Human impacts on Antarctic

1. Human impacts on Antarctic What do you think the concerns might be?

2. Until the 1960s, some species of whales and seals were taken to the brink of extinction by human activities in Antarctica. • Waste and garbage was left where it fell, burnt in great open fires or was deposited in the ocean. • Fisheries were non-existent or on a very small scale, but either way were completely unregulated. What happened in the 1960’s?

3. Over the years since the Antarctic Treaty came into force, ever greater environmental awareness has led to increasing regulation by the Antarctic Treaty System. • All plants and animals in Antarctica are now protected and there are measures in place to prevent pollution of this - the worlds most pristine environment.

4. What does this mean? • No Antarctic bird or mammal can be killed or captured without a permit - granted only for scientific reasons • Measures must be taken to minimize harmful interference with wildlife and control the introduction of non-native species - animal or plant, even to the point of not taking soil or growing compost to Antarctica as it may contain plant seeds, fungal spores and adults or eggs of any number of soil-dwelling invertebrates. • The establishment of specially protected areas to protect sites of outstanding scientific interest and designate specially protected species.

5. What does this mean? • Seals in particular are covered by a 1972 convention designed to prevent the resumption of sealing killing of both Ross and Antarctic fur seals is totally prohibited and catch limits on the other 4 species are set deliberately at low levels. • Commercial fisheries in the Southern Ocean are controlled by the CCAMLR - Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. The aim of the Convention is to conserve marine life of the Southern Ocean - this does not exclude harvesting carried out in a rational manner. • Any discharges into the sea within the Antarctic Treaty Area are strictly regulated . • Mining has been prohibited.

6. What about people going there? • The Environmental Protocol of the Antarctic Treaty became law in 1998 after legislation in each of the member countries. One of the ways in which this protects Antarctica is by only allowing visitors to Antarctica by member nations as long as they are given a permit to do so. • The granting of a permit is dependent on the visitors agreeing to adhere to certain rules and guidelines. • Each nations rules are not the same in the detail, though they are similar in the general principles.  • In the case of UK citizens you need permission from the Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affair • This includes all scientists, any ships or aircraft and any fishing

7. What about rubbish? • From ships, oily water must be discharged at a port outside of Antarctica • Sewage has to be treated and then can only be discharged outside 12 nautical mile limit – as can food waste that cut up into pieces smaller than 25mm – bones and bigger bits have to be discharged in a port in the same way as the oily water. • Waste from the bases – no dumping at sea and no open burning – it has to be packed up and shipped out – however some food/sewage is permitted and careful monitoring show that there are no ill effects. • However many of the stations are now installing biological treatment plants

8. In 1991 however, the fear that distemper from dogs could spread to seals led to a new clause in the Antarctic Treaty. • "Dogs shall not be introduced onto land or ice shelves and dogs currently in those areas shall be removed by April 1 1994".

9. Fishing ?? • Fishing is now the only large-scale resource exploitation that is going on in Antarctica. Most other world fisheries have been over exploited even where controls are in place to prevent this and this has to be a concern for Antarctic fisheries too. • The potential problems are: • Over fishing of a particular target species. • Effects on other species that depend on the target species as a food resource or are eaten by the target species. • Killing of other fish, vertebrate or invertebrate species accidentally caught alongside the target species, the so called "by-catch". • Destruction of habitat by fishing gear

10. Pirates? • Some of the world’s fishing grounds like the North Atlantic are already in trouble. Numbers of cod are at a twenty year low. More fishing boats have headed south to Antarctica. Antarctic waters may be the most regulated in the world, but as no-one owns the continent it is difficult control unlicensed fishing. • Pirates fishing in the area are seriously threatening Antarctica’s fish stocks. The Patagonian toothfish is a particularly prized catch – fishermen can sell these fish for £10 a kilo, which is a lot when just one can weigh over 100 kilos! Some pirate fishermen can make more money than drug traffickers. In parts of Antarctica, it has been estimated that up to 90% of the Patagonian toothfish caught may have been fished by pirate boats.. • Seabirds (including the albatross) are another victim. They drown as they get caught on hooks as they dive to catch the fishermen’s bait.

11. Whales • The story of Antarctic whaling is one of greed and excess. One after another species had been hunted to a point of extinction • The Antarctic whale fishery has been described as being more like mining than a sustainable fishery. • The International Whaling Commission (IWC) tried to regulate the industry to a position of sustainability (where catches are balanced by production) but largely failed. • But in the 1960s blue and humpback whales were fully protected, protection that was then extended to fin and sei whales in the 1970s. In 1986 the IWC suspended all commercial whaling. • However some nations particularly Japan continue to take whales for 'scientific research'. All these whales end up in restaurants and one whale can have a  $1,000,000 market value at the restaurant table!

12. Flotsam • An increasing problem in Antarctic waters (and in the rest of the world too) is flotsam and debris lost overboard from ships, particularly fishing ships. • Bits of fishing net, fishing line, boxes, strapping bands etc. might sound harmless if unsightly, but they can have a deadly effect on wildlife. • Fur seals can suffer the most as the youngsters in particular are very playful and what starts off as a game with a plastic band can soon turn nasty as it gets stuck over the seals head. • Unable to remove the band it begins to cut into the flesh causing physical injury, infection and ultimately a long and slow death

13. Mining - this is what we know there is • How are your chemical symbols?

14. Mining - this is what we know there is • Key • Ag - SilverAu - GoldCo - CobaltCu - copperCr - ChromiumFe - IronMb - MolybdenumMn - ManganeseNi - NickelPb - LeadTi - TitaniumU - UraniumZn - Zinc

15. There has never been any commercial mining in Antarctica, there are no current plans to mine Antarctica and mining is currently completely banned by the Antarctic Treaty. There are no known future plans by any of the Antarctic Treaty nations to reverse this decision. • Exposed rock is a rarity in Antarctica • When the original Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959, the exploitation of resources was not discussed at all for fear of jeopardizing the Treaty. In the 1980's the issues were raised again, and led eventually to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (an addition to the treaty). • The Madrid Protocol was signed in 1991 by the signatories to the Antarctic Treaty banning mining, this is up for review in 2041.

16. Though it might sound like an impressive piece of regulatory legislation, it was quite clear before it became law that there was no real commercial interest in mining or oil exploration in Antarctica for the foreseeable future. • Antarctica's weather, ice and distance from any industrialized areas mean that mineral extraction would be extremely expensive and also extremely dangerous. • The icebergs that drift around the continent frequently grind into the ocean floor like billion (or trillion) tonne ploughs. Pack ice can be blown miles in a day and transportation even in the relatively ice-free summer months is far from assured. • As recently as the 2002/2003 season for instance, the annual relief of the UK Halley Bay base had to be completed by air after numerous attempts to reach the base by sea were beaten. • Any oil or minerals would need to shipped or piped out and then there's the problem of those vast icebergs again.

17. Coal • Coal has been found in two regions in Antarctica - the Transantarctic Mountains and Prince Charles Mountains. • One of the Antarctic Treaty nations hired a mining consultant to have an economic assessment made to potentially mine the Transantarctic Mountains coal. After a brief visit to Antarctica, the conclusion was not to waste money on having an appraisal done. • The coal he found was low quality - high moisture, high ash content - thin and in broken bands. Far better reserves are found elsewhere on earth and they are not yet exploited. • The Prince Charles Mountains coal was better and had they been close to a major user of the coal may have been exploited. However, the distance and difficulty in getting them mean that once again they are not economically viable.

18. Iron Ore • Iron ore is widespread in surface rocks in Antarctica and has been traced deep under the ice. • Once again however the fact that it is isolated in Antarctica means that it is not worth getting. • In addition, it contains only about 35% iron against other regions outside Antarctica where ores that are less than 60% are considered to not be worth mining as they contain so little iron.

19. Oil and gas • Rocks in Antarctica have been suggested to contain oil or gas. Even if this was the case - no drilling has taken place to find any - it is unlikely that they could ever be exploited commercially. • Reliable authorities have estimated that it would cost over US$100 per barrel to get oil from Antarctica. Current oil prices per barrel (Sunday May 17 2009) are around $55. • There are over 30 years worth of reserves of oil left, possibly even up to 100 years worth, so there is no urgency to get Antarctica's oil. • There is also another obstacle, oil shale as a source of oil becomes economically viable

20. Two points of view

21. Sidney Suit says: “Dig it up” • The value of Antarctica in money terms is as big as it gets - as a source of fish and squid, a new frontier for tourists or to use the treasure trove of minerals that may lie beneath the ice and the surrounding seas. In Antarctica, anything is possible. • In the future, global companies could become more powerful than governments. In many ways they already are. Oil and mining companies will be some of the most powerful, and most are driven by profit. If there’s money to be made in Antarctica, technologies will be found to deal with the conditions. It is also easy to see a future where these companies will pressure governments to give up the Antarctic Treaty and let mining and drilling go ahead. • I am certain that the future will see increased commercial activity in Antarctica, and I don’t think this is necessarily bad. I believe in progress - economic development makes the world a better place.

22. Sidney Suit says: “Dig it up” • Companies will come to Antarctica for profit, but I believe that shareholders, customers and even the board of directors will influence the ways in which they make money. These stakeholders can guide companies to act in ways that don’t ruin Antarctica’s environment. Let’s face it, to make money you have to sell what people want, and you have to send out positive messages about what your company stands for. If the market cares enough about Antarctica, customers won’t put up with companies that wreck it. • We need a new vision for Antarctica – one that focuses on the positive, much like the way people look at activities in space with awe and wonder, full of amazing possibilities. • Companies could use Antarctica without destroying it. In return for a licence to mine resources, companies could put money into science projects, vital to us all. There are other business opportunities too. With the right marketing, vodka on million year old Antarctic ice could become the drink of choice. They could even tow an iceberg from the Antarctic to ease water shortages elsewhere – the technology for this already exists. • So I think that Antarctica will be used commercially one day, but this can be controlled. At the same time we can draw on the pulling power and profit of global companies in ways that won’t destroy the host”.

23. Laura Leaf says: “Let it be!” • “At the moment, the Antarctic Treaty determines what people can or cannot do on the continent, but there is always a risk that governments will abandon the treaty. • Discussions on opening up Antarctica for mining resources like coal and oil, or using it for a dumping ground for waste should never happen. The ban on these activities must be permanent. Antarctica is too precious – it should have guaranteed protection for another thousand years, not fifty. • Scientists from over 25 countries have already proved the importance of Antarctica in learning about life on Earth, both present and future. It is an essential place for measuring changes in the global climate and air pollution, yet no scientist can be certain about the impact of human activity in generations to come. • That’s why it’s best to use ‘the precautionary principle’ for any decisions over Antarctica’s future – to play safe rather than be sorry later.

24. Laura Leaf says: “Let it be!” • For example it was, scientists working for the British Antarctic Survey discovered the hole in the ozone layer. With improvements in technology, who knows what else we will discover so we can take action before it is too late. • I want to see the Antarctic Treaty as only a starting point. The Treaty’s rules and regulations should be tightened up so that in the future: • Satellite technology will track illegal fishing boats to stop them even entering Antarctic waters. • Stricter controls on tourism will prevent damage from the growing number of visitors • All Antarctic research stations will be powered by renewable energy sources like solar energy and wind. • So my view of Antarctica’s future is keep it as it is today, except with better management and tighter controls to guarantee lasting protection for this special place.

25. To develop or to leave as an international park? What would you like to happen? Do you think that is the way it will go?

26. But the big story this year has been tourism • In terms of numbers, tourists greatly outnumber national research programme personnel • 46,069 as against 4,000 in the 2007/2008 season for instance • tourist numbers were up 14% on the previous year leading to calls to limit the number of tourists allowed to go • But the national programme personnel clock up far more person-days and impacts are difficult to compare directly.

27. While tourists may only spend a relatively small time on landings, it is relatively "high-impact" time - compared to a scientist or electrician say who probably spend most of their time on a permanent or semi-permanent base. • Tourists will want to visit the most picturesque and wildlife rich areas of Antarctica, and they tend to do so in numbers far greater than the entire compliment of many Antarctic bases. • Also the national programmes have relatively few visits of supply ships, whereas in the season, the great majority of all shipping activity in Antarctica is of tour ships. • There have been accidents with ships being grounded on uncharted rocks and there have been oil-spills. • With the best safe-guards in the world (and it has to be said that marine regulations for Antarctic ships, both statuary and self-imposed are as good as they get) the more ships there are, the more accidents there will be.

28. Homework • So there have been calls to restrict tourism, while others say that it is a once in a lifetime experience that everyone should have the opportunity to do once. • You have been provided with a few links to choose from – some taking each side. • Having investigated a bit, decide whether you think Antarctic tourism ought to be stopped or whether it is such a special place that everyone ought to be able to go once - state your opinion and explain why.