments For a soil scientist, Antarctica provides a unique environment for studying soil formation and soil processes. Antarctic soils are among the oldest, coldest, and driest soils on Earth and have some unusual pedological features (Campbell and Claridge, 1987). In most parts of Antarctica, soil formation is extremely slow due to the frigid climate and lack of moisture, and it can take up to a millennia for 1 cm of soil to form (Campbell and Claridge, 1987). Slow pedogenesis and extremes in climate give rise to soil features such as varnished desert pavements, cavernous weathering, ventifacts, surface salt crusts and thick salt horizons at depth (Fig. 1). Maritime Antarctic soils tend to have increased soil moisture contents compared with soils of other climatic zones in Antarctica, such as the volcanic soils of Ross Island and the arid McMurdo Dry Valleys. Maritime Antarctic soils tend to be more weathered and developed, and the active layer (thawed soil layer above the permafrost) tends to be deeper and vegetation more abundant in response to higher temperatures and greater water availability (Campbell and Claridge, 1987; Bockheim, 1997) (Fig. 1). Antarctic icefree soil environments account for just 0.18% of the continental area (Burton-Johnson et al., 2016), yet are the sites where the majority of human activity has historically occurred (Fig. 2). The first crumbly, root-less, seemingly void of life Antarctic “soil” sample accompanied Shackleton back during his 1907–1909 voyage (Jensen, 1916), yet it was not until close to the end of the twentieth century that scientists removed the quotation marks and finally agreed Antarctic soil is truly a soil. It was not until 1997 that Antarctic soils were recognised in a Soil Order (Gelisols) in the United States Soil Taxonomy. Bockheim (2015a) gives a detailed account of the early history of Antarctic soil science. The first soil map was produced by 154

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

Fig. 2. Map of Antarctica. Green insert showing the Ross Sea region, including Ross Island and McMurdo Dry Valleys; Red insert showing the Antarctic Peninsula with South Shetland Islands and Deception Island. Figure a collage from Google Earth.

role is to bring together managers of NAPs to develop and promote best practises in managing the support of scientific research in Antarctica (COMNAP, 2008a). 1991 also saw the formation of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) which adopted its own industry-wide guidelines (as well as the provisions of the Environmental Protocol) to ensure proper visitor conduct (IAATO, 2011) (e.g. allowing one ship at a time at a landing site; limits on passengers ashore

to update, strengthen or improve measures of the Environmental Protocol or the need for additional Annexes. Since 1998 the CEP have met annually in conjunction with the annual ATCM, however their work extends intersessionally, with specific contact groups working on more complex work, management plan updates, or high level environmental impact assessments. The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) was established in 1988. COMNAP’s 155

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

February 1956, and is considered one of the most heavily impacted sites on the continent. An investigation into the temporal and spatial patterns of human disturbance began in 1999. One of the aims was to determine whether the observed environmental impacts were the result of current practise or legacy impacts and whether the impacted area was increasing or decreasing over time. Firstly the aerial extent of disturbance zones (i.e. the environmental footprint) was established using an extensive aerial photo archive dating back to 1956 and these were put into a geographic information system (GIS). Historic changes in activity and impact could then be identified, and were coupled with available documentation and interviews with station personnel. Alongside this desktop study a coordinated programme to monitor the quality of both the soil and marine environments was initiated and continues today. It was decided soil hydrocarbon contamination and concentration of various heavy metals in soil were the most useful indicators of human impact in a terrestrial setting and using GIS metal and hydrocarbon concentration maps were produced across the station surrounds. Areas of high metal and hydrocarbon concentration were identified and it was confirmed that present day station activity (and therefore impacts) is confined to previously disturbed areas (Klein et al., 2008, 2014; Kennicutt II et al., 2010). The Antarctic Site Inventory (ASI), operated by non-governmental not-for-profit science and education organisation Oceanites (founded by Ron Naveen in 1987), commenced in 1994 as a means to collect baseline data to detect possible changes in biophysical variables at regularly visited Antarctic Peninsula sites (Naveen, 1996). The main objective of the project was to monitor penguin and seabird population trends (e.g. Lynch et al., 2013), however more recently moss and lichen biodiversity (e.g. Casanovas et al., 2014) data are being collected. Over the first 22 seasons (1994–2016) the ASI team made 1713 site visits and collected wildlife census and descriptive data at 223 Antarctic Peninsula locations, including repeated visits to the most heavily visited sites in the Antarctic Peninsula (for more information: https:// oceanites.org/about-us/). The ASI is one of the longest running monitoring programmes in the Antarctic Peninsula and as well as detecting change in bird populations, the ASI has provided data on detectable changes occurring at sensitive sites (through repeat observations and photo-documentation), including the extent of any observed visitor impacts (from footprints to litter), and the state of zodiac landing sites and visitor trails (Naveen and Lynch, 2011). The data and observations have informed site specific visitor guidelines (http://www.ats.aq/e/ats_ other_siteguidelines.htm). To date, 39 Site Guidelines for Visitors have been discussed at the ATCM, adopted by consensus, and although are not mandatory, are used by Treaty Parties and IAATO as provisions to manage visitor related pressures at some of the most heavily frequented sites in Antarctica. Ongoing monitoring programmes such as at McMurdo Station or the ASI provide baseline data to quantify the extent of impacts, and reveal how legacy impacts continue to affect the local environment, and how these might best be managed (Klein et al., 2008, 2014; United States, 2008). Findings from these and other monitoring programmes have been presented in the ATCM and CEP meetings (United States, 1998, 2008), providing a framework suitable for other Antarctic bases. Nonbinding guidelines and codes of conduct have been developed by SCAR, COMNAP, IAATO, and the CEP, to improve the effectiveness of the provisions of Annex I and include: Practical Guidelines for Developing Environmental Monitoring Programmes in Antarctica (COMNAP, 2005); Environmental Code of Conduct for Terrestrial Scientific Field Research, Antarctica (SCAR, 2009); General Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic (IAATO, 2011); the Code of Conduct for Activity within Terrestrial Geothermal Environments in Antarctica (SCAR, 2016); and the updated EIA Guidelines (CEP, 2016a).

to no more than 100, etc.). 4. The environmental protocol and provisions for the protection of the soil environment The Environmental Protocol set out new rules on management of the soil environment. Four of six annexes of the Environmental Protocol (Annex I, EIA; Annex II, Conservation of Flora and Fauna; Annex III, Waste Disposal and Waste Management; and Annex V, Management of Protected Areas) contain measures directly related for the protection of the soil environment and associated ecosystems. These measures are outlined below and examples are given to illustrate how these measures have improved the state of the soil environment or minimized impacts. Non-binding guidelines and codes of conduct have been developed by SCAR, COMNAP, IAATO, and the CEP, as practical management tools to aid with management of human activities and minimize environmental impacts. These tools are briefly discussed. 4.1. Annex I − environmental impact assessment Annex I of the Environmental Protocol requires that all activities planned in Antarctica, must undergo an EIA and predicted impacts assessed. Article 8 provides three categories of environmental impact (less than a minor or transitory impact, a minor or transitory impact, and more than a minor or transitory impact), depending on the nature and scale of the activity. The first level requires a preliminary assessment, and, “if an activity is determined as having less than a minor or transitory impact, the activity may proceed” (Annex I, Article 1). This preliminary assessment is processed at the national level, and a decision made by the policy/and or environmental representative in the national authority responsible for Antarctic environmental affairs (Kriwoken, 2000). The second level of assessment is the initial environmental evaluation (IEE) which is required for proposed activities that may have a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment (Annex I, Article 2). An IEE requires sufficient detail (Annex I, Article1(1)(a)(b)) and must include: a description of the proposed activity, including its purpose, location, duration and intensity (Annex I, Article 2(1)(a)); and consideration of alternatives to the proposed activity and any impacts that the proposed activity may have on the environment, including cumulative impacts (Annex I, Article 2(1)(b)) (Kriwoken, 2000). Finally, the third level of assessment is the comprehensive environmental evaluation (CEE). The Environmental Protocol states “if an IEE indicates or if it is otherwise determined that a proposed activity is likely to have more than a minor or transitory impact, a CEE shall be prepared” (Annex I, Article 3). The CEE must be publicly available and circulated to interested Consultative Parties, allowing 90 days for comments (Annex I, Article 3(3)). Once comments have been incorporated the draft CEE is forwarded to the CEP and the Consultative Parties at least 120 days before the next ATCM (Annex I, Article 3(4)). A CEE must build on the requirements of an IEE (e.g. a description of the proposed activity, purpose, location, duration and intensity, and possible alternatives), and additionally, but not limited to, a description of the initial environmental reference state and predicted changes to that state, description of the monitoring programme to minimize impacts and detect unforeseen impacts, and an indication of the uncertainties of predicted environmental impacts (Annex I, Article 3(2)(a-l)). Under the Environmental Protocol it is mandatory to regularly monitor the environmental impacts caused by any new infrastructure that requires a CEE (Annex I, Article 5) in order to assess the impact of ongoing activities, to verify predicted impacts, and to facilitate early detection of unforeseen activities (Annex I, Article 3(2)(d)(e)). There have been some examples where governments have dedicated funds to carry out long-term monitoring activities. One such example is the McMurdo Station monitoring programme (Klein et al., 2008, 2014; Kennicutt II et al., 2010). The United States base, McMurdo Station, located on Ross Island in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica, was officially opened in

4.2. Annex II − conservation of flora and fauna Indirectly Annex II, Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna, 156

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

Fig. 3. Cape Hallett Station, Seabee Hook, Cape Hallett. Cape Hallett Station (circled) c.1962. Antarctica New Zealand Collection (B Wood) (left); Former station site, currently occupied by Adelie penguins c.2014. With permission from A Slater.

small on a global comparison, most of these legacy contaminated sites occur in ice-free coastal environments, some of which may provide habitat for flora and fauna, and through seepage and runoff some mobile contaminants can spread to other environments. A recent COMNAP working paper presented at the 2012 ATCM documents 31 examples of clean up, removal, or remediation by 16 different nations in the period between 1999 and 2011 (COMNAP, 2012b). A specific example of how the Environmental Protocol changed clean-up practises was illustrated in the decommissioning of the joint US/New Zealand station at Cape Hallett in Northern Victoria-Land. The base was abandoned in 1973 (pre-Environmental Protocol) and clean-up began thereafter including dumping of waste on sea-ice and open burning of waste. When the Environmental Protocol came into force a fuel tank and other material remained on site. The Environmental Protocol specified previously commonplace waste disposal methods, such as open burning, would now be unacceptable (Annex III, Article 3(2)). A joint assessment of the state of the site was conducted in 2000 and a separate EIA was required for the removal of the fuel tank due to risk of any residue contaminating the surrounding environment (Gordon, 2003). A dedicated clean-up programme followed and all remaining materials were removed (New Zealand and United States, 2006). In 2007 the site was revisited by the NZ programme and monitoring undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the clean-up effort and Adelie penguins were found to be nesting on the former station site (Fig. 3). This is one example of many former bases and campsites around Antarctica which have now been cleaned up and large amounts of abandoned material removed as a consequence of the Environmental Protocol (e.g. see examples in COMNAP, 2012b; O’Neill et al., 2012, 2013, 2015). Since the entry into force of the Environmental Protocol there have been many remediation techniques and strategies trialled by different Treaty Nations with varying degrees of success. These include and are not limited to, mechanical soil washing to remove contaminants (e.g. McMurdo Station, Ross Island − Chiang et al., 1997), ground surface rehabilitation/recontouring after geotechnical work (e.g. Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica − Kiernan and McConnell, 2001) bioremediation of contaminated soil (e.g. onsite remediation of fuel-contaminated soil using biopiles near Casey Station, East Antarctica − McWatters et al., 2016a, 2016b), soil sieving to remove foreign material such as nails (e.g. decommissioning of Vanda Station, McMurdo Dry Valley −, Campbell et al., 1993; O’Neill et al., 2012, 2015), best methods for complete removal of fuel contaminated soil (e.g. Casey Station, East Antarctica − Stark et al., 2006), and surface raking to redistribute unnatural concentrations of rock to improve the aesthetics of the landscape (e.g. Cape Roberts storage area, Ross Sea region − ONeill et al., 2012). Some researchers have cautioned the use of remedial methods such as raking, which may enhance the visual aesthetics of a site, but further investigation is required as it is unknown whether the raking activity may further damage the remaining microbial community (O’Neill et al., 2013). Furthermore, when recontouring a disturbed site, consideration must be made

provides provisions for the protection of the soil environment (referred to in Annex II as “habitat”) and associated ecosystems. Under the environmental provisions “the taking or harmful interference of flora or fauna is prohibited” (Annex II, Article 3(1)) (without a permit) and “the habitats essential to their existence” are to be maintained (Annex II, Article 3(3)(c)). Article 4 contains measures relevant to the intentional introduction of non-native species, however little consideration is given to the unintentional introduction of non-native species (Article 4(5)), other than to ensure precautions are taken to prevent the accidental introduction of micro-organisms (Article 4(7)), without mention of suitable response strategies (Convey et al., 2012). In 2011 the ATCM adopted the Non-native Species Manual, including guidelines and resources to assist Parties to meet their obligations, which was then updated in 2016 (CEP, 2016b). Numerous information papers have been presented at the ATCM documenting the successful eradication of introduced plant species, including Whalers Bay, Deception Island (United Kingdom and Spain, 2010); eradiation of Poa pratensis from Cierva Point, Antarctic Peninsula (Argentina, Spain and United Kingdom, 2015); and of Poa annua L. from ASPA 128 Admiralty Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands (Poland, 2016). In most cases considerable consultation and investigation into species establishment, persistence, impacts on native communities, and physiological attributes of the species, is undertaken before manually removing the grass and underlying soil (Pertierra et al., 2017b). This step-wise process of consultation, experimental phase or review of best practise, actual remediation, monitoring, and reporting, although can take considerable time, provides a framework for others to adapt to confront similar non-native invasions. 4.3. Annex III − waste disposal and waste management Under Annex III all Treaty Nations are committed to clearing up past waste disposal sites on land as well as abandoned work of past activities (Annex III, Article 1(5)). Annex III also states that it is critical that clean-up efforts are only undertaken if the removal of waste and structures do not result in a greater adverse impact than leaving the waste/structure in place (Annex III, Article 1(5)(b)). Wastes shall not be disposed of onto ice-free areas (Annex III, Article 4(1)), and waste should be stored in such a way to prevent dispersal into the environment (Annex III, Article 6). Prior to the Environmental Protocol waste management at Antarctic facilities often involved open burning and disposal of waste in landfills (see Tin et al., 2009 and references therein). It was common practise to abandon disused facilities and leave them to deteriorate. Soon after the Environmental Protocol entered into force, Snape and others (2001) estimated that the volume of abandoned, unconfined landfill materials in Antarctica may be somewhere between 1 and 10 million m3 and that the volume of petroleum-contaminated soil and rock material may be of similar volume (Snape et al., 2001). Although this volume may seem 157

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

discipline ‘tertiary’ layers − such as the creation of a “vulnerability to disturbance” layer which will combine geology, soil, biology, and human activity data.

regarding changes in drainage patterns and other geomorphic processes in the long-term, and flow on effects down-slope of the disturbance and remedial work (O’Neill et al., 2015, and references therein). Practical guidelines such as the Antarctic Clean-up Manual (CEP, 2014) and the Fuel Manual (COMNAP, 2008b) have been developed to provide guidance to Treaty Parties to meet the provisions of Annex III.

4.5. Inspections In accordance with Article 8 of the Antarctic Treaty and Article 14 of the Environmental Protocol, each Consultative Party has the right to designate observers to carry out inspections to ensure the provisions of the Environmental Protocol are being met. Article 14(3) requires that observers “shall have complete freedom of access at any time to any or all areas of Antarctica.” This includes “…all stations, installations and equipment within those areas, and all ships and aircraft at points of discharging or embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica.”. Once inspections have taken place reports are send to the Parties inspected, who are given the opportunity to comment, and the reports and comments are then circulated to all Treaty Parties and are up for discussion at the next ATCM (Article 14(4)). The ATCM has adopted sets of non-mandatory Inspection checklists for different types of facilities and protected areas to assist inspection activity (ATCM, 1995, 2010). Observers undertaking inspections between 2012 and 2016 commonly noted high levels of awareness of the provisions of the Environmental Protocol at virtually all the stations and vessels inspected, and numerous examples of good practise, summarised in the individual reports (see Argentina and Chile, 2016; United States, 2016; China 2015; United Kingdom and Czech Republic, 2015; Russia and United States, 2012). With regard to protection of the soil environment and management of Protected Areas, past inspection teams have noticed on King George Island, South Shetland Islands, there were old buildings and associated facilities not in use that needed to be removed (China, 2015). Russia and United States (2012) inspection teams visiting stations in the Eastern part of Antarctica (Dronning Maud Land, Princess Elizabeth Land and Enderby Land) noted some stations did not undertake broad environmental monitoring of potential impacts of stations’ activities, such as wastewater discharge, emissions, physical disturbance, impacts on local fauna and flora, etc. They also noted that some station personnel lacked familiarity with Annex I of the Environmental Protocol regarding EIA procedures, including unfamiliar personnel at stations that were currently undergoing construction works (Russia and United States, 2012). In the ensuing report inspection teams recommended more comprehensive monitoring of station impacts be considered and the requirement for more in-depth understanding of the provisions of the Environmental Protocol and obligations. In the comprehensive inspection report prepared by the United Kingdom and Czech Republic (2015) on a number of Antarctic Peninsula facilities, the observers noted the impacts of climatic and environmental changes on facilities, including permafrost melting and gully erosion in close proximity to infrastructure (United Kingdom and Czech Republic, 2015). In areas such as Deception Island, where the combination of loose volcanic scoria, heavier snowfall (and subsequent high volumes of meltwater in the summer), and permafrost thaw, there is the risk of destabilisation of infrastructure. Inspection teams observed some stations were already adapting to the environmental changes by employing means to protect building foundations such as wire gabion baskets, another station was undertaking a major bank stabilisation project the following season to halt and prevent further erosion. It was a recommendation of this team that affected Parties be encouraged to conduct risk assessments for their infrastructure in light of predicted climate change and in some cases put early measures in place to avoid the growing risk of significant contamination of the surrounding environment (United Kingdom and Czech Republic, 2015).

4.4. Annex V − management of protected areas Specially protected areas in Antarctica were first established in 1964 under the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. The designation of protected areas is an important mechanism for protecting regionally and globally important soil environments. Annex V of the Environmental Protocol makes provision for special protection of areas (ASPA) designated under nine categories representing their physical, cultural, or ecological values (Annex V, Article 3(1)). Furthermore, Annex V makes provision for designation of specially managed areas (ASMA), as an “area where activities are being conducted or may be conducted in the future, to assist in the planning and co-ordination of activities, avoid possible conflicts, improve co-operation between Parties or minimize environmental impacts” (Annex V, Article 4). There are currently 72 designated ASPA and 6 ASMA (ATS, 2016; Hughes and Grant, 2017). Any Party, the CEP, SCAR or Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources may propose an area for designation as an ASPA or ASMA by submitting a proposed Management Plan to the ATCM (Annex V, Article 5). There are guidelines to aid in the preparation of Management Plans, such as the Revised Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (CEP, 2011). Once agreed by consensus the Protected Area becomes the responsibility of all Treaty Parties, albeit, in practise the proponents take on the majority of the management responsibilities (Hughes and Grant, 2017). The Environmental Protocol recognised the need to “identify [a series of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas] within a systematic environmental-geographical framework” (Annex V, Article 3(2)), and to address this aspect of the Environmental Protocol New Zealand developed the Environmental Domains Analysis for the Antarctic Continent (EDA) (Morgan et al., 2007). The EDA is a computerised classification of environmental domains based on abiotic variables, such as mean annual air temperature, mean annual wind speed, slope, ice cover etc. and was adopted at the 2008 ATCM as a means to identify unique and representative areas that could be designated as ASPA (Morgan et al., 2007). Twenty-one different environmental-geographic regions resulted. The EDA, however, lacked the necessary biological information, required under Annex V, Article 3(2)(b-d), where ASPA are to include: representative examples of major terrestrial ecosystems; areas with important or unusual assemblages of species, including major colonies of breeding native birds or mammals; the type locality or only known habitat of any species. Consequently, further refinement and inclusion of biodiversity data to develop a set of spatially explicit Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBR) (Terauds et al., 2012) of which there are currently 16 in total (Terauds and Lee, 2016). Building on the earlier EDA and ACBR geographical classifications of terrestrial Antarctica, there are a range of research projects underway to continue the management of Antarctica in line with the requirements of Annex V. Papers submitted to the ATCM in 2016 by New Zealand, highlight the development of a management tool to view, assess, and monitor activities occurring at a regional (rather than a coarse continental) scale (New Zealand, 2016). This regional-scale tool will use a range of existing and new environmental data, including soil data, underlying geology, hydrology, human movement and biological data to provide analyse the spatial variation of environmental pressures in the Ross Sea region. The overarching aim of this tool is to support environmental managers and policy-makers in decision making and to date it is proving successful in bringing together a suite of scientists from numerous disciplines and facilitating discussion on cross-

5. Shortfalls in the implementation of the environmental protocol Over the last 25 years the Environmental Protocol has undoubtedly had an effect on the way we plan, conduct, and manage activities 158

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

hinders progress, if agreement occurs at all. Another complication is that the wording of the Environmental Protocol allows for wide interpretation of EIA and monitoring requirements (Kriwoken, 2000; Hughes, 2010). Hughes (2010) remarked that on closer examination of the Environmental Protocol there is some doubt over whether there is a formal obligation to monitor pre-Environmental Protocol infrastructure (those that would have required a CEE, i.e. all current stations would come under this umbrella).

undertaken in Antarctica. Implementation of the Environmental Protocol is a governmental responsibility of those countries signatory to the Antarctic Treaty and Environmental Protocol, and they must put in place appropriate national legislation to comply with the Environmental Protocol’s regulations (Article 13). To complement the Environmental Protocol a number of practical guidelines have been agreed and adopted to provide further advice on best practise. However, not all governments are necessarily fulfilling their requirements and falling short in some areas. There are differences in the operational realities of Treaty Parties and their NAPs; inconsistencies in the level of detail in EIA between some Treaty Parties; issues with addressing cumulative impacts; underdevelopment of the management of non-native species; and inadequate representation of all ACBR bioregions within the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas system; all of which can adversely affect the soil environment. As operator activities diversify, scientists venture into pristine deeper field sites (Tin et al., 2014; Hughes, 2010), and tourism offerings expand (Tin et al., 2014; Lamers and Getler, 2010), some might ask: is the Environmental Protocol adequately prepared for the environmental pressures of the next 25 years?

5.2. Implementation of environmental impact assessments and addressing cumulative impacts There are inconsistencies in the interpretation of the tiered levels of impacts in the self-assessment phase of EIA (see Section 4.1) (Bastmeijer and Roura, 2007; Hemmings and Kriwoken, 2010), questioning quality control by some government agencies tasked with scrutinising EIA at the national level. To date not one EIA has led to substantial modification of the proposed activity, nor has there been a case where a decision has been made not to proceed with the activity (see ATS Information Exchange annual reports; Hemmings and Kriwoken, 2010; Convey et al., 2012). Furthermore, predicted impacts are rarely verified, with some therefore questioning whether EIA are a purely administrative exercise (Tin et al., 2009; Convey et al., 2012). There have been recent cases where the level of EIA undertaken by some operators have not always been appropriate for the likely level of impact, and in one instance an IEE specifying “minor and transitory” impacts was prepared for the expansion of a station, but the work resulted in destruction of beach ridges (Braun et al., 2012). A shortfall of the Antarctic Treaty System is that there is no penalty for harming the environment and if the expected levels of impact of the proposed activity are actually greater than anticipated, restoration back to their original condition or remediation is not required. There is the expectation that all governments enforce the EIA provisions in a similar way but in a governance system where consensus is required, and often slowly achieved, short-cuts by some Consultative Parties to avoid the time consuming administration, scientific effort, and financial resource to put together a CEE, may be an unfortunate reality (see Braun et al., 2014). Addressing cumulative human impacts has long been on the agenda of the CEP and ATCM. The first international cumulative impact workshop took place in 1996, and five key mechanisms were identified to combat cumulative impacts: (1) a more effective EIA process; (2) improvements to existing area protection mechanisms; (3) improved information exchange and management; (4) increased international cooperation; and (5) targeted research and monitoring (Dalziel and de Poorter, 1998). In the 20 years since little progress has been made to address cumulative impacts arising from science research and logistic support, or the tourism industry. Tourism is now the most populous activity in Antarctica and as the number of landing passengers continues to increase, with some of the most frequented sites such as Whalers Bay on Deception Island receiving 14,000 tourists per season, many have suggested that cumulative impacts of multiple operators visiting multiple sites is insufficiently addressed under the current EIA system (Kriwoken and Rootes, 2000; Hemmings and Roura, 2003; ASOC, 2008). IAATO-member tourist operators, however, strictly follow visitor site guidelines, and the local environmental impact of tourism is generally considered to be lower than the impact of national programme personnel (Braun et al., 2012). Jabour (2009) maintains it is misleading to compare the relative environmental pressures exerted by NAP with the tourism industry on numbers of visitors alone, giving the example of the 2007/2008 season where approximately 73,000 people visited Antarctica as part of a tourism operation (tourist, guides, and cruise-staff), and approximately 4000 people as part of national programmes. On statistics alone tourism looks to exert greater environmental pressure but when expressed as number of person days ashore national programme personnel equate to 675,000 days, while

5.1. Operational realities The challenges facing NAPs are summarised well by Sánchez and Njaastad (2014). Differences in the size and financing of Antarctic operations and political direction by home governments, can contribute to a disparity between Environmental Protocol obligations and reality on the ground. Some governments may prioritise Antarctic operations over other public spending; some have larger financial resources and better able to conform to new procedures or requirements in a more timely manner (Sánchez and Njaastad, 2014). Others have Environmental Management Systems in place to allow rapid identification of environmental impacts and timely responses (Sánchez and Njaastad, 2014). For some Consultative Parties there is still a need to commit to significant planning, scientific effort, and financial resources, to cleanup abandoned sites and implement monitoring programmes to fulfil their obligations under the Environmental Protocol (see inspection reports, Argentina and Chile, 2016; United States, 2016; China 2015; United Kingdom and Czech Republic, 2015; Russia and United States, 2012). The example of the McMurdo Station long-term monitoring programme (see Section 4.1) is the best-documented by a Treaty Nation and one of the longest running monitoring programmes in Antarctica, yet as Hughes (2010) correctly states, have not the United States simply fulfilled their obligations under the Environmental Protocol? Comprehensive programmes monitoring the impacts of station operations on the environment should be undertaken by all stations, and signatory Nations are required to supply details of their monitoring work through the ATS Electronic Information Exchange System (see www.ats.aq/e/ie. htm), yet Hughes (2010) indicated as of 2008/2009 only three of the 28 Treaty Nations had made that information available (questioning whether programmes were taking place). Re-inspection of the ATS Electronic Information Exchange System database in 2017 shows little evidence available to suggest that much has changed since 2008/2009. There are factors that prevent coordinated and sustained monitoring, including allocation of resources (experienced personnel, sophisticated equipment and funds), particularly with smaller and less well-resourced NAPs; as well as the lack of esteem or recognition attributed to longterm monitoring programmes by both science funding bodies compared with high impact “blue-sky” research (Hughes, 2010; Sánchez and Njaastad, 2014). Consequently piecemeal, short-term monitoring programmes with very few time-series data sets and limited spatial extent have been common practise amongst NAPs. Long standing members of the CEP note a lack of engagement with CEP-led environmental management initiatives and policy by some Parties (Convey et al., 2012) and when all decisions (and outputs in the form of Measures, Resolutions and guidelines) must be agreed by consensus, lack of engagement 159

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

Native Species Manual and deemed incorporation of climate change impacts, response strategies, and monitoring approaches, of high priority. 2016 saw the adoption of an updated Non-native Species Manual (CEP, 2016b), which the CEP consider a “living” document, able to be revisited annually with new research and best practise guidelines.

the tourism industry approximately 32,000 person days ashore (Jabour, 2009). Whilst the tourism industry follow strict visitor guidelines national programmes can camp in remote previously undisturbed locations, install scientific equipment, and take environmental samples. The cumulative environmental impacts of multi-user areas is also of concern, such as the Fildes Peninsula region on King George Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctic Peninsula, a site where numerous national programme bases overlap. Past inspection teams have observed little international scientific cooperation between NAPs operating in close proximity, sometimes resulting in replication of scientific research and consequently greater environmental impact (Argentina and Chile, 2016). In a comprehensive assessment of human impacts in the Fildes Peninsula region by Braun and others (2014) over six field seasons, increasing human pressure was shown to be negatively affecting the local environment which prompted a call for the area to be designated an ASMA (Germany, 2009), similar to that of the McMurdo Dry Valleys or Deception Island Specially Managed Areas. Unfortunately this proposal met opposition from Treaty Nations and ASMA designation requires consensus by all Consultative Parties, not just those active in the region (Braun et al., 2012, 2014).

5.4. Antarctic specially protected area inadequacies The overall distribution of protected areas across the continent is more a reflection of the levels and history of human activity, rather than an objective assessment of the specific values a location posesses (Hughes and Convey, 2010). Analysis by Hughes and Grant (2017) shows the earliest designation of ASPA were close to research stations and proposed by single Claimant Parties. This neither non-objective nor systematic approach has led to an ASPA network that provides a skewed representation both spatially and in relation to the CEP endorsed Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBR) (Terauds et al., 2012). Furthermore, the current ASPA network is at high risk of nonnative species establishment due to close proximity to stations, scientific activity, and tourist landing sites (Coetzee et al., 2017). Research by Shaw and others (2014) highlighted Antarctica as one of the planet’s least protected regions with a mere 1.5% of the total ice-free area formally designated as specially protected. On a global comparison, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 calls for at least 17% of the ecologically representative terrestrial area of a country to be conserved and effectively managed by 2020 (UNEP, 2010). Recent works by Hughes and Convey (2010), Terauds and others (2012), Shaw and others (2014), Hughes and others (2013); Hughes and others (2016), and Hughes and Grant (2017) agree that in its current state the ASPA network does not capture the biodiversity features of the continent (including appropriate size and representative habit) nor incorporate all 16 distinct ABCRs (five biogeographic regions are not even represented). Hughes and Grant (2017) provide a detailed account of the spatial distribution of Antarctic ASPA and how designation of ASPA continues to decrease over time since the adoption of the Environmental Protocol. Their analysis showed the number of ASPA for which a Party is the sole proponent is heavily weighted on Australia (n = 10), the United States (14), United Kingdom (12) and New Zealand (10), possibly stretching management resources to conform with area protection responsibilities under the Environmental Protocol. Hughes and Grant (2017) highlight the need for the CEP to encourage not only a more systematic designation of ASPA, but designation by multiple proponent Parties to help share the resource burden, enhance regulation (such as five-yearly reviews of Management Plan (Annex V, Article 6(3)), build relations between Parties active in the same region, and allow more recent signatories to collaborate with more experienced Parties. Alongside increased engagement by more Parties in the development of the ASPA network, Hughes and Grant (2017) also encourage an apolitical’ organisation, such as SCAR, to produce a list of areas and features worthy of designation as ASPAs, based upon scientific and conservation needs.

5.3. Non-native species management Non-native species management was somewhat built into the provisions of the Environmental Protocol under Annex II, Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna. Article 4 contains measures relevant to the intentional introduction of non-native species, however little consideration is given to the unintentional introduction of non-native species (Article 4(5)), let alone a suitable response strategy (Convey et al., 2012). Furthermore, human-mediated transfer of non-native species from one Antarctic bioregion to another Antarctic bioregion (intra-regional transfer) is likely a greater concern for regionally endemic ecosystems than the introduction of species from outside Antarctica (see Chown and Convey, 2007; Convey, 2008; Hughes and Convey 2010; Convey et al., 2012; Terauds et al., 2012); yet is not addressed by the Environmental Protocol (Convey et al., 2012). Risk assessment of species introduction to Antarctica found that approximately 24% of visitors unintentionally transport seeds of foreign origin on clothing and equipment (Chown et al., 2012; Bennett et al., 2015). The successful long-term establishment of non-native species requires either bird (i.e. natural?) or human-mediated transfer and a lowering of the existing establishment barrier (Hughes and Convey, 2010). From a soil environment viewpoint, should climate warm, soil, the medium that dictates suitability for colonization, will also change; so understanding how soil physiochemical properties (such as soil moisture, pH, salt content) will change is critical to better understand species establishment (Ugolini and Bockheim, 2008). Bender and others (2016) analyzed 20 years of tourism data from the Antarctic Peninsula and showed some regions of the peninsula, such as the South Shetland Islands, are disproportionately at higher risk of non-native species introduction as they tend to be the ‘first landing’ sites for visitors. ASI data indicates 55% of tourist landings in the Antarctic Peninsula area take place at only eight locations (Lynch et al., 2010). There is further concern as the climate of these Northern Antarctic Peninsula sites is comparatively mild, soil can be thermally heated (Deception Island), and some tourist sites contain organic rich soils (such as the Barrientos, Aitcho, and Penguin islands); all factors put these sites at risk for the establishment of non-native seeds carried in from outside the Antarctic region (Pfeiffer and Peter, 2004; Hughes et al., 2010; Hughes and Convey, 2010, 2012; Tejedo et al., 2012; Bender et al., 2016). While biodiversity conservation experts agree non-native species management remains underdeveloped, with currently no comprehensive internationally agreed response strategy for non-native species colonization (Hughes et al., 2015a, 2015b), there have been recent advances in the field. In 2015 the CEP agreed under the Climate Change Response Work Programme to continue development of the CEP Non-

6. Future protection of the soil environment The Environmental Protocol sets forth basic principles to manage human activities in Antarctica and limit the environmental impacts on the soil environment. Future activities are likely to have less adverse effects on the soil environment than historically given technological advances and Environmental Protocol obligations. The future of Antarctica should hold few surprises; the main stressors are humans, climate, and the direct and indirect effects of both. Research shows the environment is responding to a changing climate that will continue to accelerate over the coming decades. We know human activity will continue to increase. It is likely that emerging markets for Antarctic travel, such as China, will continue to grow (Bender et al., 2016). We can also anticipate new countries will join the Treaty System and 160

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

to improve harmonisation of EIA standards across operators (Convey et al., 2012). The value of multinational collaborations and effective communication between scientist and environmental managers and policy-makers has been showcased in recent work trying to address the issue of cumulative impacts of Antarctic operations (e.g. New Zealand, 2016, Pertierra et al. 2017a). These models spatially frame historic overlap of both national programme and tourism activity to quantify the current state of environments, and with knowledge of the vulnerability of the soil substrate to disturbance, can be used to highlight vulnerable or resilient areas. Combined with ACBR and ASI data, models could be used to predict the future carrying capacity of different soil substrates or landscapes to cumulative impact, which could then be incorporated into visitor site guidelines and updating management plans. High value, unimpacted areas may be identified for designation of new ASPA, areas of intense overlapping national programme activity could highlight future ASMA (Pertierra et al., 2017a). Some of the greatest challenges of the future will be dealing with legacy impacts that continue to affect the soil environment and provide logistical challenges. Raymond and Snape (2017) use the concept of “triage” to categorise some of the most contaminated sites in Antarctica; sites currently beyond help. As environmental remediation technologies improve, Raymond and Snape (2017) note that what currently seems impossible may in future become achievable. In these “triage” cases the only realistic action right now is to commit to long-term targeted monitoring with the view of understanding environmental impacts to best inform decisions on possible remediation methods as technology develops (Hodgson-Johnston et al., 2017); as in the case of the legacy waste site at Wilkes Station, East Antarctica (Camenzuli et al., 2015). In reviewing material for this synthesis disparity in the level of engagement with the CEP processes across Parties was often voiced (Convey et al. 2012; Sánchez and Njaastad, 2014). Convey and others (2012), analysing the number of papers submitted to the CEP as a proxy for engagement, concluded that many Parties, some of which are original signatory nations, are yet to fully engage with the development of environmental management policy and CEP initiatives. Convey and others (2012) consider Party engagement, and the capacity for those Parties driving environmental policy to encourage and encourage, those less active, or less experienced new signatories as an important ongoing challenge. When all CEP outputs and ATCM decisions, resolutions etc must be agreed by consensus, active engagement by all Parties is even more essential to ensure the pace of policy and guideline development can keep pace with emerging environmental pressures. To retain the original objective of the Environmental Protocol and safeguard Antarctica’s value as a “continent devoted to peace and scientific research” (ATCP, 1991), National Antarctic research strategies need to show a better balance between global change science and policy-led research programmes that address contemporary environmental management challenges. The Antarctic Environments Portal (AEP) (Australia and others, 2016), launched at the ATCM in 2015, provides an important link between Antarctic science and Antarctic policy. The AEP aims to provide the best available research knowledge on issues that are of direct policy concern, in a clear, neutral, and understandable fashion, to policy makers, the CEP and all Antarctic Treaty Nations, to support the implementation of the Environmental Protocol. Another important benefit of the AEP is it provides a means of identifying gaps in knowledge; allows the CEP to call for state of knowledge articles to be prepared; and additional research to be undertaken to meet an identified knowledge gap (Australia and others, 2016).

operations will continue to grow more complex (Tin et al., 2014). The question is: what actions do we need to take − now- to address the current inadequacies in the implementation of the Environmental Protocol and ensure it remains effective for the next 25 years? The dual aim of this synthesis was to (1) provide an overview of the provisions of the Environmental Protocol directly related to protection of the soil environment, and by means of examples, show how environmental management has advanced since the Environmental Protocol, and (2) show that the tools are essentially already available to comprehensively protect the soil environment but shortfalls in proper implementation of the provisions are hindering our ability to do so. In writing this synthesis it was clear that the future protection of the soil environment will require (1) increased multinational and multidisciplinary collaboration to answer targeted research questions and address management challenges, (2) governments to prioritise fulfilling their obligations of long-term monitoring of the terrestrial environment and the impacts of their operations, and (3) more effective communication of science to all levels of the public, especially policy-makers, and environmental managers. The SCAR-led Antarctic Science Horizon Scan brought together international environmental managers, policy specialists and scientists, to identify eighty high priority science questions to answer by 2035 (Kennicutt II et al., 2014, 2016a). Within the field of soil science, the Horizon Scan stressed the need to thoroughly understand the complex relationships between soil ecosystems, biogeochemical cycling, and the geomorphic environment in a warming world (Horizon Scan questions 10, 39, and 42). Concurrently, the COMNAP-led Antarctic Roadmap Challenge examined what infrastructure, technologies, energy requirements, and funding resources were required to deliver the Horizon Scan research questions (Kennicutt II et al., 2016b); concluding further development of observatories and sensor technologies was critical to meet science and policy outcomes (Kennicutt II et al., 2016b). The Convention on Biological Diversity is an international agreement established to sustain the diversity of life on Earth (Chown et al., 2017). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity aims to halt biodiversity loss by 2020, yet Antarctica in not officially included in the Aichi target-based assessment, despite Antarctica and the Southern Ocean accounting for 10% of the surface of the planet (Chown et al., 2017). To gauge the state of Antarctic biodiversity compared to the globe, international experts carried out the first biodiversity assessment for Antarctica in 2015, and found that the biodiversity prospects for Antarctica for 2020 (and beyond) were similar to the rest of the world. The assessment found Antarctic-outlook for minimising the impacts of non-native species and pollution was much better than the rest of the world, whereas improvement in other areas such as management of protected areas required further efforts to keep pace with the rest of the world (Chown et al., 2017). The expert group remain optimistic for the outlook of Antarctic biodiversity as the provisions under the Environmental Protocol provide a clear international governance framework for effective action, and additionally, conservation of biodiversity remains high priority on the CEP’s 5-Year Work Plan (CEP, 2016c). Monitoring programmes should be undertaken by all Nations around NAP bases (under Annex I) but governments will always be limited by financial resources and inevitably Treaty obligations will compete with science, logistic, or engineering projects (Stark et al., 2006). It has been suggested that some Parties are not prioritizing control and eradication of non-native species (Hughes and Pertierra, 2016) and the long-term prioritization of resources is required standardize biosecurity measure across the NAPs, the tourism industry and NGOs. Operators have the ability to share examples of successful monitoring programmes and remediation practises with each other at annual CEP and ATCM and will further encourage investment into better technologies, prioritization of remediation efforts, and cooperation between Parties and their NAPs. Similarly, increased communication and collaboration between more recent signatories and experienced, more environmentally-active, signatories should be encouraged

7. Conclusions This synthesis presented some of the major scientific research and policy contributions that have enhanced the environmental protection of the soil environment, under the Environmental Protocol. There is no doubt that over the last 25 years the standards of environmental management have greatly improved, yet environmental, logistic, and 161

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

Bastmeijer, K., Roura, R., 2007. Environmental impact assessment in Antarctica. Theory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment. pp. 175–220. Bender, N.A., Crosbie, K., Lynch, H.J., 2016. Patterns of tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula region: a 20-year analysis. Antarct. Sci. 28 (03), 194–203. Bennett, J.R., Shaw, J.D., Terauds, A., Smol, J.P., Aerts, R., Bergstrom, D.M., Nielsen, U.N., 2015. Polar lessons learned: long‐term management based on shared threats in Arctic and Antarctic environments. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13 (6), 316–324. Bockheim, J.G., 1997. Properties and classification of cold desert soils from Antarctica. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61 (1), 224–231. Bockheim, J.G., 2015a. The Soils of Antarctica: Soils of Antarctica: History and Challenges. Springerpp. 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05497-1_16. Bockheim, J.G., 2015b. The Soils of Antarctica: Antarctic Soils and Climate Change. Springerpp. 305–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05497-1_16. 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 31 (Art. 18206). Braun, C., Hertel, F., Mustafa, O., Nordt, A., Pfeiffer, S., Peter, H.-U., 2014. Environmental assessment and management challenges of the Fildes Peninsula region. In: Tin, T., Liggett, D., Maher, P.T., Lamers, M. (Eds.), Antarctic Futures. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 169–191. Burton-Johnson, A., Black, M., Fretwell, P.T., Kaluza-Gilbert, J., 2016. An automated methodology for differentiating rock from snow, clouds and sea in Antarctica from Landsat 8 imagery: a new rock outcrop map and area estimation for the entire Antarctic continent. Cryosphere 10, 1665–1677. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-101665-2016. CEP, 2011. Guide to the Preparation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att477_e. pdf). CEP, 2014. Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/at_e.pdf. Committee for Environmental Protection, Clean-up Manual. (Available from: http://www.ats. aq/documents/recatt/Att477_e.pdf). CEP, 2016a. Updated Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att605_e.pdf). CEP, 2016b. Committee for Environmental Protection, Non-Native Species Manual. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/ww/atcm39_ww009_e. pdf). CEP, 2016c. Report of the Nineteenth Meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP XIX) Santiago, Chile, May 23–27, 2016. Appendix A: CEP Five-Year Work Plan. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/rp/atcm39_ rp004_rev4_e.pdf). COMNAP, 2005. Practical Guidelines for Developing and Designing Environmental Monitoring Programmes in Antarctica. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/ documents/recatt/Att265_e.pdf). COMNAP, 2008a. COMNAP Constitution Adopted in Plenary Friday 04 July 2008. (Available from: https://www.comnap.aq/Shared%20Documents/comnapconstitution-adopted-04-july-2008.pdf). COMNAP, 2008b. COMNAP Fuel Manual, Version 1.0. (Available from: https://www. comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/fuel-manual-v1.pdf). COMNAP, 2012a. Main Antarctic Facilities Operated by National Antarctic Programs in the Antarctic Treaty Area(South of 60 (latitude South). (Available from: https:// www.comnap.aq/Members/Shared%20Documents/Antarctic_Facilities_List_ 3Feb2012.xls). COMNAP, 2012b. WP062 Repair or Remediation of Environmental Damage 1999–2011. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM35/wp/ATCM35_wp062_e. doc). Camenzuli, D., Fryirs, K.A., Gore, D.B., Freidman, B.L., 2015. Managing legacy waste in the presence of cultural heritage at Wilkes Station, East Antarctica. Polar Rec. 51 (2), 151–159. Campbell, I.B., Claridge, G.G.C., 1987. Antarctica: Soils, Weathering and Environment. Elsevier Science Publishers., Amsterdam. Campbell, I.B., Balks, M.R., Claridge, G.G.C., 1993. A simple visual technique for estimating the impact of fieldwork on the terrestrial environment in the ice-free areas of Antarctica. Polar Rec. 29 (171), 321–328. Casanovas, P.V., Lynch, H.J., Fagan, W.F., 2014. Using citizen science to estimate lichen diversity. Biol. Conserv. 171, 1–8. Chiang, E., Chang, S.C., Brown, A.J., 1997. Pollution abatement at McMurdo station, Antarctica. In: Honolulu. 7th International Offshore and PolarEngineering Conference, vol. 2. pp. 572–578 (International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Golden, CO, USA). China, 2015. Inspection Undertaken by the People’s Republic of China in Accordance with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and Article XIV of the Protocol on Environmental Protection. (Available from: https://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/WP/ ATCM39_WP022_e.doc). Chown, S.L., Convey, P., 2007. Spatial and temporal variability across life's hierarchies in the terrestrial Antarctic. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B : Biol. Sci. 362, 2307–2331. Chown, S.L., Huiskes, A.H., Gremmen, N.J., Lee, J.E., Terauds, A., Crosbie, K., ... Lebouvier, M., 2012. Continent-wide risk assessment for the establishment of nonindigenous species in Antarctica. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (13), 4938–4943. Chown, S.L., McGeoch, A., Le Bohec, C., van Klaveren-Impagliazzo, J., Whittington, C., Brooks, S., Butchart, B.W.T., Coetzee, B., Collen, P., Convey, K.J., Gaston, N., Gilbert, M., Höft, S., Kennicutt II, H., Le Maho, H.J., Lynch, M., Puig-Marcó, R., Stoett, P., 2017. 2017. Antarctica and the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. PLoS Biol. 15 (3), e2001656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001656. Coetzee, B.W., Convey, P., Chown, S.L., 2017. Expanding the protected area network in Antarctica is urgent and readily achievable. Conserv. Lett. 1–11. Convey, P., Hughes, K.A., Tin, T., 2012. Continental governance and environmental

economic pressures are compounding. Shortfalls have been identified around the themes of the operational challenges faced by national programmes, inconsistencies in implementation of environmental impact assessments; non-native species management; and there is inadequate representation of all biogeographic regions within the Protected Area system. The rapidly changing nature of Antarctica’s physical and biological systems demands policy and management responses that are both timely and effective. This calls for better communication of scientific knowledge to inform policy, something the Antarctic Environments Portal has begun to tackle. It remains to be seen whether all signatories of the Environmental Protocol fully engage with the high standard of environmental management expected, or whether the decision-making system will continue to be slowed by national interests of individual Parties. There are, however, certainly many examples of Treaty Nations meeting their environmental stewardship responsibilities, actively engaging with CEP initiatives, in the hope that other nations will learn from their efforts. Financial support The work that made this paper possible was largely funded by the New Zealand Foundation of Research, Science and Technology. Antarctica New Zealand and the Spanish Antarctic Program provided logistic support for field campaigns. Conflict of interest None Ethical standards None Acknowledgements Thanks to the many colleagues who I have worked with in Antarctica, especially: Megan Balks, my former PhD supervisor and friend; and Jeronimo Lopez-Martinez and Thomas Schimd from Spain. I thank the Landcare Research Murray Jessen Memorial Fellowship for supporting my initial Antarctic research. I also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and thought-provoking comments which have improved this synthesis. References ASOC, 2008. A Decade of Antarctic Tourism: Status, Change, and Actions Needed. (Available from: http://www.asoc.org/storage/documents/Meetings/ATCM/XXXI/ ASOC_tourism_IP_042908_final-1.pdf). ATCM, 1995. Antarctic Inspection Checklists (Resolution 5). (Available from: http:// www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att003_e.pdf). ATCM, 2010. Checklist A: Antarctic Stations and Subsidiary Installations (Resolution 3). (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att462_e.pdf). ATCP, 1991. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. CM 1960. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London(Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ recatt/Att006_e.pdf). ATS, 2016. Status of Antarctic Specially Protected Area and Antarctic Specially Managed Area Management Plans. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/ WW/atcm39_ww003_e.pdf). Argentina, Chile, 2016. General Recommendations from the Joint Inspections Undertaken by Argentina and Chile Under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and Article 14 of the Environmental Protocol. (Available from: https://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/ WP/ATCM39_WP044_e.doc). Argentina, Spain, United Kingdom, 2015. The non-native grass poa pratensis at cierva point, danco coast, antarctic peninsula — on-going investigations and future eradication plans. information paper 35. In: Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXVI. Brussels, Belgium, 20–29 May, 2013.. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, United States, SCAR, 2016. Antarctic environments portal. working paper 10. In: Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XXXIX. Santiago, Chile, 23 May-1st June 2016. (Available from: http://www.scar. org/scar_media/documents/policyadvice/treatypapers/ATCM39_wp010_e.pdf). Balks, M.R., O’Neill, T.A., 2016. Soil and permafrost in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica: stable or dynamic? Cuadernos de Investigacion Geografica 415–434.

162

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

Lamers, M., Getler, H., 2010. Diversification of Antarctic tourism: the case of a scuba diving expedition. Polar Rec. 48 (3), 280–290. Lynch, H.J., Crosbie, K., Fagan, W.F., Naveen, R., 2010. Spatial patterns of tour ship traffic in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Antarct. Sci. 22 (2), 123–130. Lynch, H.J., Naveen, R., Casanovas, P.V., 2013. Antarctic site inventory breeding bird survey data 1994/95-2012/13. Ecology 94 (11), 2653. McCraw, J.D., 1967. Soils of taylor dry valley, victoria land, Antarctica, with notes on soils from other localities in victoria land. N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 10, 498–539. McWatters, R.S., Wilkins, D., Spedding, T., Hince, G., Raymond, B., Lagerewskij, G., Snape, I., 2016a. On site remediation of a fuel spill and soil reuse in Antarctica. Sci. Total Environ. 571, 963–973. McWatters, R.S., Rowe, R.K., Wilkins, D., Spedding, T., Jones, D., Wise, L., Di Battista, V., 2016b. Geosynthetics in Antarctica: performance of a composite barrier system to contain hydrocarbon-contaminated soil after three years in the field. Geotext. Geomembr. 44 (5), 673–685. Mergelov, N.S., 2014. Soils of wet valleys in the larsemann hills and vestfold hills oases (Princess Elizabeth land, east Antarctica). Eurasian soil science 47 (9), 845–862. Morgan, F., Barker, G., Briggs, C., Price, R., Keys, H., 2007. Environmental Domains of Antarctica Version 2. 0 Final Report. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd.(Available from: http://www.ats.aq/devEM/documents/001718_np. pdf). Naveen, R., Lynch, H.J., 2011. Antarctic Peninsula Compendium, 3rd edition. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C(Available from: https:// oceanites.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/APC_2011_3rd.pdf). Naveen, R., 1996. Human activity and disturbance: building an Antarctic site inventory. In: Ross, R., Hofman, E., Quetin, L. (Eds.), Foundations for Ecosystem Research in the Western Antarctic Peninsula Region. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, pp. 389–400. New Zealand, United States, 2006. Clean up of Abandoned Cape Hallett Station. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM29/ip/ATCM29_ip115_e.doc). New Zealand, 2016. A Tool to Support Regional-scale Environmental Management. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/ip/ATCM39_ip053_e.doc). O’Neill, T.A., Balks, M.R., Lopez-Martinez, J., 2012. The effectiveness of environmental impact assessments on visitor activity in the ross sea region of Antarctica. In: Müller, L.L. (Ed.), Issues in Polar Tourism: Communities, Environments, Politics. Springer, Berlin-Heildelberg-New York. O’Neill, T.A., Balks, M.R., Lopez-Martinez, J., 2013. Visual recovery of desert pavement surfaces following impacts from vehicle and foot traffic in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. Antarct. Sci. 25 (04), 514–530. O’Neill, T.A., Aislabie, J., Balks, M.R., 2015. Human impacts on soils. In: Bockheim, J.G. (Ed.), The Soils of Antarctica, World Soils Book Series. Springer, pp. 281–303 (10.1007978-3-319-05497-1_2). Pertierra, L.R., Hughes, K.A., Vega, G.C., Olalla-Tárraga, M.Á., 2017a. High resolution spatial mapping of human footprint across Antarctica and its implications for the strategic conservation of avifauna. PLoS One 12 (1). Pertierra, L.R., Hughes, K.A., Tejedo, P., Enríquez, N., Luciañez, M.J., Benayas, J., 2017b. Eradication of the non-native Poa pratensis colony at Cierva Point, Antarctica: a case study of international cooperation and practical management in an area under multiparty governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 69, 50–56. Pfeiffer, S., Peter, H.-U., 2004. Ecological studies toward the management of an Antarctic tourist landing site (Penguin Island, South Shetland Islands). Polar Rec. 40 (04), 345–353. Poland, 2016. Next Step in Eradication of a Non-native Grass Poa Annua L. from ASPA No 128 Western Shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. (Available from: www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/ip/ATCM39_ip060_e.doc). Raymond, T.C., Snape, I., 2017. Using triage for environmental remediation in Antarctica. Restor. Ecol. 25 (1), 129–134. Russia, United States, 2012. Report of Russia ?US Joint Antarctic Inspection, November 29?December 6, 2012. (Available from: https://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM36/ IP/ATCM36_IP045_e.doc). Sánchez, R.A., Njaastad, B., 2014. Future challenges in environmental management of National Antarctic Programs. In: Tin, T., Liggett, D., Maher, P.T., Lamers, M. (Eds.), Antarctic Futures.Human Engagement with the Antarctic Environment. Springer, Berlin. SCAR, 2009. SCAR’s Environmental Code Of Conduct For Terrestrial Scientific Field Research In Antarctica. (Available from: http://www.scar.org/scar_media/ documents/science/Code_of_Conduct_for_Research_Jan09.pdf). SCAR, 2016. SCAR Code of Conduct for Activity Within Terrestrial Geothermal Environments in Antarctica. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/ Att607_e.pdf). Shaw, J.D., Terauds, A., Riddle, M.J., Possingham, H.P., Chown, S.L., 2014. Antarctica’s protected areas are inadequate, unrepresentative, and at risk. PLoS Biol. 12 (6), 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001888. Snape, I., Riddle, M.J., Stark, S., Cole, C.M., King, C.K., Dubesque, S., Gore, D.B., 2001. Management and Remediation of contaminated sites at Casey Station. Antarctica.Polar Record 37 (202), 199–214. Stark, J.S., Snape, I., Riddle, M.J., 2006. Abandoned Antarctic waste disposal sites: monitoring remediation outcomes and limitations at Casey Station. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 7 (1), 21–31. Tejedo, P., Pertierra, L.R., Benayas, J., Convey, P., Justel, A., Quesada, A., 2012. Trampling on maritime Antarctica: can soil ecosystems be effectively protected through existing codes of conduct? Polar Res. 31 (1), 10888. Tejedo, P., Pertierra, L.R., Benayas, J., 2014. Trampling the Antarctic: consequences of pedestrian traffic on Antarctic soils. In: Tin, T., Liggett, D., Maher, P.T., Lamers, M. (Eds.), Antarctic Futures. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 139–161. Terauds, A., Lee, J.R., 2016. Antarctic biogeography revisited: updating the Antarctic

management mechanisms under the Antarctic Treaty System: sufficient for the biodiversity challenges of this century? Biodiversity 13, 1–15. Convey, P., 2008. Non-native species in Antarctic terrestrial and freshwater environments: presence, sources, impacts and predictions. In: Rogan-Finnemore, M. (Ed.), Non-native Species in the Antarctic Proceedings. Christchurch :New Zealand: Gateway Antarctica.. pp. 97–130. Dalziel, J., de Poorter, M., 1998. Managing cumulative environmental impacts: antarctica’s challenge for the 21 st century. In: Dingwall, P.R. (Ed.), Environmental Management for Antarctic Wilderness. Antarctica in the Environmental Era. Department of Conservation, Wellington New Zealand. Germany, 2009. Current Environmental Situation and Management Proposals for the Fildes Region (Antarctic). (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM32/ ip/ATCM32_ip050_e.doc). Gordon, S., 2003. Site Description and Literature Review of Cape Hallett & Surrounding Areas Antarctica New Zealand. (18 p). Hemmings, A.D., Kriwoken, L.K., 2010. High level Antarctic EIA under the Madrid Protocol: state practice and the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation process. Int. Env. Agreements: Politics, Law Econ. 10 (3), 187–208. Hemmings, A.D., Roura, R., 2003. A square peg in a round hole: fitting impact assessment under the Antarctic environmental protocol to Antarctic tourism. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 21 (1), 13–24. Hodgson-Johnston, I., Jackson, A., Jabour, J., Press, A., 2017. Cleaning up after human activity in Antarctica: legal obligations and remediation realities. Restor. Ecol. 25 (1), 135–139. 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 Environ. Change 20, 96–112. Hughes, K.A., Convey, P., 2012. Determining the native/non-native status of newly discovered terrestrial and freshwater species in Antarctica?current knowledge, methodology and management action. J. Environ. Manage. 93 (1), 52–66. Hughes, K.A., Grant, S.M., 2017. The spatial distribution of Antarctica’s protected areas: a product of pragmatism, geopolitics or conservation need? Environmental Science and Policy 72, 41–51. Hughes, K.A., Pertierra, L.R., 2016. Evaluation of non-native species policy development and implementation within the Antarctic Treaty area. Biol. Conserv. 200, 149–159. Hughes, K.A., Convey, P., Maslen, N.R., Smith, R.L.I., 2010. Accidental transfer of nonnative soil organisms into Antarctica on construction vehicles. Biological Invasions 12, 875–891. Hughes, K.A., Pertierra, L.R., Walton, D.W.H., 2013. Area protection in Antarctica: how can conservation and scientific research goals be managed compatibly? Environ. Sci. Policy 31, 120–132. Hughes, K.A., Pertierra, L.R., Molina-Montenegro, M.A., Convey, P., 2015a. Biological invasions in terrestrial Antarctica: what is the current status and can we respond? Biodivers. Conserv. 24 (5), 1031–1055. Hughes, K.A., Cowan, D.A., Wilmotte, A., 2015b. Protection of Antarctic microbial communities–‘out of sight, out of mind’. Frontiers Microbiol. 6 (151), s1. Hughes, K.A., Ireland, L.C., Convey, P., Fleming, A., 2016. Assessing the effectiveness of specially protected areas for conservation of Antarctica’s botanical diversity. Conserv. Biol. 30, 113–120. Hughes, K.A., 2010. How committed are we to monitoring human impact in Antarctica? Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 041001. IAATO, 2011. Guidelines for Antarctic Visitors. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/ documents/recatt/Att483_e.pdf). IAATO, 2016. Tourism Statistics. (Available from: http://iaato.org/tourism-statistics). Jabour, J., 2009. National Antarctic Programs and their impact on the environment. In: Kerry, K., Riddle, M. (Eds.), Health of Antarctic Wildlife. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 211–229. Jensen, H.I., 1916. Report on antarctic soils. reports scientific investigation british antarctic expedition 1907–1909. part IV. Geology 2, 89–92. Kennicutt II, M.C., Klein, A., Montagna, P., Sweet, S., Wade, T., Palmer, T., Sericano, J., Denoux, G., 2010. Temporal and spatial patterns of anthropogenic disturbance at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (3), 034010. Kennicutt II, M.C., Chown, S.L., Cassano, J.J., Liggett, D., Massom, R., Peck, L.S., Sutherland, W.J., 2014. Six priorities for Antarctic science. Nature 512 (7512), 23–25. Kennicutt II, M.C., Rogan-Finnemore, M., Kim, Y.D., Shiraishi, K., Lopez-Martinez, J., 2016a. The future of Antarctic Science is ours to define. Antarct. Sci. 28 (6). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000523. Kennicutt II, M.C., Kim, Y.D., Rogan-Finnemore, M., Anandakrishnan, S., Chown, S.L., Colwell, S., ... Yang, H., 2016b. Delivering 21 st century antarctic and southern ocean science. Antarct. Sci. 28 (6), 407–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0954102016000481. Kiernan, K., McConnell, A., 2001. Impacts of geoscience research on the physical environment of the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 48 (5), 767–776. Klein, A.G., Kennicutt II, M.C., Wolff, S.T., Sweet, S.T., Bloxom, T., Gielstra, D.A., Cleckley, M., 2008. The historical development of McMurdo station, Antarctica, an environmental perspective. Polar Geogr. 31, 119–144. Klein, A.G., Sweet, S.T., Kennicutt II, M.C., Wade, T.L., Palmer, T.A., Montagna, P., 2014. Long-Term monitoring of human impacts to the terrestrial environment at McMurdo station. In: Tin, T., Liggett, D., Maher, P.T., Lamers, M. (Eds.), Antarctic Futures. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 213–227. Kriwoken, L.K., Rootes, D., 2000. Tourism on ice: environmental impact assessment of Antarctic tourism. Assess. Project Appraisal 18 (2), 138–150. Kriwoken, 2000. Tourism on ice: environmental impact assessment of Antarctic tourism. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 18 (2), 138–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/ 147154600781767538.

163

Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 153–164

T.A. O’Neill

documents/ATCM33/ip/ATCM33_ip043_e.doc). United States, 1998. Developing an Environmental Monitoring Program ?a Work in Progress. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM22/ip/ATCM22_ ip034_e.pdf). United States, 2008. Monitoring of Human Impacts at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM31/ip/ATCM31_ip122_e.doc). United States, 2016. Inspections of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas in the Ross Sea and Antarctic Peninsula Regions by the United States Antarctic Program. (Available from: https://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/IP/ATCM39_IP039_e.doc).

conservation biogeographic regions. Divers. Distrib. 22 (8), 836–840. Terauds, A., Chown, S.L., Morgan, F., Peat, H.J., Watts, D.J., Keys, H., Convey, P., Bergstrom, D.M., 2012. Conservation biogeography of the Antarctic. Divers. Distrib. 18, 726–741. Tin, T., Fleming, Z., Hughes, K.A., Ainley, D., Convey, P., Moreno, C., Pfeiffer, S., Scott, J., Snape, I., 2009. Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment: a review. Antarct. Sci. 21, 3–33. Tin, T., Lamers, M., Liggett, D., Maher, P.T., Hughes, K.A., 2014. Setting the scene: human activities, environmental impacts and governance arrangements in Antarctica. In: Tin, T., Liggett, D., Maher, P.T., Lamers, M. (Eds.), Antarctic Futures.Human Engagement with the Antarctic Environment. Springer, Berlin. UNEP, 2010. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity at its tenth meeting. X/2. the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the aichi biodiversity targets. In: United National Environment Programme Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2. Nagoya. (Available from: http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets). United Kingdom, Czech Republic, 2015. Report of the Joint Inspections Undertaken by the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic Under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and Article 14 of the Environmental Protocol. (Available from: https://www.ats.aq/ documents/ATCM38/att/ATCM38_att092_e.pdf). United Kingdom, Spain, 2010. Eradication of a Vascular Plant Species Recently Introduced to Whaler’s Bay, Deception Island. (Available from: http://www.ats.aq/

Dr T.A O’Neill is currently employed as a teaching fellow at Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand, teaching and tutoring second and third year soil and land management and environmental science papers. She earned her Bachelor of Science degree in 2003 and her Master of Science degree in Earth Sciences in 2006, both at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. In 2008 she joined the doctoral programme in Soil Sciences at Waikato University; her Ph.D. was funded by Landcare Research, a crown-research institute in New Zealand. Tanya completed her Ph.D. late 2012 which assessed, predicted, and managed the physical impacts of human activities on Antarctic ice-free environments. Tanya has also recently returned from working on the Antarctic Peninsula with the Spanish Programme, thus extending her work into the warmer, wetter, and more frequently visited peninsula environment.

164